NCJ Blog
First Peter 1:3
(A verse-by-verse study from a NCT perspective.)
3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who birthed us anew, according to His great mercy, into an expectation that is alive by means of the resurrection of Jesus Christ out of the dead.
Three things are expressed of God in this verse. First, He is the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. It may seem strange to speak of God as Jesus' God because the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God. So why would Peter describe God in this relation to Jesus? One answer is that the God of whom Peter speaks is the God of whom Jesus spoke. In other words, Jesus came to reveal the Father (Jn. 1:18), to make the Father known (Jn. 14:7f.). Therefore, Peter may be affirming that he is referring to the same God whom Jesus proclaimed. "Blessed be the God of whom Jesus taught."
Another answer is that Peter is focusing on the humanity of Christ. The God in heaven is the God whom the man—Jesus of Nazareth—served. From the cross, Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Mt. 27:46), clearly speaking out of His human nature, rather than His divine nature. So, Peter may be describing God as the one whom Jesus-the-man obeyed (Jn. 4:34; Phil. 2:8).
God is also the Father of our Lord Jesus. Two things are significant about this phrase. One is that the relationship expressed between God and Jesus is described as Father/Son. When theologians speak of the first and second persons of the Trinity, we gain an abstract, yet accurate, description of the biblical data regarding God. But this doesn't communicate very much about them. However, regarding them as Father and Son (which is the way the Scripture describes them) provides a much richer portrait of the roles and relationship among the members of the Godhead. We cannot relate to two distinctions within the divine essence, but we can relate to a parent and child.
The other significant word is Lord. Throughout the Old Testament, 'Lord' was reserved for God, Here, someone other than God is called 'Lord' (that is, someone other than God the Father). Granted, Jesus is God, but in this verse Peter makes a distinction between the two. Again, I believe, referring to Jesus the human who has been given authority over heaven and earth by God (Mt. 28:18).
Second, He re-generates believers, that is, He takes us through a new birth. In the same way that our first birth was not a choice we made, but was dependent on our father's "action," so also our second birth is the result of our Father's action. The father/Father is the cause; physical birth/new birth is the effect.
Third, this new birth flows from the deep waters of God's mercy. He was not obligated or compelled to give us new life, rather, He freely choose to do so because He is a God of great grace and kindness.
Furthermore, the new life so kindly given to us by our heavenly Father is an expectation that is alive. It impacts our now and our later. It contains a promised hope for the future (which will be described in more detail in the next verse). The apostle wants us to understand that this living hope is gained through the means of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus was dead but now lives, we who experience the regeneration of God will also live after death. As Peter's friend Paul put it, if our hope in Christ only has ramifications for our brief stay on earth, what a pity! (1 Cor. 15:19). But that is not the case. We hope for victory over death and eternal life with our Lord because He has already overcome the grave. His empty tomb secures our empty tombs.
What is the appropriate response to this gracious gift of living hope? Praise and adoration to the One who gave it. Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
To Ponder:
Does the resurrection of Jesus Christ provoke worship in you? Have you accurately estimated the significance of your new birth in light of His new life?
Biblical Theology and Preaching
New Covenant Theology is (or should be) influenced more by the discipline of biblical theology than systematic theology. That is not to say that systematic theology is unhelpful. However, it does tend to push its undiscerning disciples toward rationalistic, rather than redemptive interpretations.
D.A. Carson has written an excellent summary of how biblical theology should impact our thinking and preaching. Here is an excerpt:
|
|
The habit of thinking through the magnificent diversity of the biblical books—which of course is so much a part
of responsible biblical theology—is likely
to help the preacher devote time and care
to the way the genres of Scripture should
affect his preaching. How do I handle
lament, oracle, proverb, apocalyptic,
narrative, fable, parable, poetry, letter,
enthronement psalm, theodicy, dramatic
epic? Not to think about such things, of
course, may still leave you orthodox: you
may find principles and truths in all of
these kinds of texts, incorporate them into
your atemporal systematic theology, and
preach them. Yet God certainly had good
reasons for giving us a Bible that is shaped the way it is: not a systematic theology handbook, but an extraordinarily diverse collection of documents, with one Mind behind the lot, traversing many centuries of writing, in many different forms. The fact that one Mind is behind all of the documents makes systematic theology both possible and desirable, but not at the expense of flattening out and domesticating the documents that still remain the “norming norm.”
|
First Peter 1:2
(A verse-by-verse study from a NCT perspective.)
