God’s Sovereignty in Particular Election in the Story of Redemption: Genesis Edition

God’s Sovereignty in Particular Election in the Story of Redemption: Genesis Edition

Something has been made very clear to me during my reading and study of Biblical Theology:

A denial of particular election is a denial of God’s grace in the story of redemption.

After God created all things “good” and man “very good” – man subverted the goodness by wanting to be like God in the possession and determining of truth. “Did God really say…?” became the door into the house of idolatry. The Word of God was no longer the standard of self-evident truth, but had been reduced to the status of the word of the creature. From that point forward, truth would be tested by human standards instead of God’s. Judgment came upon man and earth, but the story does not end there.

God has a plan; a plan of redemption and restoration (consummation) for both man and earth. This plan of ultimate salvation, for a Christian theist, is centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But before we get to the Messiah, history takes its course. God begins His work, showing His commitment to His creation. He does not scrap it, though He was perfectly justified to do so. Instead, as Creator, He commits Himself to displaying His glory through sovereign actions in redemption and restoration.

Eve gives birth to Cain and Abel (Gen 4:1-2). God chooses Abel’s offering over that of Cain’s (Gen 4:3-5); but we are never told why. Speculation from other passages like Hebrews 11:4, 1 John 3:12, and Jude v.11 can lend a hand as for a “reason,” but the fact is the Scripture never tells us why God liked Abel’s offering over that of Cain’s. This is the first sign we see of God’s sovereign choice.

Cain becomes angry to the point of murder and kills his brother (Gen 4:8). God judges Cain by cursing him and his line of descendents (Gen 4:11, 17-24), and eventually destroys them in the coming flood. Their wickedness and violence would be wiped out (Gen 6:5,11). So now with Abel dead and Cain cursed, where is hope found in this story of redemption?

God “appoints” Seth (Gen 4:25) as an offspring to Adam and Eve (Seth means “he appointed”); and his line began to “call upon the name of the LORD” (Gen 4:26). [Note the connecting themes of calling on the name of the LORD with God keeping a remnant for Himself for redemption and salvation in Joel 2:32.]

Seth is now the legitimate blessed line of Adam. Note the contrasting genealogies of Cain and Seth. Cain’s is not linked to Adam and ends with a cry of violence (Gen 4:23-24). Seth’s, on the other hand, begins with Adam, and flows down to a man named Noah. God establishes a particular line to bless. Note that Adam had “fathered other sons and daughters” (Gen 5:4); as did Seth (Gen 5:7) and each of the proceeding names down the line (Gen 5:10,13,16,19,22,26,30). But even with all these sons and daughters, there was a particular line of blessing from Adam, to Seth, down to Noah. These are explicit signs of particular election based upon the blessing and grace of God and not because of anything found in man.

We see here two particular lines of people. One line is cursed through Cain and another is blessed through Seth. Genealogies matter (note Luke 3:38).

So we have come to Noah, who “found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (Gen 6:8). Another way to say this is: “God liked him.” Only after this declaration of God, this stamp of blessing, do we read that Noah “was a righteous man” who “walked with God” (Gen 6:9). Certainly this identity of Noah is based solely on God’s own choosing of the blessed line; the line of grace. Remember, he came particularly down the line from Seth, the “appointed one.” It was nothing in Noah that earned God’s grace and blessing. This was God’s plan of redemption through a particular people in action.

So the flood comes and wipes out mankind and other living creatures (Gen 7). Note that this is the end of the line of Cain. They have been destroyed. Their violence is gone. Now only the line of Seth remains, through Noah. God’s revelation of redemption continues. But even after the flood, the hearts of men (this includes Noah’s) have not changed (Gen 8:21). They are still evil. God yet still restates the Adamic order (Gen 9:1-3), and establishes a covenant with both man and creation (Gen 9:8-17). It is forever clear that God will save and restore a people and He will save and restore the earth He created. He is committed.

A new race of people begins (Gen 9:18-19), but the evils of men’s hearts are revealed yet again. Like a coed in college, Noah gets drunk, takes off his clothes, and passes out (Gen 9:21). His son Ham sees his dad and tells his brothers about him (perhaps jokingly and for shame, Gen 9:22). And what follows is yet another separation of curse and blessing. Ham and his line is cursed, but Shem is blessed (Gen 9:24-27).

Again, we see here two particular lines of people. One line is cursed through Ham and another is blessed through Shem. Genealogies matter (now note Luke 3:36).

And so we see contrasting lines of people. Ham’s cursed line (Gen 10:6-20), which includes those who settled in Babel (Gen 10:10); is contrasted with the blessed line of Shem (Gen 11:10-26), which leads us to none other than Terah, the father of Abram (Gen 11:26).

This is God’s particular election, based solely upon His grace and the story of redemption He is authoring.

Sidenote: The name Shem means, “name.” God is writing this story with a “name.” But what do we see with the line of Ham? Some end up in Babel and they begin to build a great city. In this great city they want to build a tower “with its top in the heavens.” And why do they want to do all of this? To “make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the earth,” (Gen 11:4). Interestingly, the Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) translates this text: “let us make a shem, otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of kol HaAretz.”

So here we have the two lines of people. The people of the curse want to make a name (“shem”) for themselves and not be dispersed, while the people of God’s blessing have a name through Shem, the blessed son of Noah.

God’s curse and judgment upon the line of Ham prevails, and not only do they fail to make a name for themselves, “the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth,” (Gen 11:8).

