Category: Applied Hermeneutics Page 1 of 2

Deep Literalism

On December 11, 2018

I was not excited when I opened up the video of Dr. Iain Provan’s recent lecture defending a Protestant hermeneutic of the letter. I expected another speech the privileged grammatical-historical exegesis and only allowed for an anemic use of typology. Nevertheless, I wanted to give it a listen in the hope that I might grow in my understanding of hermeneutics. I was not disappointed.

Dr. Provan’s Challenge

The first hints that Dr. Provan was not defending the literal readings of the academy was when he came to a discussion of typology. He said quite simply, “typology is literal reading.” He explained the classic distinction between typology and allegory. Allegory brought in outside reading and outside philosophy. Allegory lost the original text and left you with a spiritual reading that had little to do with the original meaning of the text. But his definition of typology was quite broad. Typology described all the various inter-connections in the text, including inter-connections between the various books of the two testaments. With this in mind, he noted that Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4 was a fully literal reading of scripture. Dr. Provan’s sensus literalis was fully literary and recognized the unity of scripture.

The end of his speech carried even more promise. He argued that we needed to go beyond the reformers in our literary interaction with scripture.

The latter point was filled out by his dialogue with Alastair Roberts. Alastair asked him whether the Reformers had not become overly suspicious of typological readings because of the allegorical readings that had come before. He also noted the way academia had moved toward an increasingly anemic reading of scripture, that separated the parts from the whole and he wondered how Dr. Provan responded to that. To my delight Dr. Provan, while defending the usefulness of academia, was fully on board with Alastair’s comments. He agreed that the reformers lacked in working out the typologies of scripture. He also agreed that though academia had been helpful in understanding the literal nature of scripture, it had done the church and itself a disservice in its suspicion of typologies.

A False Dichotomy

The speech gave me both correction and encouragement. I had looked at the way the apostles interpreted scripture. I knew that they were doing more in interpreting the Old Testament than merely looking at the grammatical-historical understanding. They were looking deeper. They looked at the literary structure of the Old Testament and in bringing that out they saw that Christ truly was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. I saw the necessity of doing more with typology than the minimalism allowed in academia today.

However, during my time at seminary, I was working within a false framework. Either I held to a pure literal understanding of the scripture or in following the apostles I was also free to develop a sensus plenior of the scriptures. I was allowing allegory into my framework in order to preserve apostolic reading. It was a false dichotomy.

I am grateful that I always sought to ground what I imagined to be a sensus plenior in the literal sense of scripture. This helped me avoid fanciful exegesis. This is where Dr. Provan’s speech became so encouraging. Rather than hanging on the thin reed of spiritual exegesis, I could boldly hold to the fact that typological exegesis is literal exegesis. Dr. Provan even claimed what I have always held: if any reading of scripture is not based in the literal sense of scripture, it should be rejected. There was no need to defend a spiritual exegesis in order to read scripture like the apostles.

Moving Forward

I should have known better. Some of my deepest influences had always claimed the high ground here. James Jordan had always claimed the hermeneutic of Calvin. Peter Leithart had always claimed a “Hermeneutics of the Letter.” However, I was influenced more than I understood by my other hermeneutics textbooks. I should have completely ignored them and worked from the framework that Leithart and Jordan had given me.

As it turns out the problem at my seminary was not that they emphasized the literal sense too much, but that they did not emphasize it enough. They ignored the layers of typology in scripture.

This has not been completely ignored in the history of Protestantism. Although the reformers of the 16th and 17th century were nervous about typologies, theologians of the 18th and 19th centuries developed highly typological readings of scripture. Particularly, in my own tradition, that of the Dutch Reformed Churches. Unfortunately, it is somewhat forgotten in our own day.

All this suggests that theologians have a task before them. We must seek to imitate the Apostles in their reading of scripture so that we too pay attention to the types, the motifs, and the symbolism of scripture. So far we have been poor literalists. We must embrace deep literalism.

A short defense against one of the critics of “Deep Exegesis”

By James

On November 23, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics

Recently, an article came to my attention that seeks to challenge one of the arguments in my favorite book on hermeneutics “Deep Exegesis.” The author did a good job of taking Peter Leithart to task on some important hermeneutical points. However, I believe that he ignored Leithart’s context. First, he ignored the immediate context of what he was actually citing. Further, he did not demonstrate awareness of the perspective through which Leithart was writing. Ultimately, the author over-estimated the category mistakes that Leithart had supposedly made. In this way, his points did not actually land.

There are two primary points that Don Collett makes: Leithart does not make a distinction between historical events and cognitive acts. Further, Leithart loses the providence of God by arguing that historical acts become prophetic acts.

Cognitive Acts vs. Historical Acts

Collett’s first point is actually the poorer. In his book, Leithart argued that events change over time. An event happens such as a shooting. That evening the victim of the shooting dies and the event becomes an assassination. Collett argues that Leithart has not drawn a careful distinction between a cognitive event and a historical event. The historical event is what happened. The cognitive event is how it was conceived. The historical event cannot be changed, while the cognitive event can be changed. He argues that logically Leithart would have to hold that a shooting could become a healing if the victim of a shooting were healed.