2 According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the consecration of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
The apostle included one more adjective in his description of his audience in verse 1 (some translations transfer it to verse 2) when he called them elect. To be elected is to be selected, or chosen, or specifically picked out of a group. So Peter is indicating that out of all the people living in Pontus, Galatia, etc., the believers were specifically selected.
But on what basis and by whom was this selection made? By the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the consecration of the Spirit. God was the selector; He made the choice about who would follow Christ and who wouldn't. And He did it in agreement with His divine foreknowledge.
Peter spoke of God's foreknowledge on another occasion when he explained to the Jews how they had killed the Messiah (Acts 2:23). The death of Jesus, he said, was performed by the Romans at the request of the Jews. But even those causes were the outworking of an ultimate, prior cause—God. God is ultimately responsible for putting His Son on the cross, and He did so according to His predetermined plan and His foreknowledge. In the same way, those who would receive the gospel have been pre-determined by God's plan and foreknowledge. He knows the elect in a way that He does not know the non-elect.
Although their external appearance may not cause them to stand out from any other humans in Asia Minor, to be sure the Christians were different. Their uniqueness came from the fact that the Spirit of God had set them apart from unbelievers (cp. 2 Thess. 2:13). They were special to God, sanctified unto Him for a specific purpose—obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.
Again, the apostle borrows Jewish imagery to convey truth. Sprinkling the blood of sacrificial animals was an expression of consecration under the Old Covenant. In fact, at the very establishment of the covenant, as Moses read its stipulations, he took blood from the bulls and sprinkled it on the people of Israel (Exo. 24:7, 8). As a consequence, they had been set apart and made partakers of this special relationship to God. (See also the consecration of the Most Holy Place in Lev. 16; Heb. 9:18f.). Likewise, believers are made partakers of the New Covenant through the blood (Jesus') of that covenant, (Luke 22:20; Heb. 9:13f.) the everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20).
The obedience spoken of here may be ongoing submission to Christ or initial submission to Christ at the time of repentance and conversion. Although I would not want to wrangle too much about this, I prefer the latter because of the tie with the blood consecration already spoken of. For a similar use of 'obedience' see Rom. 1:5 and 16:26.
Grace and peace to you is a standard greeting in the New Testament, but it must not be relegated to a place of mere formality. If there are two things all believers of all cities of all generations need, they are God's grace and peace. The words may be routine, but the sincerity of the request should not be questioned.
NCT Commentaries?
by Douglas Goodin
A question I am asked from time to time is, "Where are the NCT commentaries?" It's a good question. Lord willing, there will be a good answer down the road as worthy pastors and scholars undertake the laborious process of writing them.
In the meantime, what I propose to do over the upcoming weeks is to embark on a verse-by-verse study of First Peter from a distinctly NCT perspective. Obviously, much of the epistle would be interpreted similarly by all believers. But where NCT sees things differently, I will try to point it out.
My approach will be devotional and pastoral. My assumptions will be that the reader believes the Gospel and is committed to the Scripture as the inspired word of God. Therefore, I will have no interest in offering a defense of the Truth against liberalism or skepticism.
If you are not currently engaged in a slow, meditative study of God's Word, I encourage you to walk through First Peter with me. It is a wonderful reminder of our hope in Christ Jesus the Lord.
First Peter 1:1
(A verse-by-verse study from a NCT perspective.)
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to elect aliens of dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (my translation throughout).