And so through Adam-Seth-Noah-Shem we come to Abram, son of Terah. Again, this is a particular election of a particular people for a particular redemption. All of those from Shem to Terah had other sons (see Gen 11:10-26); but it was Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, to Abram who received the blessing. Again: look familiar (Luke 3:34-36)?

This is God’s doing. This is God’s choosing. This is God’s story of redemption.

And so God calls Abram, and not coincidentally from the previous point, God declares “…I will bless you and make your name great…” (Gen 12:2). [Note: The OJB translates this: “…I will bless thee, and make thy shem great…”].

Before this calling, Abram was a pagan, and it is highly probable that he was a worshiper of the moon-god ‘sin’ in the land of Ur (Joshua 24:2). So there was nothing in Abram that made God choose him. So the only choice was God’s free choice to carry on His plan of redemption through this one man, Abram. Out of all others. Particular election. He could have chosen Lot, but He didn’t. And Lot, through incest, became the father of the Moabites and Ammonites.

There are many factors that show evermore that this redemption is the work of God. The story of Abraham is set against a background of impossibilities: his age (75 at the time of the call), Sarah’s age (10 years younger than Abraham), the Promised Land filled with Canaanites (descendents of Ham, by the way), and Abraham trying to pimp out his wife out not once, but twice (Gen 12:11-20; 20:1-18).

Yet still, God makes His covenant with Abraham unilaterally (Gen 15:17; 17:3-8): Abraham will have many descendants, his people will possess the Promised Land, God will be their God, and through him all nations will be blessed (also Gen 12:1-3). For Paul, this is the Gospel (Gal 3:8). It is clear that against the backdrop of impossibilities in the above paragraph, this will be a supernatural elective work of God, not man.

Abraham and Sarah don’t believe in full. They try to help God out and Abraham sleeps with Hagar; begetting Ishmael (Gen 16:1-16). There you go God, your promise is fulfilled!

Nope. Remember. This is God’s work, not man’s. Abraham deserves none of this, nor can he change or force God’s plan. His sins against the plan of God are multiple; but God’s grace and plan of redemption continues. God has chosen Abraham. He is blessed.

Twenty-five years after the call, Isaac, the promised son, is born. Abraham is 100 and Sarah is 90 (Gen 17:17; 21:2-3). All obstacles have been overcome. Isaac is a gift of grace.

A key point here is Abraham’s faulty faith; and it reminds us that it is not our faith that saves us, but the object of that faith that saves us. God accounts Abraham as righteous (justified) only on that basis of his faith in Him (Gen 15:6). Again, this is the Gospel (Gal 3:9); and those with faith are blessed by God; not cursed. This is God’s doing.

Abraham dies, and God continues his electing grace by blessing Isaac, (Gen 25:11). Of all the sons of Abraham, whether by Sarah, Hagar, or Keturah (Gen 25:1-2), it was Isaac who God had chosen. Isaac marries, and Rebekah is pregnant with twins.

What is God to do now? There are two sons in the womb. Certainly the older will be the chosen one; or perhaps God will wait and see which one of Jacob and Esau live a good enough life to bless and carry on His plan of redemption.

Neither of those two things happen.

In one of the most clear and blatant examples of God’s elective grace, the LORD tells Rebekah, “the older shall serve the younger.” Paul expounds upon this act of electing grace in Romans 9:10-13.

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 

“In order that God’s purpose in election might continue…”

What is that purpose? It is to show God’s sovereignty in the story of redemption.

“This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring…so then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy,” (Rom 9:8,16).

This is why I opened this article with this comment: A denial of particular election is a denial of God’s grace in the story of redemption. It’s all right there in front of us. The entire story of redemption is predicated on God’s sovereign election. It is undeniable.

It is clear that Jacob had no merit of his own, for he was a deceiver and cunning in his behavior to receive the blessing from Isaac (Gen 27). But this is what God wanted. This is God’s story. Jacob was his man for blessing. By grace.

The story of Jacob again threatens the promises of God. But God remains with Jacob through it all. He has promised Jacob the gifts of Abraham and Isaac (Gen 28:3,13-15), and no matter of Labanic trickery will stop the fulfillment (Gen 29-31). And Jacob knew that only God’s promise would save him from his brother Esau (Gen 32:9-12).

Jacob struggles with God (Gen 32:22-23) and is later renamed Israel (Gen 35:9-15); a new name (recall Shem and Abraham). Given by God. Jacob goes from cunning deceiver to covenant patriarch (Gen 35:11-12), all by the grace of God. This is God’s story of redemption. The living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matt 22:32).

Abraham is chosen over Lot. Isaac of Sarah is blessed over Ishmael of Hagar. Jacob is blessed over Esau. The non-elect are given some advantages (note how Lot's and Esau's descenents are protected in Deut 2:4-5,9,19), but they still end up in conflict with the elected group, and not all receive blessing. As Paul tells us, even within Israel not all Israel is Israel. Not all are elect (Rom 9:6). There is a national election, and there is an election unto blessing and salvation.

This is God’s story of redemption.

Election continues with Joseph (Gen 37-50), the son of Rachel sold into slavery by his brothers. What a horrific thing. But it is exactly what God wanted. It was God’s design (Gen 45:5-8). God’s remnant would be kept. Man’s evil was God’s good (Gen 50:20).

Why didn’t God just send rain and crops for the people during the famine? We learn why in Exodus. God still had a story to write.