However, Leithart does make a distinction. It is not Collet’s distinction. My guess is that Leithart would not hold to Collet’s distinction because historical events are inevitably cognitive. Leithart likely conceives of history as an art rather than a bare recitation of facts. Leithart makes a distinction between skeletal events and thick events (Deep Exegesis, 219, note 12).

There is something real about the skeletal event, One man pulled a trigger on a gun, a bullet came out, and entered another man’s body. The skeletal event is fixed. In fact, Leithart later tells us “texts are fixed” (Deep Exegesis, 44). Since his chapter is titled texts are events, we can easily see that Leithart conceives the “skeletal events” as fixed well. Events more regularly conceived of are not fixed. As soon as you call that “skeletal event” a shooting, it has become cognitive. You are interpreting the skeletal event and giving it meaning. The skeletal event itself does not have inherent meaning until it finds its place as an event in a story. Behind Leithart’s thought, there seems to be a distinction between fact and event. Facts are external. Events are inherently cognitive.

I would argue that Collet is better off arguing that his distinction is better than Leithart’s rather than arguing that Leithart is not careful in distinguishing things. There may, for example, be more clarity to Collet’s distinction.

A prophetic Old Testament?

Collett goes on to target Leithart’s understanding of the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament. He argues that Leithart’s understanding that events are changed per se or ontologically by future events, undermines an understanding of the Old Testament as prophecy. Originally the Old Testament was not prophecy (at least the parts that are not explicitly prophetic) and later, in Christ, the works and words of the Old Testament characters became prophetic.

Here Collett makes a category mistake of his own. He doesn’t distinguish between the time-bound and the timeless. God, of course, ordered the events of the Old Testament so that they prophesied of Christ. God, who knows all things and decrees all things, caused them to be written in Holy Scripture as a witness to Christ.

In time things become. In a certain sense, my two-year-old self was a prophecy of my twenty-nine-year-old self. I also became my 29-year old self. This is because I experience becoming, whereas God has access to all parts of my life. He can see and ordain the order so that the pattern of my life makes logical sense. I can only see (or realistically my parents can only see) what was prophetic in my two-year-old self now that I am 29. Through time God taught his people to see his entire word as prophetic so that when Christ did come, they would see that it had already been foretold.

Collett does not recognize the perspective through which Leithart is working. He is not seeking to resolve the question of whether there is a spiritual sense in Old Testament scriptures in this chapter. Leithart is working to understanding history, times, events, and texts. He is trying to understand how mankind interacts with these things; how meaning works. Ultimately, he is working out a theory of how all events and texts work, not just biblical texts; then he applies it to scripture. Leithart is doing sociology. Collett is applying a debate to Leithart’s work that Leithart was not writing for. Leithart is not seeking to answer Collett’s set of questions.

Of course from God’s perspective, the Old Testament always was a prophecy of Christ. It takes time to become so in history. Through the scriptures that were given, Jews did figure out that there was something more coming. The time of Christ was a time of expectation. They knew a Messiah was coming. But the disciples didn’t know that scripture spoke of Christ specifically until the saw the specific works of Christ. They understood that the Old Testament was prophetic. It didn’t become prophecy of Christ until Christ had done on the cross; even though it was already prophetic of that specific moment because of God’s decree.

God’s knowledge is full and whatever he says, he knows the full meaning long before that is realized. Our knowledge is partial. Leithart is focussing on our conception of meaning in time. He doesn’t imagine that he has access to God’s conception of events, except as far as God has revealed it in his word.

Ultimately, I don’t know if represented Collett or Leithart perfectly in this little blog piece. I have tried to be fair. However, as I have mulled over Collett’s piece, I do believe he misses the mark. He is working with a different framework than Leithart. Once he recognizes that, he will strengthen his interactions with Leithart’s work. As I mentioned at the beginning, I find Leithart’s account very compelling and so far I find very little to complain about it.

The Gift of Healing

By James

On September 27, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Church, Gifts of the Spirit

Sometimes when we talk about the extraordinary gifts that God gives the New Testament church it is helpful to separate them. What I mean by extraordinary gifts are those spiritual gifts that are not a regular part of the lives of the people of God. This is opposed to something like the fruit of the spirit, which should be evident in the church of all times and places as well as each individual in the church. Rather than grouping all the extraordinary gifts into one group, we should deal with the biblical role of each gift separately.

The gift of tongues, for example, has a different purpose than the gift of healing. The gift of tongues teaches the new church about the nature of the kingdom of God. It is one of the unique acts that is commemorated in water baptism, which include the baptism of Christ and the death and resurrection of Christ.

The gift of tongues teaches that the coming Kingdom of God is made up of every tribe, language, and nation. It is also entirely unique to the NT church. Tongues demonstrated that God now dwelt in a new people formed out of both Jews and Gentiles instead of in the temple.