Peter, one of the original followers of Jesus Christ, wrote this letter to Christians who were living in communities immersed in unbelief. The Roman empire of the first century was very much like the American empire of the twenty-first, only with less technology. It condoned the murder of unwanted babies; it encouraged sexual promiscuity, both hetero and homo; it regarded the government as its god and savior. One might even argue that the Roman culture was worse in that it attached a religious significance to much of its nefarious behavior (ex. temple prostitution and emperor worship). What Peter wrote to believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and the rest, 2,000 years ago, is just as important for believers living in Las Vegas, San Francisco, Washington D.C, and "Your City, USA," today.
Aliens of dispersion. This label derives its influence from the Jewish experiences of exile among the heathen nations into which the children of Israel were thrust after the collapse of their kingdom(s). When the Assyrians and Babylonians sacked the Israeli capitols, they dispersed the majority of the Jewish people throughout their territories as an attempt to destroy their unity and identity (cp. 2 Kings 17:6). This became a cause of sorrow and temptation for them (see Lam. 1:1f.; Ezek. 6:8f.; predicted in Deut. 28:64f). In a similar way, followers of Christ who live among the children of the devil must fight against disunity and disloyalty to their King.
So, Peter considers them aliens, pilgrims, or (to use a word my grandfather would have used) sojourners. They were pilgrims, not because they had no permanent mailbox, but because they were citizens of another country—a transcendent land beyond the Roman Empire, or any earthly empire (Phil. 3:20), whose designer and builder is God (Heb. 11:10). But until such time as they are granted transport to the Celestial City, they must wander in the regions of the Land of Destruction, remaining faithful to their Lord and committed to one another.
To Ponder:
Do I live as though exiled to a foreign land or have I become too comfortable in my country and culture? Do I feel like an exile longing for home (i.e. the new heaven and new earth)?
The Use of the OT in the NT
A perennial hermeneutical challenge is that of understanding how the NT authors quote and understand the OT. Dr. D. A. Carson handles this topic better than anyone I know. Here are three excellent messages dealing with the subject:
The Use of the OT in the NT (part 1)
The Use of the OT in the NT (part 2)
The Use of the OT in the NT (part 3)
Reading Well: The Holy War
The Holy War: Made by King Shaddai Upon Diabolus, to Regain the Metropolis of the World, Or, The Losing and Taking Again of the Town of Mansoul
by John Bunyan, published in 1682 (review by Robert L. Franck)
John Bunyan’s works should be favorites for readers of this journal based on his theological perspective alone. He was a Puritan and a Baptist. But he provides much more than good theology for lovers of the written word.
He teaches not only through the reason gate—to borrow a Bunyanesque metaphor—to enter the mind but also through the imagination gate to enter the heart. Both destinations are essential if biblical truth is to take root in our lives. To illustrate, let’s consider Acts 14:22:
[Paul and Barnabas were] strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.
This verse is a remarkably concise summary of Bunyan’s two greatest works: Pilgrim’s Progress and Holy War. So why spend time reading these tomes now that you understand the point that Christians must struggle and face difficulties in this life? Because understanding a principle in abstract, general terms is not enough. You must chew up the truth and digest it. You must consider its implications in relation to your own life. Christ has given gifted men to the Church to help you do just that. John Bunyan is one that is especially needed today.
Unfortunately, we most often define ourselves by our work. We maintain this perspective when we think about living for God. Our single metric of success is: “What good works have I produced for Him?” Anything that detracts from our labor for God is a distraction from what is most important in this life, our spiritual struggles included. They are worthless inefficiencies. But Bunyan’s perspective is different. He understands the importance of God’s working in us through our struggles. He addresses external trials in Pilgrim’s Progress. He focuses on our internal struggle with sin in Holy War. We need to see through Bunyan’s eyes.