But before we get there, Jacob blesses his sons, two of which are adopted from Joseph (Gen 48:5). Jacob’s sons are only alive because of Joseph in Egypt; and the son of note for Jacob now is a son of election and blessing. His name is Judah.

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples,” (Gen 49:10).

This blessed line of Judah gives rise to a kingdom ruled by someone in the same blessed line. His name is David, and his line rules Judah. This while some 13 ruling families rule Israel, which itself ceases to exist in 722BC. But the scepter shall not depart from Judah(!); and it is the blessed line of Judah and David that ends at Jesus of Nazareth. Genealogies matter (Luke 3:23-33).

This is God’s Sovereignty in Particular Election in the Story of Redemption.

And it continues today:
“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace,” (Rom 11:5-6).

Let us rid ourselves of all man-centered idolatrous presuppositions and traditions, including those that say particular election is not how God works. Instead, let us adopt what the Scriptures actually teach.

Let us never rob God of His glory in His acts of sovereign grace in the story of redemption. This is God’s story to author, not ours.

---

"It Is Well" - Sung By My Wife, Daisha Sheets

Almost eight years ago, my wife (voice) and the late Jan Jones (piano) recorded "It Is Well" and gave me the cut for my birthday. It is one of my top three songs; and no matter how many times I sing it I find it difficult to make it through. Even just listening to her perform it moves me to praise. I hope it is edifying to you. I promise you will not regret listening.


That's my wife.

Grace be with you -
Jr

Deuteronomy 7, Part 2 of 2: Holy War, Election, Christ

Continuing from #3 in Part 1:

4) Now, this issue about "the redemption of His people" that I just referenced must be addressed. It brings up another contentious topic; but again, I do not believe it needs to be so. Because though the Scriptures give us "reasons" that God ordered what He did to the inhabitants of the Promised Land, it does not negate the fact that in the beginning, God did the choosing. We see this in 7:6: "The LORD your God has chosen you ... out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."

He chose to be merciful to Abram while he and his reletives were worshiping the moon gods in Ur (see Joshua 24:2). He chose to be merciful to Isaac over Ishmael, though the former was full of deceit and conspiracy. And as Romans 9:11 tells us, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—" God chose Jacob over Esau. They were elected ones that recieved mercy. These are the fathers to whom God is faithful.

But on the other hand, God chose to do justice vs. the Amorites, even when the text is clear that the Hebrews were an obstinate people (see all of Deut 9). But this is God's prerogative. Nobody receives injustice from God. All people either receive justice (ala the Amorites) or mercy (the Hebrews). That's it. Nobody is "innocent." God is free to choose (see Rom 9:14-24). And in this choosing, we are not called to pride, but to thanksgiving and responsibility (keep reading).

5) Keep in mind now where the Hebrews are at this time in Deuteronomy. They are on the east side of the Jordan. They are about to be given the Promised Land. God is showing Himself for who He is: The One True, Holy, Merciful, Promise-Keeping God. Holy, Holy, Holy. (Holiness, by the way, is the only attribute of God that is exclaimed three times out of the mouths of angels; see Isaiah 6:1-3.) So for the Hebrews, this is the purpose of election. To be set apart. To be holy. To not be like all the other nations on the earth.

And the same is for us in Christ! See 1 Peter 2:1-12 and pay specific attention to v.9-10.

This helps us determine what the purpose of election is. Election is not to give us pride. It is an act of God alone (however inscrutable it may be), and it is to give us a certain responsibility. Ephesians 2:1-10 plays this out perfectly. We are elected/saved because of God's love and mercy alone and not because of what we have done or who we are (note the perfect parallels with Deut 7:7-8 and 9:4-6).

Yet it doesn't end there. As elected ones in His ecclesia (the gathering of peoples known as the Bride of Christ), we are told that we are "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

So just like the Hebrews, we were elected for something; for a reason and a purpose. As Jesus said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go andbear fruit and that your fruit should abide..." (John 15:16).

It is for good works. It is for obedience. It is for holiness (Eph 1:4). It is for the glory of God. There is purpose in election.

Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. (10:14-15)

6) As a final note, I would like us to remember and glory in what we have in Christ. In Deuteronomy 7:12-16 we have the obedience of the people and God's blessing contingent upon that obedience. But consider what we have in Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Thus, it is Christ's perfect obedience that is seen on our behalf. The sins of those with faith, put upon Christ. Christ's righteousness, imputed to those who have faith in Him. It is The Great Exchange. And so every contingency has been met for us. All our failures; via true faith in Christ, will not rid us of God's blessing. Just consider that for a moment ...

... Christ has done it all on our behalf. And so, let us now walk worthy of such a calling and so prove to not be liars who claim Him with our lips alone, but His disciples who live according to His Word.

Have your Sabbath rest in this. Enjoy the Promised Land.

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;

Praise Him, all creatures here below;

Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;

Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 

Grace be with you -
Jr

---

Deuteronomy 7, Part 1 of 2: Holy War, Election, Christ

I have been teaching Deuteronomy in Bible class this quarter and it has been a very good experience. The discussions have been great and the more I learn and teach the more I want to learn and teach!

The discussion this last Sunday focused around the topic of "Holy War" out of chapter 7. So excellent was the discussion that I was only able to get through half of the first page of my two pages of notes! :) Below are just some points we addressed, and others we didn't get to. This is part 1 of 2.

1) As we set the stage for the discussion on God's call on the Hebrews to war against those in the Promised Land, we first established one basic tenet. That is: "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein," (Psalm 24:1).