In contrast, the gift of healing is not entirely unique to the NT church. Jesus exercised the gift of healing. Old Testament prophets exercised that gift. It is interesting to note that reports of the gift of healing are far more common in the history of the church than the gift of tongues. The authenticity of those healings is another matter. The gift of healing demonstrated the authenticity of a prophet. The physical restoration was a sign of spiritual restoration.

What does this mean? I believe that it means that we should not necessarily expect the gift of tongues to continue to happen throughout history. This bears itself out in history. The gift of tongues, in the sense of a sudden ability to speak in another contemporary, human language, has rarely, if ever, been reported in the history of the church.

Compare that to the gift of healing. Healings, whether real and spurious, have often been reported in the history of the church.

I want to make a couple of notes on the gift of healing in the NT and its continued use in the world today.

1. The gift of healing is only done in the power of God. It is meant to draw attention to what God is doing. Everyone who participates in a healing ministry will tell you this, but that doesn’t mean that it is not a highly important point. God does the healing. As soon as a man starts to believe that he has a special power in himself or fails to recognize God’s work in the healing, he becomes a charlatan. The gift of healing is not given for the gain of an individual man.

2. The work of healing is sacramental or has a similarity to sacraments: By this, I mean that the work of the healing is not found in the words of the person or in the form a person uses in order to heal someone. Rather the words and the touch are only powerful if accompanied by the Spirit. This is naturally derived from our first point. If healing is an act of God, we are only means for that act.

We can think of the time that God used Elijah to raise a child from the dead. Elijah spreads himself out over the child and God uses that to raise the child (1 Kings 17:17-24). Elijah’s actions are not in themselves healing. It is rather that the Holy Spirit uses Elijah’s actions for healing. Further, the gift of healing always points to Christ.

3. The gift of healing is occasional, not regular. This is somewhat technical language. We might also use the language of ordinary and extraordinary. A regular or ordinary gift is something like teaching, preaching or charity. These three are the true work of the church as she seeks to spread the kingdom of God. Ordinary gifts are essential to the kingdom of God. The gift of healing is occasional. God used it in the history of Israel as a sign to confirm true prophecy. Now that we have the final word there is less need for such a confirmation. Extraordinary gifts are not essential to the kingdom of God.

4. The gift of healing is not proof of one’s salvation. Neither is receiving healing a proof of salvation. Jesus makes the former quite clear in Matthew 7. Speaking of the day of judgment, he says, “many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do mighty works in your name.” Jesus doesn’t question that they did mighty works. Jesus questions their faithfulness to his name and to his word. In the end, the one who does mighty works before God is no different than the one who lives a quiet life. Each must trust in Jesus for his salvation.

5. Receiving healing is no proof of salvation. Healing is closely connected to the faith of the healed in the gospels, but in some stories, the connection is not so clear. In Luke 17: 11-18, Jesus heals ten lepers. One comes back, thanking him and praising God for the gift of healing. The passage is not about receiving salvation in the sense of eternal life, but the implication is clear; even when you receive healing, there is no guarantee that the one who received healing is moved by a desire for God. God may use the faith of a person in order to heal someone. God may use the faith of the healer in order to heal someone, but ultimately it is God who gives healing; sometimes that healing is affirmed by faith, sometimes not.

We can look at Jesus’ warning in Matthew 12:43-45 where he speaks of rescuing an individual from a demon. The individual, instead of filling himself with Christ instead of a demon, goes on his way empty. The demon comes back and brings seven others. Jesus’ warning is to Israel, but it applies to individuals. Jesus is talking about exorcism, which is a different thing again from healing. However, what applies to the exorcised man applies to the man who is healed. The exorcised man must look continually look to God for grace. The healed man must look to God for the continued health of both body and soul.

6. Another thing to notice (and this is particular to healing) is that healing is never forced on anyone. It is requested. We see this in the miracles of Jesus, though at times Jesus does offer first.

7. God can lead someone to look for healing or he may lead someone through a valley of suffering. God works through the suffering of Job to show his power. Paul will often appeal to God’s work in weakness as he reflects on his ministries in his letter. This is a very important point, for it through faithful suffering that we most reflect Jesus. According to Paul, he “fills our Christ’s sufferings” (Colossians 1:24) by his sufferings. The same applies to us. Healing shows Christ’s power. Our weakness and suffering do so even more.

Does all that applies to King David also apply to the Civil Magistrate of Romans 13?

By James

On March 27, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Libertarianism

Is the authority of King David of the same as the authority of the magistrate? I argue that their authority is not exactly the same. There are similarities but there is a qualitative difference between the two. My argument in “The Genesis of Authority” was that all authority is derived from God. I wish to add to that; there are different degrees of the authority, which God grants. This helps us avoid a simple transfer of descriptions of Davidic authority to descriptions of magisterial authority.