Holy War begins with the creation of man, or as Bunyan allegorizes, the town of Mansoul. Then comes the attack and fall of Mansoul to Diabolus. The last half of the book examines the rescue of Mansoul by Emmanuel and the continuing struggle with the Diabolonians. You will observe the officials of Mansoul—Understanding, Conscience, Lord Willbewill—through each of these stages. For example, during Diabolus’ reign over Mansoul, Conscience alternately forgets Shaddai’s law and becomes a raving lunatic when it is violated. (Chew on that for a moment.) Emmanuel’s forces include: Captain Conviction, Captain Credence, and Captain Good Hope. The nefarious characters are led by Diabolus and include: Lusting, Forget-Good, and Carnal-Security. The scheming of these Diabolonians rivals that of C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape, although they preceded Screwtape by nearly three centuries.
This is just a glimpse of what Bunyan sees. There is much more gold here, but you will have to dig it out yourself.
Read Bunyan. Read well.
Excerpts:
Now there is in this gallant country of Universe a fair and delicate town, a corporation called Mansoul; a town for its building so curious, for its situation so commodious, for its privileges so advantageous, (I mean with reference to its origin,) that I may say of it, as was said before of the continent in which it is placed, there is not its equal under the whole heaven. As to the situation of this town, it lieth just between the two worlds; and the first founder and builder of it, so far as by the best and most authentic records I can gather, was one Shaddai; and he built it for his own delight. He made it the mirror and glory of all that he made, even the top-piece, beyond anything else that he did in that country. Yea, so goodly a town was Mansoul when first built, that it is said by some, the gods, at the setting up thereof, came down to see it, and sang for joy. And as he made it goodly to behold, so also mighty to have dominion over all the country round about.
…the walls could never be broken down nor hurt by the most mighty adverse potentate, unless the townsmen gave consent thereto. This famous town of Mansoul had five gates, in at which to come, out at which to go; and these were made likewise answerable to the walls, to wit, impregnable, and such as could never be opened nor forced but by the will and leave of those within. The names of the gates were these: Ear-gate, Eye-gate, Mouth-gate, Nose-gate, and Feel-gate.
Well, upon a time, there was one Diabolus, a mighty giant, made an assault upon this famous town of Mansoul, to take it, and make it his own habitation.
…[Emmanuel] this Son of Shaddai, I say, having stricken hands with his Father and promised that he would be his servant to recover his Mansoul again, stood by his resolution, nor would he repent of the same. The purport of which agreement was this: to wit, that at a certain time, prefixed by both, the King's Son should take a journey into the country of Universe, and there, in a way of justice and equity, by making amends for the follies of Mansoul, he should lay a foundation of perfect deliverance from Diabolus and from his tyranny.
[Emmanuel says] “Nothing can hurt thee but sin; nothing can grieve me but sin; nothing can make thee base before thy foes but sin: take heed of sin, my Mansoul. 'And dost thou know why I at first, and do still, suffer Diabolonians to dwell in thy walls, O Mansoul? It is to keep thee wakening, to try thy love, to make thee watchful, and to cause thee yet to prize my noble captains, their soldiers, and my mercy. 'It is also, that yet thou mayest be made to remember what a deplorable condition thou once wast in. I mean when, not some, but all did dwell, not in thy walls, but in thy castle, and in thy stronghold, O Mansoul. 'O my Mansoul, should I slay all them within, many there be without, that would bring thee into bondage; for were all these within cut off, those without would find thee sleeping; and then, as in a moment, they would swallow up my Mansoul. I therefore left them in thee, not to do thee hurt (the which they yet will, if thou hearken to them, and serve them,) but to do thee good, the which they must, if thou watch and fight against them.”
Two Worldviews of Christmas
by Douglas Goodin
[This is from a meditation I gave tonight at our Christmas Eve service. It was a children's program telling the Christmas story by quoting Old Testament prophecies and New Testament fulfillments.]
Christmastime creates a clash of two worldviews. This conflict can be demonstrated by the lyrics of two popular Christmas songs—It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year and Joy to the World.