God is Creator. What He has created He has full authority over to do with it as He pleases. He has no law above Himself. We read this also in the NT, where it is written, "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place," (Acts 17:26). God, in His authority and for His purposes, has put people where He wants them, throughout all history.

As examples of this in Deuteronomy we have 2:5, 2:9, and 2:19, where repeatedly the Hebrews are told not to take over lands that God has alloted to others (like descendents of Esau and Lot). And so likewise, God has given the Promised Land to the Hebrews, and they are to go and take that land. God said "don't take that land, it's not yours" regarding some and "take that land, it's yours" to others.

The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who well therein" ... "having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place"

2a) We also discussed the thought that this call of God to anhialate the inhabitants of the Promised Land was not without reason. Even though God is never obligated to give us reasons, I do believe there are reasons given to us inside of Scripture for this case.

First, we see the prophecy told to Abram while he was put into a deep sleep way back in Genesis 15. In a dream God told him,

Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. (Gen 15:12-16) 

I want us to focus mainly on v.16. God was allowing "the iniquity of the Amorites" to increase and He told Abram that when a point was reached, the people would return. Therefore, the call for the Hebrews to invade and destroy is, in part, about the justice of God. God was prosecuting justice on the unrighteousness of the Amorites (which have a shared quality with the Hittites, Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites; Deut 7:1). And we see this explicitly pronounced in Deut 9:4-5, where it is written, in part, "it is because of the wickedness of the nations that the LORD is driving them out before you."

Which leads us to the second reason we are given for the overtaking of the Promised Land. It is found in 9:5b. It was not only justice on those nations, but it was also so that God "may confirm with word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." God is faithful to His promises to the fathers. See also Deut 7:8-9 for two explicit reference to this second reason.

2b) Having established that there was wickedness in the land, we then read this in Deut 7:6. "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."

God is forming a holy people for Himself. The overtaking of the Promised Land is about Holiness! We see this in 7:2-5, where God tells them to not make a covenant with them (remember the importance of the exclusive suzerain-vassal treaty with God) and to destroy their idols (i.e. other gods). For more to the second point on idols, see 4:32-40 again. The LORD alone is God and He alone is to be worshiped. (and note the similarities between 4:37 and 7:8).

This is about holiness. This is about the One True God revealing that He is as He says He is. This is about God ridding the land of unrighteousness. This is about taking a people and setting them apart as His people. This is about God's promises to His covenant to the fathers.

3) So with all this said, in summary: The earth is God's and He can do what He pleases. This is about justice, against the sins of the people of the land. This is about holiness and God making a holy people for Himself. This is about idolatry, and God proving to be the One True God by His power in a world filled with polytheism (see Exod 9:16). This is about God forcing acknowledgment. This is about God keeping His promises. It is a revelation of all these things.

This is not a willy-nilly God saying, "I'm going to destroy these people just because I feel like it." Though He could, for He is the LORD, that's not what this is. There is much more wrapped up in this story. It is ultimately about the redemption of His people. And so, the people who filled the Promised Land were proper objects for this Holy War.


Deuteronomy 7 part 2 tomorrow will address the issue of election that we see here, and Christ.

Grace be with you all -
Jr

---

A Biblical Defense (and Advocacy) of Single Ministers/Pastors

---
We’ve all read them:

Wanted: Lead Minister/Pastor to serve at All Things Church here in beautiful Redrum Hills, WV. Applicant must have at least an undergraduate degree in Bible from an in-house institution, though a Master of Divinity is preferred. Applicant must have 263 years experience in ministry and must also be married, have 2.3 kids, and hold to sound doctrine while able to communicate well. Job requirements include … 

… I’ll stop right there, because the next part of the usual want ad leaves me just as concerned as the point of this post. However, I will say this: Please, elderships and search committees, read Acts 6:1-6! Other people can do things!

OK. Leaving that aside for now, I want to focus on that little phrase that sinks the heart of many of my brothers in Christ when looking for a local body to serve in. That phrase is brief, but it packs a punch. It reads, “must also be married”.

For the sake of all my single brothers out there, and as a gentle rebuke of the church-at-large, I want to say that this requirement cannot stand up to the test of Scripture regarding who can minister; particularly most effectively. A hard look at Paul’s instructions on the matter of marriage and service to God begs further reflection; and this reflection may help to serve the Body of Christ by granting access to leadership roles to the plethora of worthy men who just happen to not be married.

And as a note: I’m writing this as a married man, with 2.3 kids!

I would like to focus on Paul’s teaching regarding marriage that we find in his first letter to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul gives his (and the Lord’s) instructions pertaining to marriage, separation, re-marriage, etc. It is throughout this chapter that we can decipher how Paul views single-men ministers as advantageous to the Kingdom of God.

First, Paul tells the unmarried and the widows “that it is good for them to remain single as I am” (v.8). Now certainly what follows is just as important; that if the unmarried or widows cannot control their sexual desires, then they should marry instead of “burn with passion” (v.9). It is good to note here that v.9 shows us what Paul’s controlling authority in this entire section is: Holiness. God’s desire is that we are to be holy as He is holy; and here Paul is saying that it is good to remain single UNLESS one would become unholy by being sexually immoral outside the bounds of marriage (i.e. burn with passion and submit to it). We’ll come back to this point later.

So here we have an initial teaching by Paul: staying single, like he is, is better. It is not a command (v.6), but celibacy is a gift from God that some have (v.7; I’m also inclined to use Jesus’ somewhat strange teaching about eunuchs in Matt 19:10-12 here as well; i.e. “let the one who is able to receive this teaching, receive it”). Therefore, if one has the gift of celibacy, and they do not burn with passion, they can stay unmarried and Paul advocates such a position.