Let us start by identifying one of the basic similarities. Both King David and the civil authorities of Romans 13 are servants of God. God gives both the sword to protect the righteous and punish the wicked. This is evident in Psalm 101 concerning King David and it is evident in Romans 13 concerning the civil magistrate.

What is the difference? Time and place are not the only difference. David ruled over Israel. This or that magistrate rules over Winnipeg. Rather, David has a special role as a Prince of God. David is a centralizing figure. He has a monopoly on the practice of justice in the land of Israel. We can gather this from 1 Samuel 8. There, Samuel warns against the dangers of centralizing power in a king. Similarly in the actions of David: There is an expectation that eventually all Israel will serve him because he is the Lord’s Anointed.

He is not like Barak or Ehud or Gideon, whom God raised up for a short time. God does not intend to centralize the land of Israel through these judges, merely to rid the land of oppressors and restore proper justice. God has established a dynasty through David. David has a monopoly over justice in Israel and Judah Israel and Judah owe him allegiance because God has personally selected him for the task of ruling over his people. It is only because God sanctions the breaking of the kingdom that the Davidic throne may no longer reign over Israel.

Jesus has fulfilled the role that David had. There are others who had a similar role ot David. Solomon is an example. Nebudchadnezzar is an example and so is Cyrus. Even Moses has a similar role. Christ, however has fulfilled that role or we might say, God has given Christ the role these emporers and kings once had. That much is clear from Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. Christ has replaced these Emporers and Kings as the King to whom all must give service.

In fact, the role of the civil authorities has a much closer relation to the role of the judges of the book of Judges or even the elders that are set up in Exodus 18. They are still “sacral,” in that God ordained their service, but they are not the “centralizing” figures of David or Moses. They do not have monopolies on justice.

David and your average civil magistrate, not only have a quantitative, but also a qualitative distinction in authority. Though both are servants of God, Jesus Christ fulfills David’s role. David’s line has a monopoly over justice in Israel; a monopoly, which Jeroboam is eventually allowed to question. Even then David’s line has a monopoly over the people of Judah and Benjamin. I don’t have an answer to the precise practical difference that makes, but generally, I would understand David’s power as monopolistic while the power of the civil magistrate is not so.

The Genesis of Authority

By James

On March 22, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Libertarianism, Uncategorized

We ignore it but God’s gift of authority is the only reliable explanation for authority in society. The source of authority is not nature. Authority comes from God. Authority comes from above, not from below. People when they vote or when they acclaim, recognize authority rather than investing anybody with authority.

This doesn’t mean that there are no hierarchies in nature for men will naturally fall into an order. Man will instinctively recognize various powers or abilities that are evident in other men, but this is not what I mean by authority. Hierarchies that proceed from nature are real, but they are not the grounds for exercising authority. It is not evil to recognize these hierarchies either. We should seek expertise and leadership from men with great capabilities. But expertise and leadership are of a different nature than authority or rule.

The Meaning of Authority

I am using authority in a very technical sense. Authority is the right to give judgment. To give judgment is to discern between good and evil. By their invested authority men may also punish others. Authority is not expertise. Experts give advise, but they may not give judgment. Only those invested with authority may give a command or a decree.

If we use the word authority in this sense, we can see that all authority belongs to God. “Vengeance is mine:” God says this several times in the Bible. He says it both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. God is demonstrating that the taking of human life, the punishment of any crime, belongs to him. He shares that with mankind by grace.

The gift of Authority

Man does not by nature have the authority to discern between good and evil. God must invest man with this authority. This can already be demonstrated in Genesis 1 where Adam and Eve may not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree is a gift from God that is not theirs yet. Knowledge of good and evil is not found in the nature that they have been given. The knowledge of good and evil is the same thing that Solomon asks from God in the book of 1 Kings. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree they took authority for themselves that had not yet been given by God. They took upon themselves the discernment of good and evil. Whereas, God should have been the one to give that gift.

The Selection of Authorities

And God does give that gift. He gives that gift to Moses, who makes judgments among the people of Israel, and Moses gives that gift to men among the people of Israel.

Everything in scripture points to God investing authority in individuals, not in all individuals. God chooses Moses, various judges, such as Ehud and Gideon, Kings, such as Saul and David, and prophets, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel.

God’s does not limit his selection of civil servants to Israel. Through the prophet Elisha, he anoints King Hazael. We know this from the book of 2nd kings. God gives visions to King Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel which demonstrate that God has given Nebudchadnezzar his place as king over the nations. In the book of Isaiah, God claims that he has delegated similar power to the Assyrians and to Cyrus, king of the Persians.

God’s gift of authority is not limited to the time of the Old Testament. In Romans 13, God claims that he has given the same authority to the civil magistrate. We can argue from the 5th commandment that God has given such an authority to parents as well, which is an authority that demands obedience from young children as we know from Ephesians 6. The civil magistrate’s authority does not come from the people and the parents’ authority does not come from a biological relation. Both the parent’s authority and the civil magistrate’s authority continues to exist in the New Testament, but now under the authority of Christ.

