In March, Zondervan announced via their Koinonia blog that they would be hosting a blog tour for Jonathan Lunde’s book Following Jesus, the Servant King.¹ The premise was simply that readers were offered a review copy of the book and, in return, they would post a review on their personal blog and an online retailer of their choice. The reviews were to be posted during the first week of April.

I signed up to participate, but unfortunately my review copy didn’t arrive until after the completion of the blog tour. This, combined with the intervening birth of a baby girl into our family, means that I am only now able to complete my end of the deal. I hope it’s worth the wait!

Lunde’s book is organised around three questions that are (or should be) important to every Christian:

1. Why should Christians be concerned to obey Christ’s commands if they are saved by grace?
2. What does Jesus demand from his disciples?
3. How can disciples obey Jesus’ high demand, while experiencing his “yoke” as “light” and “easy”?

The bulk of the book is given over to answering these questions from Scripture, with the final chapter being a consideration of how the answers thus achieved might apply to the life of today’s Christian.

In response to the first (‘Why?’) question, Lunde notes the propensity of Christians to fall into a model of ‘best effort’, with grace to make up the difference. Alternately, many Christians redefine or water down Jesus’ demands in an effort to avoid ‘legalism’. Lunde rightly rejects both of these approaches. Instead, he offers the observation relationship with God is necessarily covenantal relationship, and that the New Covenant is no exception. All of the biblical covenants are a mixture of grace and righteous demand, with God graciously providing prior and sustaining grace, yet requiring certain things in response (chapters 2-4). He distinguishes two different types of covenant, ‘grant’ and ‘conditional’, arguing the the New Covenant which governs Christians is a ‘grant’ covenant. He then draws on this distinction to explore the relationship between faith and works of obedience (chapter 5), arguing:

Whereas the Mosaic Covenant was a conditional one that demanded faithful works of obedience for the ongoing reception of its blessings, the New Covenant in Jesus is a grant covenant, whose blessings are only dependent on God’s faithfulness to fulfill them. (103)

He concludes by saying:

Jesus’ disciples are those who have experienced the fulfillment of the prophetic expectations of the Spirit’s outpouring on God’s covenant people. As the [113] prophetic portrayals make clear, the effect of this divine endowment will be a deeper enablement for righteousness. Paul echoes this in his discussion of the Spirit’s effect on God’s people. Those who are led by the Spirit will inevitably produce the fruit of the Spirit and fulfill the law of Christ. As Spirit-enabled New Covenant partners, those who follow him ought to be continually concerned regarding obedience to all of Jesus’ covenantal demands. (112-3)

Thus Lunde’s answer to the ‘why’ question is that the New Covenant, like all of the other biblical covenants, contains ‘righteous demands’. These demands, though not conditions of receiving grace, are nevertheless an integral response to the covenant. Even here, however, God provides sustaining grace that empowers this response.

In the next section (chapters 6-10), Lunde attempts to answer the question of ‘What Jesus demands’, building on his analysis of the relationship between the New Covenant and the previous covenants (in particular the Mosaic). He begins by establishing Jesus’ role as both prophet and King in the context of the New Covenant (chapter 6).

Jesus authoritatively articulates the will of Yahweh as the Prophet who carries the authority to mediate the final expression of the law to his people. But he also summons people to follow him absolutely as the King, who faithfully represents Yahweh’s righteous reign. Jesus’ disciples follow him as their King, even as he articulates God’s demand as the great Prophet. (125)

This then sets the scene for a discussion of the varied ways in which Jesus mediates the law to us, developed using three analogies: some things get ‘filtered’ out through their fulfillment in Christ (chapter 7); others are brought into ‘focus’ through Jesus’ teaching and example (chapter 8); and still others are ‘elevated’ or ‘heightened’ in order to more fully display God’s glory (chapter 9). Chapter 10 traces Jesus’ summons to mission, and its grounding in covenantal expectation.

Thus, Lunde’s answer to the ‘what’ question appears to be that Christians are called to obey the law as mediated to us by Jesus.