The first can be sung enthusiastically by every American. "Kids jingle-belling," "holiday greetings," "marshmallows," "mistletoe," "loved ones drawing near," such feel-good activities bring smiles to our faces regardless of religious conviction or worldview. The second, however, can only be sincerely sung by those who view the world the way the Bible views the world. Only Christians can sing, "the Lord and King is come," "the Savior reigns," and "He rules the world." Only the Christian would dare to sing of "sin" and "curse" and the need for a Savior. Only the Christian understands that the true joy of Christmas is the birth of God's Son who would receive the punishment we deserve for our rebellion against God's commands. And only the Christian proclaims, honestly, that Jesus Christ is the Universal Emperor, the Ruler of the every nation on planet earth.
Christmas productions (like tonight's) also demonstrate this worldview clash. Pull together a group of cute kids, with a few costumes and props, add a little music, and you have a can't-lose evening of smiles and cheer, regardless of the content. Anyone could enjoy this program. But their story was not just a good, old, American feel-good, festive event. Their's was the story of Jesus Christ, the only hope for sinners, and the King of the earth. Their story recounted the Old Testament promises of God foretelling Christ's coming. Their story quoted the New Testament fulfillments of God's promises when Christ came. Their story was not intended merely to be cute. Their story was about God—the eternal, holy, omnipotent, glorious God—becoming a man so that He could suffer the flames of hell, as it were, in our place. That's not cute. But it is the most joyous, most inspiring, most delightful, most hopeful, most smile-provoking, most wonderful story that could possibly be told.
For non-Christians, the joy of Christmas is hollow and ephemeral. It will eventually give way to horror because of sin. The flames of hell will be theirs to suffer, forever. For we who believe the good news of Jesus Christ, the joy of Christmas will only become increasingly solid throughout all eternity. We are forgiven. Our future is the glory of Christ, forever. For us, every day is the most wonderful time of the year, not because of heart-warming songs and holiday cheer, but because our Lord has come and our Savior reigns. From everlasting to everlasting, we will repeat the sounding joy and wonders of His love. Only a Christian understands the true wonder of Christmas.
Merry Christmas!
Losing It
Dear Dr. Solomon,
I have Acute Theological Fatigue Syndrome (ATFS). I’ve got all the classic symptoms – sunken eyes, listlessness, fingernail biting, I even stare blankly into the distance and drool on myself. You see, I’ll read about one position, such as New Covenant theology from this site, and it will make perfect sense. Then I’ll read about other positions and they will make sense too! How can they all make sense if they are saying different things? I think that I’m losing my mind!
Losing It
________________________________________
Dear Losing It,
I am well aware of the devastation caused by ATFS in cases such as yours by the many hundreds of letters I receive each month from your fellow sufferers. To begin with, let me commend you for your earnest desire to interpret the Bible correctly, which is most often the source of this condition. Next, you must realize that all theological systems make sense, that is, they are logical. Each position is based on certain assumptions and the interpretation of certain passages. Finally, the cure for ATFS is confidence in the meaning of Scripture. This is achieved by understanding passages in their own context (i.e., the intended sense of the writer) and interpreting difficult passages in light of clear ones. For example, a theme of the book of Hebrews is to explain the meaning of Old Testament content to New Covenant Christians. So lay your theological foundation here and your condition will begin to improve, and, after a time, by God’s grace and diligent study, you may be completely healed. Until then, wear a bib.
Reading Well: Here I Stand
by Roland H. Bainton (review by Robert L. Franck)
We all learned to hate history by taking classes in school that forced us to consume fact-crammed textbooks and then regurgitate their bland content on test papers. This was distasteful. But now it’s time to move on. Rinse out your mouth and try something savory.
I’ve got just the thing.
But first, let’s discuss method. The best way to learn history and its lessons is to approach them biographically. Marx would disagree, of course. He would say that impersonal, evolutionary, scientific forces march through history regardless of the personalities involved. Well, Marx is dead. And even if his descendants are busily writing textbooks, he was also dead wrong.
I have this from the highest authority—God’s history, the Bible. Biblical history is told through the compelling and intensely personal stories of individuals—Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Ruth, Samuel, David, Elijah, Esther, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Peter, Paul, John, and many others. And this history, from beginning to end, centers on the most compelling person of all—the God/Man Jesus Christ. The old saying is true: history is His-story. And He is not dead.