The authority of the Individual

Does this mean that there is no room for private, or vigilante, justice? Is every individual invested with authority? In the New Testament, there is an argument for this. Every Christian has the anointing of Christ. However, this does not give every Christian the right to decree punishments over their fellow man, except in their entrance into heaven, where they will reign with Christ. The Christian also exercises this judgment when he comes before God in prayer but he does not decree punishments in prayer. However, the individual Christian does not bear the sword. That belongs to the civil authorities. They have the right to decree life or death and that authority comes from God to specific individuals. We see that in Romans 13.

There is an institution in scripture, which, arguably, is a type of vigilanteism. In the scripture, we see an institution called “the avenger of blood,” which exists alongside the judges and elders that God has established. This seems to be a family institution. This is suggestive. The aggrieved family has authority to invest one of their own with the authority to chase after the man, but that is balanced by the fact that God has established places where the killer may seek justice from the civil magistrate. The authority of the civil magistrate and the “avenger of blood” are in balance with one another.

We need to begin by discerning the fact that this is not actually vigilante justice. God has declared at the time of Noah. That if man sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed. The “avenger of blood” is an institution that developed out of this gift. The “avenger of blood,” though a familial institution, was publicly recognized. More importantly, God recognized it.

The Limits of Authority

All authority comes from God. I would argue that this is the teaching of scripture. The simple fact that we hear the truth that Christ has all authority and power, that God is the one to whom vengeance belongs, proves where the authority of fathers, mothers, judges, and pastors comes from. But this does not necessitate blind obedience to such authority. Neither, does it protect authority from all criticism or from losing their authority. In the end, however, it will be God that takes away their authority. He gave authority and he has the right to take it away. It is possible that he will do that through other authorities here on earth.

1. How do we determine whom God gives authority? One way is to accept traditional rights and responsibilities in our society. We need to recognize God’s hand in history in setting up our historical institutions. Of course, that should not give these institutions any comfort, particularly in today’s world. These institutions are exercising God’s authority very poorly. Another way is the acclamation of the people. The acclamation of the people is not a source of a leader’s authority, but a proof of it.

2. How do we guard against the abuse of such authority? The author of their authority guards against abuse for their authority is bound up in God’s authority. Paul tells us that they are servants of God. This is because any authority, all authority, on earth is bound to obey Jesus Christ and to exercise authority in his name.

3. How do we resist an abusive authority? One way is through exercising our own authority in the sphere that God has given us. If civil authorities directly interfere with our sphere, we may resist. Nullification is a biblical principle. As one who is invested with authority, you may reject a law if it is not within the calling of those who are in authority over you.

God may raise up a leader as he raised up Jeroboam and Jehu. Those are not exemplary men, but God did raise them up against legitimate kings. Jehu, of course, had the direct word of God to kill the king. We have the full word of God today, therefore we do not look for direct visions from God in order to discern whether we may destroy a governing authority. Jeroboam set up an alternate legal system, which would have been legitimate if he hadn’t set up an alternate cult as well. God calls us to do this with wisdom always seeking for peace, rather than revolution.

Another way is through persuasion. We can convince the king to look to God rather than man for the way forward. We should seek to speak the truth to the king humbly and winsomely.

4. May we kill the king (understanding “the king” here as any tyrannical civil governor)? Only in extraordinary circumstances. Which extraordinary circumstances? I don’t know; because it’s a very difficult question. David did not kill Saul because he knew that it was in the hands of God to take away the office he had given the king.

Many questions remain but it is good to know that the one who has all authority and power is good, just and merciful. Therefore, as we figure out how best to exercise our authority, we can hope and trust in him.

Do I not Hate Those who Hate You

By James

On March 17, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Church

In Psalm 139, David proclaims his hatred for those who hate God. May we sing that? Now that Christ has come among us and told us, “You shall love your enemies?” For those who argue for the “singing of the Psalms,” these types of psalms, known as Imprecatory Psalms, often come up. Should we sing these Psalms as well? In the Psalms, David seems to express a different spirit than the one Jesus has in the New Testament. I argue that we should sing these songs.

These songs look to God to provide vengeance.They allow the Christian to look to God’s justice for dealing with oppression and evil. We can think of the Boko Haram and ISIS. We look at them with pity and desire their salvation. At the same time, we are angry at the magnitude of their wickedness. We desire that God will rescue those who suffer under their hand.

With that in mind, here are a couple of things to keep in mind when you run across such a verse whether in your readings or when you are singing in church.