The third section explores the ‘how’ of Christian discipleship: how can Christians simultaneously obey Jesus’ demands and at the same time experience his yoke as ‘easy’ and ‘light’ (Matt 11:30). Once again, Lunde turns to the pattern of covenantal relationship in the Old Testament for answers. He starts by noting the inaugurated nature of the New Covenant argued by analogy with the inaugurated Kingdom (chapter 11). Thus, the day spoken of in Jeremiah 31 has not yet arrived in its fullness, though we experience some of its benefits today.

Chapter 12 outlines the way in which life under the Mosaic covenant promoted a threefold relationship to God of ‘remembering’, ‘receiving’ and ‘responding’. He concludes:

Ideally, the covenant people in the Old Testament lived in the iterative pattern of remembrance, reception, and response. That is, the covenant provided regular occasions of remembering and receiving Yahweh’s grace toward them throughout their yearly, seasonal, and weekly lives. In response to the reception of those blessings, they were to devote themselves afresh to keeping the covenant demands of righteousness. In this way, obedience to the law was constantly grounded in and empowered by God’s prior and sustaining grace.

As New Covenant disciples, we too must learn to live covenant lives, returning repeatedly to the Servant for renewing and enabling grace so as to experience the sort of enablement that will enliven our obedience to the King. In and through all of this, the New Covenant gift of the Spirit will be actively making Jesus’ grace present to us. (208-9)

The next chapters constitute a sort of extended reflection on the image of the Servant in Isaiah 53. Jesus is the Servant who is our representative, who turned away sin on our behalf throughout his life (chapter 13). He is the Servant who is our Redeemer, enduring the suffering of the remnant on our behalf so that we need not (chapter 14). Jesus is also the Restorer, who brings eschatological redemption to his creation and judgment to his enemies (chapters 15-16). Lunde concludes:

Remembering and receiving these expressions of Jesus’ grace should move us to respond with covenantal faithfulness in the living out of lives of sight, hearing, and proclamation, unencumbered by the impairing power of Satan. In this way, we will be empowered to follow him in mediating those same dimensions of grace to those around us. (263)

Lunde then draws the strands of these chapters together in chapter 17, showing the relationship between Jesus’ roles as both Servant and King:

As the fulfillment of the Servant of the Lord, Jesus supplies the consummation of God’s grace in the establishment of the New Covenant and its blessings. As the fulfillment of the promises regarding the Messiah, Jesus is the King who mediates the fulfilled law to his New Covenant disciples and summons them to follow him. This distinction, though helpful, breaks down at several points, since Jesus also provides grace as the King. This is inevitable since he fulfills both roles. Nowhere is this overlap clearer than in his crucifixion. (264-5)

Thus, I would summarise Lunde’s answer to the ‘How’ question as follows: New Covenant obedience is facilitated by remembering, receiving and responding to Jesus’ roles as both Messianic King and Isaianic Servant. In Lunde’s own words ‘Grace foils legalism. But grace fuels righteousness’ (274).

The final chapter is given over to exploring the contemporary implications of the theology he has outlined. In particular, he applies his answer to the ‘why’ question to contemporary attitudes towards God (‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’), evangelism (easy-believism, ‘get-saved’ evangelism) and catechesis (developing disciples able to articulate covenantal relationship with God).

Overall, Lunde has offered an articulate and creative exposition of covenantal theology. In particular, his explanation of the relationship between various covenants and the New Covenant is very helpful, and I can see myself using his analogies of filter, lens and prism in my own teaching.

However, the central thesis of this book, that discipleship should be identified with the ‘righteous demands’ of the New Covenant, requires closer examination. Whilst Lunde spends the bulk of his book working out the implications of this assertion, he devotes little or no time to defending it in the first place. On what basis should we choose covenant as the category in which to define discipleship? Why privilege it over, say, kingdom obedience (though the two are not unrelated), love (John 13:35), or the obedience of a student to his teacher (Luke 6:40)?