Moving on, there are four other times in chapter 7 where Paul points to his advocacy of singleness.

First, 7:28

But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. 

Then, 7:32-35 (which is the key text as for Paul’s reasoning as to why singleness is better for ministers)

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. 

Then, 7:38

So then he who married his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. 

And finally, 7:40 (concerning women who are single after husband dies, v.39)

Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. 

Here we have five different times in the same chapter that Paul advocates singleness above marriage. Again, the exception to this “rule” is if the single person cannot maintain their self-control and their urges are too strong. Then, due to holiness, Paul certainly wants single men and women to marry so that sexual activity can happen within the marriage bond.

Verses 32-35 are the key text, which Paul lays the groundwork for in v.8. He is single and he is as free as one can be for the work of the Lord. He goes where he wants when he wants (as led by God) and he is not anxious about “worldly” things. This is who he wants people to be for the sake of the Kingdom and the proclamation of the Gospel. Verses 32-35 say what every single married person who is reading it knows: that when married, our attention and anxieties turn to things other than the Lord. On the other hand Paul says the obvious: that if one is not married they can have “undivided devotion to the Lord.”

To bring this full circle now: how should this rather explicit teaching regarding marriage and singleness inform us regarding the hiring and sending out of ministers/pastors; particularly lead ministers/pastors? I would argue that if the single man has displayed holiness in his single life and he has proven to be a man of self-control regarding his sexual desires, that he should be at the TOP of the list to be hired or sent (barring any other objections or other skill sets missing that others may fill better). However, what we find today is that the single man will rarely, if ever, be hired as a lead minister/pastor, except for perhaps a youth group setting. Married men will always be preferred, but what I fear is that some married men who are being hired are much farther down the holiness scale than a single counterpart; yet Paul always promoted holiness above anything else.

I understand the desire to have a “family man” in the pulpit or as a leader in another capacity. For one, it is indeed written that, “it is not good for a man to be alone” (Gen 2:18). Also, the apostles (including Peter) and Jesus’ brothers were married (1 Cor 9:5) and there is something to be said for that. More so, congregations want somebody who is experienced in family life because that is where most people in our society are going in life (getting married, having kids) unless they are already; and so they will want the lead minister/pastor to be someone most people can relate to. However, we must come to grips with the fact that this factor was not the consideration of Paul in this letter. Consider Paul as a good case of singleness. Then of course there is Timothy, who Paul put in charge of the church in Ephesus. For all we know he was young and he was single; yet there he was, pastoring these churches and placing elders and deacons on top of that! And obviously, there was Jesus, who was perfect in every way, and single to boot.

In summary, I would simply like to encourage local churches to not automatically rule out hiring a single man as a lead minister or pastor. As Paul told the Corinthians, a single man who has displayed holiness in his celibacy is a better choice, for he will only be anxious about the things of the Lord, and not the things of the world. This can only be good for the Kingdom.

---

Spurgeon: The Idols of One's Own Taste

A little Spurgeon for today. O how true this is; rampant inside the church.

Man fashions for himself a god after his own liking; he makes to himself if not out of wood or stone, yet out of what he calls his own consciousness, or his cultured thought, a deity to his taste, who will not be too severe with his iniquities or deal out strict justice to the impenitent. He rejects God as he is, and elaborates other gods such as he thinks the Divine One ought to be, and he says concerning these works of his own imagination, 'These be thy gods, O Israel.' The Holy Spirit, however, when he illuminates their minds, leads us to see that Jehovah is God, and beside him there is none else. He teaches his people to know that the God of heaven and earth is the God of the Bible, a God whose attributes are completely balanced, mercy attended by justice, love accompanied by holiness, grace arrayed in truth, and power linked with tenderness. He is not a God who winks at sin, much less is pleased with it, as the gods of the heathen are supposed to be, but a God who cannot look upon iniquity, and will by no means spare the guilty. This is the great quarrel of the present day between the philosopher and the Christian. The philosopher says, 'Yes, a god if you will, but he must be of such a character as I now dogmatically set before you'; but the Christian replies, 'Our business is not to invent a god, but to obey the one Lord who is revealed in the Scriptures of truth.' The God of Holy Scripture is love, but he is also possessed of justice and severity; he is merciful and gracious, but he is also stern and terrible towards evil; therefore unregenerate hearts say, 'We cannot accept such a God as this,' and they call him cruel, and I know not what besides. 

From a sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon entitled "Heart-Knowledge of God," delivered December 6, 1874.

---

Stopping Textual Abuse: Identifying "the least of these" in Matthew 25:31-46

In the latest work from Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert (What is the Mission of the Church?), while promoting mission and justice, they expose some of the misapplied Scriptures often used by popular level missional and social justice types. One of those Scriptures often misapplied is "the least of these" text. (I use them as a guide for this post, but what follows is produced by me.) Today, we’ll deal with one of the favorite texts of social justice advocates: Matthew 25:31-46. More specifically, verses 40 and 45 are the key verses most often pointed to. They read:

25:40 - “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these, my brothers, you did it to me.”
25:45 - “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”

Jesus is telling a parable about the eternal judgment. He speaks of the Son of Man appearing in glory and separating people, like a shepherd separates sheep from goats (v.31-33). The King then tells the sheep to enter His Kingdom (v.34), that is, “eternal life” (v.46), and the goats are cursed and tossed into “the eternal fire” (v.41), that is, “eternal punishment” (v.46). The basis of this judgment is how people acted towards “the least of these” (v.40, v.45).