First, remember to read carefully. In Psalm 139, David specifies the types of people he hates. He hates God’s enemies. In Matthew 5, Jesus asks those who are listening to love their enemies. These are not God’s enemies. They are your enemies. David is praying in his role as a servant of God. Your enemy might not be God’s enemy.
In Matthew 23, Jesus calls down “woes” upon the Pharisees and Scribes, who have perverted God’s law. His anger at the Pharisees is coupled with a desire for their salvation. At the end of Matthew 23, he says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing.”
Remember that vengeance belongs to God. God wants us to release our desire for personal vengeance so that we “love our enemies.” We do this by relying on God for vengeance. Some Christians deal with a great amount of suffering. Men oppress and attack them in a way that Christians in the west have a hard time imagining. God gives them a way to seek vengeance in the words of this Psalm. God responds to such a prayer in two ways: by breaking them on the rock or crushing them under the rock. The rock is Christ. God saves you when he breaks you on the rock. If God crushes you under the rock, you are lost.
Finally, we need to understand David’s hate. It is possible that his hatred for the extreme violence and evil committed by his enemies exists alongside a pity for their fate before God. This fate is one that they have chosen, but it is a pitiable one.

These are meant to be helpful comments to give us confidence in singing the Psalms before God. These are prayers that God has given us in order to teach us how to pray. We should learn how to pray from them.

Deuteronomy is Relevant! But How?

By James

On February 1, 2018

In Applied Hermeneutics, Hermeneutics

My title today is misleading. I don’t have the full answer to the relevancy of Deuteronomy for today’s world. However, if you believe that scripture is the word of God, Deuteronomy is relevant. Christ commands that we disciple the nations in Matthew 28. The natural follow-up question is, “How?” The Bible has its own answer to this question. The Bible tells us the story of one nation that God discipled through Moses and through the prophets. That nation was Israel and Deuteronomy gives us the details of what God taught her.

Unfortunately, this realization doesn’t automatically give one the ability to apply the law recorded in Deuteronomy to modern communities. Many mistakes are made and many mistakes have been made. When we recognize the applicability of Deuteronomy to modernity it is wise to read widely in the past, in order to understand the history of Christian reflection on economics and political philosophy. We must also take stock of Christian theology. God the Son took on flesh and died on the cross between the time of Moses and our own time. That changed everything.

I want to take this opportunity to point out some assumptions we must be critical of in applying Deuteronomy to our modern context.

1. Don’t forget about Christ: It is easy to get excited about the equity and the wisdom that is evident in the law of Moses. But, Christ changed everything. In particular, Christ changed the nature of our relationship to God, to one another and even to land in general.

2. Don’t forget about the church: Moses is speaking to the church of God, which God organized as a nation at that time. The church is the new nation of God. We must apply Deuteronomy to the church before we apply to a nation.

3. Don’t forget about context: The people of God lived at a certain time in history. There were different expectations in terms of how a nation functioned at that time. God started to disciple his people within a cultural context. Jesus teaches us in Matthew 19 that Moses created some laws to allow for the hardness of their hearts. Jesus cites laws concerning divorce and notes that God’s desire is for the holiness of marriage. However, because of the hardness of the people’s hearts, God, through Moses, gives an exception at that time. The applicability of Deuteronomic laws remains true. The principle here might be that we need to be patient with the hard-hearted on certain issues today, but the permissiveness in Deuteronomy is not an automatic excuse for permissiveness in the church today.

4. Don’t forget about basic economics: Teachings about the poor, or anything else, in Deuteronomy are not necessarily about your favorite public policy. Neither should one cherry-pick in defending church polity. Understand Deuteronomy’s message as a whole before applying it to particular issues.

5. Don’t forget about political science. We have learned a great deal over the past two hundred years about how the exercise of political freedom is beneficial for all involved. Deuteronomy has the desire for freedom at its heart, freedom from slavery, freedom to do good without coercion.

6. Deuteronomy is not a civil code: The fact is, a lot of Deuteronomy is sermonic, not what we would expect in a civil code of law. It is not a list of laws that the Israelites were to enforce in their society through coercion. The Israelites are called to enforce many of these laws, but not all of them. Details of proper punishment are given to the Israelite people. However, many laws do not detail a punishment for infractions other than the fact that God will come in judgment on his people. These laws function as teaching more than as a civil code. If Deuteronomy is not a civil code (even though it contains elements of a civil code), then it is better to describe Deuteronomy as teaching.

Jesus fulfills the law: He Creates a Spiritual People

By James

On December 1, 2017

In Applied Hermeneutics, education, Reformed Theology

The 3rd part of “Jesus fulfills the law.”

Christ fulfilled the law. Now when Christ or Paul talk about the law they are referring to the entirety of the law, both the rules and the institutions which they are connected to. We’ve already shown how Jesus fulfilled other portions of the law here and here. I’m referring, more particularly, to the many rules that God gives in the Old Testament.

Christ obeyed those perfectly. From the Ten Commandments to the laws concerning the clean and unclean. When we come to Christ in faith, we receive everything that he did for us from the beginning of his life to the end of his life, so that we may have perfection in all that we do. That is why our good works are pleasing to God. We have his full righteousness, the whole Christ; so that he counts or sin-filled works as good. God even gives a reward out of the mere grace of God. Knowing this, we cannot but respond with such a joy. Our efforts feel so tiny, almost useless, but Christ is our righteousness.