On this last, Lunde somewhat disarmingly asserts that ‘This book is not a detailed examination of the historical background of the term “disciple” (mathētēs) or of the nature of the relationship between Jewish rabbis and their students in first-century Palestine,’ admitting that ‘this approach to discipleship is somewhat unexpected’ (32). However, this omission represents a weakness in Lunde’s overall position, since by it he effectively broadens the scope of biblical discipleship to be coextensive with anything one does as a Christian. Similarly, he effectively defines the ‘righteous demands’ of a covenant as anything done by the lesser party of the covenant that is not part of the ‘condition’ of a conditional covenant. In this way he is able to equate the two disparate concepts. One wonders why, if covenant is so important in understanding discipleship the New Testament writers rarely (if ever) refer to it?

Another methodological weakness in Lunde’s argument is that it is largely founded on characteristics of individual covenants assumed also to be characteristic of the New Covenant. In the early chapters, he establishes certain characteristics that are common to all covenants – prior grace, sustaining grace, righteous demands. Yet in latter chapters he argues from, say, the law of the Mosaic covenant to the ‘law’ of the New Covenant without offering justification of this reasoning. This is not to say that such a position is unjustifiable, just that Lunde hasn’t justified it. Perhaps his assumption is that the New Covenant is the sum of prior covenants, incorporating them in their entirety albeit mediated by Christ in the same ways as articulated for the Mosaic law?

In summary, then, Lunde has offered us an excellent book on ‘covenantal obedience’. It is left to the reader to decide whether this may then be equated with New Covenant ‘discipleship’.

Endnotes

1. Jonathan Lunde, Following Jesus, the Servant King: A Biblical Theology of Covenantal Discipleship, Biblical Theology for Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010).

To perform a piece of music really well, there are two things you need to know: (1) the ‘shape’ of the music – what is its main theme, structure, and major components (verse/chorus/bridge etc.); and (2) the ‘style’ of the song – will it be fast or slow, loud or soft, jazz or rock and so on. The first one won’t change much – if it does, you are actually singing a new and different song. The second one, however, may change every time you sing or play it – and this is largely determined by your context, particularly the context of your audience. If they are feeling energised and upbeat then they may appreciate a quiet, reflective song. Similarly if they are quiet, or sad, or introspective then wild rock music will grate on them and your music will be rejected.

We see this all the time, don’t we? Who hasn’t been to a wedding where the band mistakenly thought they were the main attraction and belted their tunes out at top volume. One of my abiding memories of the first Blues Brothers movie is Jake and Elwood Blues (and their band) rocking up at a venue that enjoys both kinds of music – Country and Western – and launching into their standard blues revue. The results are predictable: empty beer bottles fly at the performers caught only by the chicken-wire shield erected in front of the stage. In fact, the entire premise of both Blues Brothers movies is a group who are unwilling to change their songs or their style in response to their context – instead, they must keep going until they eventually find the right context for their music.

We must know the same two things when we proclaim and promote the gospel: (1) what is the message we are proclaiming? (i.e. the tune) and (2) what is our method for proclaiming it? (i.e. the style). The message does not change, but the style of its presentation must match the context if the message is to be received. Unlike the Blues Brothers, we cannot wait for people to adopt Christian culture and context before we share the gospel – although many have tried! To use the language of the subtitle of this series, we must ensure that the ‘real gospel’ (the ‘tune’) is applied to ‘real life’ (the ‘style’).

So the goal tonight will be to understand the distinctive characteristics of a student’s context in order to better understand how to share the gospel with them. And yet I can only paint in broad brush strokes – you will have to take what I say and decide for yourself how well it fits with your own context… and modify accordingly.

So, what makes a student different from, say, a lawyer or a mother, a pensioner or an athlete? I have identified a number of characteristics (in no particular order), each of which presents its own unique opportunities and challenges for the proclamation of gospel.