In v.35-39 and v.42-44 the people Jesus mentions as the “least of these” are those who are strangers, naked, sick, imprisoned, hungry, and thirsty. So isn’t this self-explanatory? Jesus is telling His audience in this text that the judgment to come will be based on how we treat all people in these conditions. We need to be all about social justice to all people everywhere and all the time! But while this is normally how the text is understood, (and I have no doubt it is mostly well intentioned; though perhaps agenda driven), the proper analysis of this text shows that Jesus is not talking about all people who are in these conditions (in the general sense), but about a more specific group of people who are in these conditions.

Before continuing, I want to concur with a statement from D.A. Carson when addressing this text: “I am loath to challenge [the usual interpretation] because it is always important for those who know and follow the living God to show their life in God in the realms of compassion, service, and self-abnegation.” However, “it is rather unlikely that that [all hurting people] are the focus of this parable.” (emphasis mine)

As much as social justice advocates want to define the phrase “the least of these” as all people everywhere who are oppressed or demoralized, Jesus does not define it that way and that is not the point of the parable. Verse 40 is the controlling authority for helping us see who the group of people Jesus is talking about are: “the least of these my brothers,” (or, for you 2011 NIV types, “my brothers and sisters”). Granted, v.45 does not include “my brothers” but it is clear Jesus is talking about the same group of people (it’s the same parable, the same audience, the same subject).

So who is a “brother” of Jesus? Jesus helps us understand whom His “brother” is in the same parable by the phrase that immediately follows “the least of these.” Whatever you did to them: “you did it to me” (v.40) or “you did not do it to me” (v.45). So whoever the brother is, s/he is directly connected to Jesus. Now we know that not all people are connected to Jesus, for only those who believe in Him are “in Him” or "in the vine." In as much as the rich are not automatically connected to Jesus, the poor are also not automatically connected to Jesus (though, Jesus’ compassion for them is clear, as should ours be). To take it a step further, Mark records Jesus as defining His brothers as “whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:35). Certainly, not believing in Jesus is contrary to the will of God. Carson makes an additional note on Acts 9:4. In it Jesus tells Saul that when Saul persecuted the Church, Saul was persecuting Him. So by extension, Jesus’ brothers and sisters are those in Him who do His will and are in His Church. There is also the multiple references to the brother in 1 John, where it is clear John is speaking about those who are in the faith. In the Matthew text, the clearest reference is to His disciples who were following Him and present during the telling of this parable, but in addition we can include all those who believe in Him and are following Him.

More convincingly, the word used for “least” in the Greek Matthew 25:40,45 text is the superlative μικροι (mikroi), and when we look at the other times forms of this word are used in Matthew, we see it references those who believe in Jesus/His disciples. Here are just two of those examples:

18:6 “whoever causes one of these little ones (μικροων, mikrone) who believe in me to sin…”
10:42 “whoever gives one of these little ones (μικροων, mikrone) even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple…”

Then going off of that second example is the parallel passage of 10:40-42 to 25:31-46. In both cases, Jesus is talking about his disciples who are traveling around preaching the Good News and who are in need of provision (food, drink, clothes, medicine, a place to sleep) and who may be in another land (thus, strangers) or are put in prison for their message. With all of this it is clear that Jesus is talking about a specific group of people in Matthew 25:31-46 and not everyone who is hungry, or sick, or in prison. “The least of these” text should not be used by social justice advocates to guilt others in the church into digging wells in Africa. As Carson writes, “There is overwhelming evidence that this expression does not refer to everyone who is suffering, but to Jesus’ followers who are suffering. The emphasis is not on generic compassion (as important as that is elsewhere), but on who has shown compassion to the followers of Jesus who are hungry, thirsty, unclothed, sick, or in prison.”

Indeed, there are plenty of other texts that could be used (and should be used!) to support benevolence ministries to the unbelieving poor and suffering (like Luke 6:27-31; Matthew 5:16; Matthew 7:12; Galatians 6:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:15, etc.) but Matthew 25:31-46 should not be one of them. In fact, the Matthew text should convict those who wish to help the unbeliever over that of a believer. As Paul writes in Galatians 6:10 “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” We, as believers, have a responsibility first to the Body of Christ, then to others.

So as we seek to serve others both inside and outside the church, let us not prove our cause with sloppy exegesis. We don’t need to!

---

Forgiving 70 times 7 and the Atonement of Christ

[This is part two of a two-part post (scroll down or click here for part one) dealing with the atonement and objections raised by others to the ideas of substitution and satisfaction.]

About five or so minutes into a 2006 interview, on the seemingly now defunct (as is everything else Emergent) “The Bleeding Purple Podcast”, Brian McLaren said the following to Emergent interviewer Leif Hansen:

The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive…. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else. 

To respond:

In Book 1, Chapter 12 of Why God Became Man, the same kind of point is brought up by Anslem’s conversationalist/literary counterpart Boso. Anselm then answers Boso.

Boso: When God teaches us to forgive those who sin against us, he seems to be being contradictory – in teaching us to do something which it is not fitting for him to do himself.

Anselm answers: There is no contradiction in this, because God is giving us this teaching in order that we should not presume to do something which belongs to God alone. For it belongs to no one to take vengeance, except to him who is Lord of all.