How does he do this? As we have already mentioned, he sends out his Spirit among us, to guide us and direct us so that as we read in Romans 8:, the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, so that we too may be holy, righteous and blameless, so that we may really do good things before God.

So how do we learn from all those rules of the Old Testament through Christ? How do we order our lives after those laws? We first need to understand, how Christ changed our relationship to the law. Christ freed us from the law. Paul teaches us in Galatians 4 that the people of the Old Testament were under a tutor. That tutor had absolute authority over the Jews. The law taught them and as their tutor demanded obedience.

In Christ, we are freed. We are no longer under the law. Yet we still use the law. For example, Paul uses the law that you should not muzzle your ox to encourage his hearers to provide for their leaders in 1 Corinthians 9:9. You might say that the law is now a mentor. The Spirit teaches us how to apply it to our lives. In Christ, we’ve grown up and now we look with affection to our old tutor, the law, in order to find advice on ordering our lives.

Of course the centerpiece of the law, written by the very finger of God, the Ten Commandments, continue to have an important part in our lives. This is the law of love, the law of Christ, that Christ gives to guide our lives. Christ’s call to live by the fruits of the Spirit cannot be followed without the guidance of the Ten Commandments. This is what we might call the substance of the law. But we do so under Christ and guided by the Spirit. We do not do so under the law.

But other laws of the Old Testament can guide us in how we live our lives as well. We can the example of the Old Testament to bring order to the church and to our individual lives. We’ve already noted how Paul uses the law about muzzling oxen. For example, the practice of daily sacrifices teaches us the practice of daily devotion. No Christian will deny that daily devotions are a good way to order our lives.

The church, as a whole. may decide to have two services on Sunday based on the practice of morning and evening sacrifices. We can also think of the practice of fasting in the Old Testament. A local church may decide to call a day of fasting in order to meet certain problems in the world around them or within the church itself. These are Spirit-led, free choices that the Spirit calls us to do for the sake of destroying the sin that remains in us and for expanding the kingdom of God.

We can learn from the law, as long as we do bind one another’s consciences to the practices that the Spirit has led our church too. We do not argue from the law in order to control one another but in order to encourage and edify one another. As individuals and as communities we learn from the law, but we do so in freedom from the law.

We are not law-led, we are Spirit led. And the Spirit leads us through the word of Christ. The perennial temptation of the church is to go back to the slavery of the law instead of the freedom of the Spirit. That betrays a desire for slavery. Instead look to your wisdom, Christ. He gives you the Holy Spirit. As John teaches us in 1 John 2:20, through that Holy Spirit, you know all things.

Christ fulfills the law: Christ changes spiritual geography

By James

On November 29, 2017

In Applied Hermeneutics, Covenant, eschatology, Reformed Theology

n.b. I recently preached a sermon on Belgic Confession 25. This Article deals with how Christ fulfilled the law. This doctrine is not well understood today and so I thought it was fitting to publish the sermon. I’ve divided it up into blog-sized sections for easier reading:

The basic institution in the Old Testament was the tabernacle or temple. This was the center of Israelite culture and religion. It was even their political center. David ruled from Jerusalem. This was the city where the ark was and later where the temple would be set up. The tabernacle was the place where God could dwell with his people. God set up the system of the law around the tabernacle in order to protect the people from his presence. God is a holy God. Out of his grace and love for mankind, God desired to dwell with his people. But his people needed to be protected from him, his power, and ultimately his holiness. So God gave his people the law so that they would protect themselves from his holiness.

The people of Israel were able to approach God through various washings, through sacrifices, and through keeping themselves clean when approaching the temple, or the tabernacle, of God. God even instituted levels of holiness in Israelite society. There was a division of labor. Everybody in society wasn’t able to keep the law equally rigorously so God gave Israelites a High Priest. He was required to keep the greatest level of Holiness; then Priests, then Levites and finally the rest of the people. The Holiest men were able to come the closest to God for the sake of the rest of the people. These are the ceremonies and symbols of the law, which the Belgic Confession is speaking of. These ceremonies allowed men to approach the God of heaven and earth. The coming of Christ brought an end to all of these.

Why? There is a host of aspects of Christ’s work that we could look at in order to see how he fulfilled every element of the temple, the sacrificial offerings and the various offices that God set up in and around the temple. I want to focus on two aspects. Christ’s fulfillment of the tabernacle itself and his fulfillment of the sacrificial system.

John 1: 14 gives us a hint as to how Christ fulfills the tabernacle system. We are told there that the word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word, God, came down and took on flesh. He was in a human body. Remember what we said the tabernacle was for? It was a place for God to dwell with his people so that, we could approach him. John gives us a further hint through the Greek word he uses for dwell. The word literally means tabernacled. God dwelt among us in the flesh.