The first, and perhaps most obvious, characteristic of a student is that they’re there to learn. This could be for any number of reasons – to get a job, for the sake of learning, or because Mum & Dad made them – but the end result is the same: they rock up each day to school or uni expecting to be confronted with new ideas. This is both an opportunity and a challenge for the gospel. Obviously it is an opportunity, because the gospel is just such an idea. In fact, you could say it is the idea, against which all other ideas must be measured. Students spend their days learning facts, which mean that they are ideally placed to hear about the occurrences of the gospel (to borrow Mark’s language) – Jesus’ sinless life, death on a cross, resurrection and so on – in a way that few other groups in the world are. However, it is also a challenge because it is all too easy for the distinctive nature of the gospel to be lost; it becomes just one more idea among many. I remember this was a common response at my uni, where lunch-time Christian meetings were spoken of as ‘just another lecture’ by Christians an non-Christians alike. Furthermore, many of the other teachers are professionals, paid to be effective teachers, meaning that there is a certain pressure to be ‘professional’ in the way we teach the gospel.

I believe that the only possible response to these challenges is to ensure that the message you have to proclaim is proclaimed as clearly as possible. Make sure that you understand the gospel and its importance and impact on your life. If you don’t understand how will you be able to share it? If it’s not important to you, why should it be to them? At the same time, don’t feel you need to be as slick a teacher as your teachers. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, a town totally immersed in slick teachers and speakers, he said,

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Cor 2:1–5)

This is excellent advice.

The second characteristic is that they’re learning to think critically about what they are being taught, particularly as you get toward the end of high school and even more so at university. No longer is it enough to accept the teacher’s word, instead they must evaluate and integrate ideas for themselves. Again, this is both an opportunity and a challenge. It is an opportunity because it means that they are willing to consider evidence and reconsider their presuppositions. In fact, university is often the first time people have moved out of home, and they take advantage of that by reconsidering the assumptions they have inherited from their parents. In some cases, this means they re-think their Christian heritage, but there are many others who are suddenly ready to consider the claims of Christianity.

Sometimes this can go too far: some people will set themselves up as judges over everything, presuming to render verdicts on matters which they have little or no familiarity with. Others are too lazy to push past their own misconceptions and stereotypes of Christianity, whilst others still have their own agenda to push and Christianity stands in their way and must be fought at all costs. Sadly, all these kinds of people are all too common on a university campus. Take, for example, the well-known militant atheist Richard Dawkins, formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford university. In his 2006 book, The God Delusion, Dawkins sets out to discredit what he calls the God Hypothesis – that there is a creator God or gods. He writes,

Life is too short to bother with the distinction between one figment of the imagination and many… I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.¹

This is actually symptomatic of Dawkins’ approach to the whole discussion: he lumps all religions together so that he can speak in generalities and not deal with the specific claims of any one of them – although he is not shy in adopting examples from any of them that he thinks might support his cause. It is not clear what his motivation in doing this is – ignorance? laziness? malice? – but the end result is a work that would be rightly laughed out of any scientific forum or court of law! He trades on his expertise in one field (biology) as a platform for pontificating authoritatively on where he has little or no expertise (theology, cosmology, philosophy to name but a few). Such self-styled ‘intellectuals’ pop up in every academic institution, and aim to persuade by virtue of their reputation or pseudo-argumentation.

Our response should be to always encourage honest scrutiny of the claims made by Jesus Christ. Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6), thus any genuine search for truth will and must find its way to Jesus. There is no need to feel threatened or defensive. In particular, unless that is your gifting don’t spend so much time debating with ‘intellectuals’ that you neglect to spend time with others more open to hearing the gospel.

Another characteristic of students, particularly uni students, is that they have more discretionary time than any other adult group save, perhaps, retirees. Those of you who are currently at uni may disagree, and this is indeed a generalisation meaning that there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. But sit on a university campus sometime and look at how many people spend hours sitting on the lawn, or haunting the unibar, and then try telling me that uni students have no free time!

How is this an opportunity for the gospel? In several ways: (1) you have time for gospel work; and (2) the people you’re sharing with have no excuse for rushing off! The flip side of the coin is that you are only at school and uni for so many years – don’t miss out on the opportunity. The Apostle Paul was only in Thessalonica for 3 weeks, yet he still had enough time to found a church which, a short time later, he would call his ‘joy and crown’ (1 Thess 2:19-20).