Two points to follow:

First, Anselm is correct in basing his answer on Biblical teaching. Deut 32:35, Heb 10:30, and Rom 12:19 all use this phrase (“vengeance is mine, I will repay” says the LORD). And the point of this saying is exactly what Anselm says it is. We don’t take matters into our own hands because it is God’s will and role to do it. We are told to forgive 70 times 7 because we are told to "leave it to the wrath of God" (Rom 12:19). He is judge and He will judge justly. The Jesus of the Scriptures will also be a part of this judgement (see 2 Thess 1:5-10). The cross was God's just judgment on those who have faith in Christ (see Rom 3:21-26).

Second, God didn’t kick just “somebody else.” He sent His own Son as a sacrifice. Jesus wasn’t some puppy dog that God kicked. Jesus was/is God. God did this in first-person. The cross was an action within the Godhead; within the Trinity. The God-Man hanging on the cross was not a third party. Likewise, the One ultimately inflicting the punishment was also not a third party. It was an act within the Trinity.

McLaren’s view, and those who hold it, is not only a case of ignorance and missing the point; it raises questions about Christology. Calling Jesus a third party brings serious questions regarding an overall view regarding who Christ is and therefore who God is.
---

As a final note: Sometimes I can't tell if McLaren is sincere or if he is just stuck in the rebelling-against-my-white-upper-middle-class-past-evangelical-experience mindset which seems so prevalent in his writings. What is clear from his writings is that he despises the God of Scripture, (for example in a recent book calling a God who would send a flood “hardly worthy of belief, much less worship"). But because others who are sincere have this kind of question, I found it worth while to try to answer.

---

The Reason and Necessity of Substitution And Satisfaction

[This will be a two-part post (one today, one tomorrow) dealing with the atonement and objections raised by others to the ideas of substitution and satisfaction.]

People often question the teaching of substitutionary atonement; or they question that God’s wrath was satisfied upon Jesus at Calvary. Since these teachings are at the heart of the Gospel message (Rom 3:21-26), I wanted to address it, albeit narrowly and briefly.

In Book 1, Chapter 12, of Why God Became Man, Anselm of Canterbury brings up a question regarding this topic and he follows his own question with an answer. I find his line of reasoning compelling. I also thought it would be helpful to, in addition to including his words as it is written in translation, give my paraphrase parenthetically, in italics, and in simple English. 

Let us now return to the main argument and see whether it is fitting for God to forgive sin out of mercy alone, without any restitution of the honor taken away from him. (Is it right for God to forgive sin solely based on His mercy and without any repayment?) 

He then answers his own question:

To forgive a sin in this way is nothing other that to refrain from inflicting punishment. And if no satisfaction is given, the way to regulate sin correctly is none other than to punish it. If, therefore, it is not punished, it is forgiven without its having been regulated. (To not punish sin is to say sin is uncontrolled and not put in good order; i.e. never corrected.) 

He continues:

But it is not fitting for God to allow anything in his kingdom to slip by unregulated. (God cannot allow anything not set right into his kingdom.) 

Anselm then expands his answer. First:

There is another thing that follows, if a sin is forgiven without punishment: then the position of sinner and non-sinner before God will be similar – and this does not befit God. (If sin is not punished, there is no difference between a sinner and non-sinner.) 

Also:

Consider this too. Everyone knows that the righteousness of mankind is subject to a law whereby it is rewarded by God with a recompense proportional to its magnitude. (Righteousness is measured against and is subject to a standard. God then rewards according to how it measures up to that standard.) 

If, however, sin is neither paid for nor punished, it is subject to no law. (But if sin is simply forgiven with no punishment, then sin has no standard.) 

Therefore, sinfulness is in a position of greater freedom…than righteousness-and this seems extremely unfitting. And the incongruity extends even further: it makes sinfulness resemble God. For, just as God is subject to no law, the same is the case with sinfulness. (If sin is not punished, and thus held to no standard, than sin is greater than righteousness, which is held to a standard. And since sin is then free, then sin is like God since God is not under any standard.) 

I find Anselm's line of reasoning compelling. To add just a little, I refer again to Romans 3:21-26. Not only does not punishing sin fail the logic and reason test as we read above, it also fails the test of God's justice and righteousness. God put Jesus forward as a wrath removing sacrifice (propitiation) "to show God's righteousness" not only because "he had passed over former sins" but also "so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." In other words, if God did not empty His wrath upon Jesus, God would have been unjust in justifying sinners (as in, simply by his mercy with no punishment). The only way God can justify sinners is by His holy recompense being paid by His Only Son. This isn't something Anselm made up. This isn't something I made up. This is the explanation given by God, through His Word, to us.

Another point to consider is this: Kingdom of God talk is everywhere these days. But as the Scriptures teach and as Anselm is right to point out, there is no Kingdom reality for anybody without propitiation. 

In part 2 tomorrow, I will be using a certain author/speaker as an example of the objection to this understanding. I will briefly look at and rebuff the oft stated comment in objection to substitution/satisfaction/propitiation. It usually goes something like this: "If God tells us to forgive 70 times 7 then it makes no sense that His wrath had to be satisfied by anyone, let alone Jesus."

Response coming tomorrow.

[Note: All citations in this post are from page 284 of Anslem of Canterbury: The Major Works including Monologion, Proslogion, and Why God Became Man by Oxford Press]. 


---

Doubt is Not a Virtue. Tertullian Speaks Today.