But Jesus did more. He fulfilled the sacrificial system. The ancient Israelites and to repeat the commanded sacrifices again and again so that men could draw near to God. Jesus, by his death, offered a sacrifice that covers all sin; all sin. That means that all the laws of uncleanness no longer apply. We don’t need repeated sacrifices, we don’t need repeated washings. We all need one sacrifice: Christ’s, and we only need one washing: his baptism. This is why God tore the veil of seperation on the night of Christ’s death. Any man could approach God through Christ. There was no need for the institutions of the temple. As the Belgic Confession says, they are abolished.

Ultimately, what happens is that the spiritual geography of the Old Testament is changed. We have a New Testament spiritual geography. The tabernacle is no longer a building, but the flesh of Christ. Because Christ has gone to sit at the right hand of his father, our tabernacle is in heaven. There is more. Christ unites us to himself so that we also change. In Christ, we are a temple of the Holy Spirit.

That is why God destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. After Christ died and sat down at the right hand of God, the temple was no longer necessary. When the Jews, who had rejected Christ, continued to use the rituals and ceremonies of the Old Testament the temple became an abomination. According to Hebrews, Christ’s fulfillment of the Mosaic system means that we may freely and confidently draw near to the throne of Christ. Christ’s truly powerful sacrifice covers corrupt flesh with his blood. Those who defended the temple were now defending a false way to God. In a sense, it was a false Christ, claiming to continue the work that Christ had already accomplished. God’s dwelling was now in Christ and those who were, and are today, united to Him.

And yet the substance of these remain for us in Jesus Christ according to the Belgic Confession. The book of Hebrews gives us a way to understand this. We still have a sacrifice. We still have a tabernacle. Because of Christ’s work their nature changed.

But the Belgic Confession doesn’t stop there, the author adds these words, “We still use these testimonies taken from the law and the prophets.” They have two uses for us. They confirm the gospel to us. We can see a little bit of what that means in seeing how Christ fulfilled the tabernacle and the sacrificial system. The second use is that they help us “order our life in all honesty, according to God’s will and to his glory.”

How does the tabernacle system help us to order our lives? Surely this must refer to the Ten Commandments or maybe some of the civil laws might be helpful for the ordering of the church? Paul’s words to Timothy would suggest differently. He tells us that all scripture is inspired and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, and for training in righteousness.

How does the tabernacle system train us in righteousness? There is a lot to say, but I will mention a couple things. The tabernacle system teaches us about how holy God is and how sinful we are. Most importantly it teaches us that we may only approach God through the means he provides, namely Christ and his Spirit.

Further, it teaches us that we are to approach God with humility and with the desire to seek righteousness in Him. It teaches us that this is something that is lifelong. It teaches us about God’s desire for purity when we approach him. We can also argue from the law that in Christ we are sacrifices before God. That is what Paul suggests in Romans 12: 1. He tells us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God. We do so with the same purity and humility that God called his people to in the Old Testament.

Rules for Progress

By James

On August 6, 2017

In Applied Hermeneutics, education, History, Progress

Note: I defend progress in this piece. However, I thoroughly reject the beliefs of most of those who understand themselves as progressives. I do not believe that their beliefs are progressive. In general, they are regressive, not progressive. I would argue that I present here a true progressivism, based on God’s word, not on man’s understanding of progress.

Progress is necessary. God wants the church to grow in the understanding of his righteousness and his holiness. However, this truth is easily twisted. Churches use it in order to excuse themselves for contradicting what is clear in the word of God. We see this in those who argue for women in office and those who argue that homosexual relationships are a legitimate expression of human love. We need guidelines in order to differentiate between what is progressive and what is retrogressive. I offer a few below.

Inscripturation: There is no real progress without a deep understanding of the scriptures. The first rule of progress is: study and contemplate the scriptures. God does not contradict himself, for he speaks with authority and truth. We cannot progress without the scriptures. God and his word are the source of all truth as well as a deeper understanding of that truth.
Tradition: If we cannot ignore the scriptures, we cannot ignore the tradition of scriptural interpretation. Argument after argument has been given concerning various passages. Our bit of “progress” may repeat the mistakes of the past. It may repeat the heresies of the past. In order to move forward, we must have a deep understanding and appreciation of the past. For those who want to progress this can be hard to do. Anti-progressive forces tend to love tradition to a fault. The tendency, then, is to ignore tradition. This does not excuse anyone from this guideline, however. To ignore it is not only dangerous yourself but to those around you.
Humility: Humility is all important. The one who wants to teach must learn. Sit at the feet of those around you who have been given knowledge. You need humility in order learn from the Scriptures and from tradition. Ultimately you need humility before God. When you have humility before God you will have humility before the teachers he has raised up in your life. Jesus asks that you become as a little child. Only little children have the continual ability to learn.
Patience: You have your argument ready. You have studied and contemplated the scriptures and you have immersed yourself in tradition. Now you must be patient. People aren’t ready to change at a moment’s notice. Further, you might be wrong. Better men than you of me have been wrong before. Remember the words of the Psalmist. “Wait on the Lord; be strong and take heart and wait for the Lord.”