Mastering biblical history requires our first effort, but there is much profit in studying the rest of history. The rest of history, including our own, is also Christ-centered and reveals the working of God.
A biographical approach to history focuses on pivotal people. Imagine that you have filled your garage with stuff. It is piled high. No room for cars. You know that there are things in the pile that would be useful to you, but you can’t remember everything that’s there, and even if you could recall a particular item that you need, you can’t find it. Now imagine that you install large pegboards on the walls. For every peg you push into a board, you can hang up some of your stuff. This organizes it and makes it accessible and useful. In history, great and influential people are the pegs on which you can hang important dates, movements and events. And in addition to learning what happened and why it happened, you will gain wisdom and inspiration by observing the lives of these people.
A critical peg to place in your history board is Martin Luther (1483-1546), the great reformer. Luther stood at the intersections between feudal and modern society, between the Roman Catholics and the breakaway Protestants, between the humanists and Protestants, and between the Protestants themselves. Luther powerfully influenced these intersections and, therefore, profoundly shaped our lives.
I have read a few books on Luther and the best by far is Roland Bainton’s Here I Stand. This was first published in 1950 and is still in print. Bainton presents Luther’s life and thought chronologically. This is essential for Luther, since his personal experience is so tightly wound into his theological struggles. Bainton’s writing is very engaging, avoiding the eggheadedness of some biographers, who try to display their own brilliance by psychoanalyzing their subjects or focusing on scholarly debates. Luther’s brilliance is what you want to see, and Bainton reveals it by simply telling his story, often in Luther’s own words or the words of his adversaries and allies.
You’ve got to peg Martin Luther.
Read Bainton. Read well.
Excerpts:
“The first endeavor must be to understand the man. One will not move far in this direction unless one recognizes at the outset that Luther was above all else a man of religion. The great outward crises of his life which bedazzle the eyes of dramatic biographers were to Luther himself trivial in comparison with the inner upheavals of his questing after God.” (p. 22)
“He fasted, sometimes three days on end without a crumb. …He laid on himself vigils and prayers in excess of those stipulated by the rule. He cast off the blankets permitted him and well-nigh froze to death. …He believed in later life that his austerities had done permanent damage to his digestion.” (p. 45)
“Luther had come into a new view of Christ and a new view of God. He had come to love the suffering Redeemer and the God unveiled on Calvary. But were they after all powerful enough to deliver him from the hosts of hell? The cross had resolved the conflict between the wrath and the mercy of God, and Paul had reconciled for him the inconsistency of the justice and forgiveness of God….” (p. 65-66)
“He did not respond seriously to the suggestion [that he marry Katherine Von Bora] until he went home to visit his parents. What he related, probably as a huge joke, was taken by his father as a realistic proposal. …He summed up by giving three reasons for his marriage: to please his father, to spite the pope and the Devil, and to seal his witness before martyrdom.” (p. 288)
“When Luther looked at his family in 1538, he remarked, ‘Christ said we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. Dear God, this is too much. Have we got to become such idiots?’ One wonders whether the children were ever minded to wonder who was the idiot when Luther cut up Hans’s pants to mend his own.” (p. 302-303)
Henry Scougal and The Rolling Stones
Craig has a new article with a timely message for this season of consumerism and pluralism. Here is an excerpt:
|
|
In 1965, The Rolling Stones released "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction," decrying their attempts at satisfaction from the material world. Though the lyrics were expressly not profound, the topic of the song was quintessentially human. . . . Three hundred years earlier and four hundred miles to the north, another twenty-something British Isle inhabitant begged to differ with the Stones’ conclusion about life and satisfaction.
|
The Christian and the Law (Part 1)
What is the relationship of the Christian to the OT Law? The next several lessons of this study seek to answer that perennial question.
This is the 17th of a continuing series entitled Promise & Fulfillment.