It seems today that in many circles the exercise of doubt, ever-questioning, or never-concluding (in regards to faith, truth, God, Jesus, etc.), is a virtue. There are those who have proclaimed faith for decades that now blog or speak boldly about their own doubts and questions. They insult by way of feigned intellectual superiority anybody who does not share in their own doubts and questions. They urge others to share in their doubts and inconclusiveness, and proclaim that those who dare believe something as certain as those who lack an ability to think.

Regarding this, I now refer to one of the many readings for an upcoming class in grad school. In Tertullian’s Prescription Against the Heretics, he speaks on the topic of those who doubt – or those who claim faith yet are continuously seeking. What follows are snips.

In Chapter 9, he lays out his point regarding Christ and truth:

My first principle is this. Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the world must believe without qualification, and which we must seek precisely in order to believe it when we find it. Now you cannot search indefinitely for a single definite truth. You must seek until you find, and when you find, you must believe. Then you have simply to keep what you have come to believe, since you also believe that there is nothing else to believe, and therefore nothing else to seek, once you have found and believed what he taught who bids you seek nothing beyond what he taught.

In Chapter 10, Tertullian asks by what means will the continual seeking come to an end (using his own context):

But if we are bound to go on seeking as long as there is any possibility of finding, simply because so much has been taught by others as well, we shall be always seeking and never believing. What end will there be to seeking? What point of rest for belief? Where the fruition of finding? With Marcion? But Valentinius also propounds: “Seek, and ye shall find.” With Valentinius? But Apelles also will knock at my door with the same pronouncement, and Ebion and Simon and the whole row of them can find no other way to ingrate themselves with me and bring me over to their side. There will be no end as long as I meet everywhere with, “Seek, and ye shall find,” and I shall wish I had never begun to seek, if I never grasp what Christ taught, what should be sought, what must be believed.

In Chapter 11, he questions whether a continual seeker has ever found anything:

If I once believed what I ought to believe and now think I must seek something else afresh, presumably I am hoping that there is something else to be found. But should never have hoped that, unless I had either never believed, though I seemed to, or else had stopped believing. So in deserting my faith I am shown up as an apostate. Let me say once for all, no one seeks unless there is something he did not possess or something he has lost. The old woman in the parable had lost one of her ten pieces of silver, and so she began to seek it. When she found it, she stopped seeking. The neighbor had no bread, so he began to knock. When the door was opened and he was given the bread, he stopped knocking. The widow kept asking to be heard by the judge because she was not being granted an audience. When she was heard, she insisted no longer. So clear is it that there is an end to seeking and knocking and asking. For to him that asketh, it shall be given, it says, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened, and by him that seeketh, it shall be found. I have no patience with the man who is always seeking, for he will never find. He is seeking where there will be no finding. I have no patience with the man who is always knocking, for the door will never be opened. He is knocking at an empty house. I have no patience with the man who is always asking, for he will never be heard. He is asking one who does not hear.

And in Chapter 14, Tertullian concerns himself with those who listen to and follow the endless seeker and doubter:

…what is the good of conferring with men who themselves profess that they are still seeking? If they are indeed still seeking, they have still found nothing certain. Whatever they hold is only provisional. Their continual searching shows up in their hesitation. And so when you, a seeker like them, look to men who are seekers themselves, the doubter to the doubters, the uncertain to the uncertain, then, blind yourself, for you will be led by the blind into the ditch (Matthew 15:14).

Or do they teach their real beliefs through their doubt?

But, in fact, it is only for the sake of deceiving us that they pretend to be still seeking. By first filling us with anxiety, they hope to commend their own views to us. The moment they get near us they begin to defend the very propositions, which, they had been saying, need investigation. We must be as quick to refute them, making them understand that it is not Christ we deny, but themselves.

And what of those who claim belief yet perpetually seek?

In that they are still seeking, they do not yet hold any conviction. In that they possess no convictions, they have not yet come to believe. In that they have not yet come to believe, they are not Christians.

An objection is raised. “They do hold convictions and believe, but assert the necessity of ‘seeking’ in order to defend their faith.” Yes, but before they defend it they deny it, confessing by their seeking that they have not yet believed. Not Christians even to themselves, how can they be to us? What sort of faith are they arguing when they come with deceit? What truth are they vindicating when they introduce it with a lie? Another objection. “They discuss and persuade on the basis of Scripture.” Naturally. From what other source than the literature of the faith could they talk about the things of the faith?

Tertullian introduces some interesting observations applicable for today. I’ve not understood the virtue of doubt, and do not believe that is what we are called to by Christ. It manifests itself in various ways. There are the typical debates over the virgin birth or resurrection. But there are others. Never are we exhorted by Jesus to doubt and endlessly question what all the Scriptures entail or what He claims. Nowhere does Jesus call us to doubt the Hebrew Scriptures, or to dismiss them as simply bits and pieces of a larger library. Never does Jesus tell us to doubt if the actions of God we read about were really from God.

As Jesus said to Peter: "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Matthew 14:31)
and to Thomas: "Stop doubting, and believe." (John 20:27)
As James exhorted: "for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways." (James 1:7-8)

Yet as Jude tells us, "have mercy on those who doubt" (Jude 1:22)

In the end, we are told to “stand firm” and to persevere in the faith. We need to move beyond milk and eat some solid food. This moves us from walking by the flesh to walking by the Spirit. Jesus taught us to be strong, and we are exhorted not to be tossed to and fro by the waves of doubt or cultural current.


It's not cool to doubt; and it's not a virtue.

---