When Paul was in Athens, he met people with exactly these characteristics. He met with the Jews in the synagogue and reasoned and argued with them, but he also proclaimed his message in the marketplace where people of that time and place would go to buy a good philosophy along with their eggs and milk. The result was that he was brought before the Areopagus, a group of (presumably wealthy) people who ‘spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas’ (Acts 17:21). I believe that we can learn a lot from Paul’s example in this instance.

First, we note that Paul spent some time in immersing himself in the context (as we are doing tonight). He spent time walking around Athens, understanding what the people did day by day, and thinking about why they did it. When he spoke to the people on Mars Hill (another name for the Areopagus), he did so using the language of the great Greek poets, meaning that he was at least familiar with their literature. In our terms, this might mean participating in the broader life of your school or uni. Join a choir or a sports team. Know what the controversial political issues are on campus (even if you don’t participate in the debate). Go and see the school play. Help out at the working bee. And so on. In this way, you will have a shared context with those to whom you are witnessing, and you will show that you have made the effort to understand them and their context, even if you don’t agree.

Our response to this opportunity must be to reflect on our observations and experiences, asking questions about why things are the way they are, and happen the way they do. In particular, I find it helpful to ask myself the question, ‘What need or desire are they meeting by doing that?’ I then ask, ‘How does the gospel meet that need or desire?’ Paul noticed that the Athenians were ‘very religious’ (Acts 17:22), with a desire for peace with all of the gods even if they didn’t know who they all were. Paul’s response was to show that their desire was honourable but misguided, for there was only one God. Pleasing God is not a matter of temples and altars, but is achieved purely and simply by Christ’s actions on our behalf.

When invited to do so, Paul presented his beliefs clearly and unflinchingly. Here were gathered some of the greatest ‘intellectuals’ of his day – the Richard Dawkinses and the like. He would have known that proclaiming a physical resurrection of any person, let alone all people, would have been treated with incredulity by these people, yet because it was a core gospel issue he declared it anyway. We, like Paul, must be true to our beliefs and proclaim the whole gospel and not just the parts that are currently fashionable. At the moment, for example, there is a debate raging about whether a loving God could ever consign people to an eternity in hell. As a result, it is tempting to step around, or downplay, and discussion of sin and hell when proclaiming the gospel. It is not my intention to teach on the topic of hell tonight, but only to point out that you need to work out what issues are core to the gospel, and make sure that you don’t compromise in their proclamation.

Finally, Paul evaluated the response from his audience. In Thessalonica he taught in the synagogue and many were persuaded, though some were jealous and caused him trouble (Acts 17:1-9). In response, he moved on but made provisions for those who had come to faith, as evidenced by the two letters that he wrote to them (1 Thess 3:1-5). This raises two important points: (1) as already mentioned, don’t spend so much time arguing with those militantly opposed to you that you neglect those who do respond positively; and (2) always have a follow-up strategy.

It is not always easy to discern why someone is opposed to the gospel. Sometimes it is because of the manner in which you present the gospel, in which case your manner may need to be changed. In other cases it is because of a prior ‘defeater’ belief – a belief (usually a misunderstanding) that seems to preclude belief in the gospel. Examples of this might include the belief that ‘all religions are equal’, that a good God wouldn’t allow suffering on the scale that we observe in the world every day, that science has disproved Christianity and so on. In these cases, it may be worth addressing that specific issue first, and in this there are many great resources that might be of assistance. One which I would particularly recommend is a book by Tim Keller, called The Reason for God.² This addresses a number of common misconceptions about Christianity in a way that is easy to read and understand. For more specific issues, have a chat to one of the pastoral staff or elders who may be able to recommend something appropriate.

Often your follow-up strategy will (and should) involve other people – usually a church or Bible study community – which is a good reason not to go it alone. One of my regrets from my own time at uni is that, for various reasons, I decided not to be a part of the university church but to attend instead a church down the road. This had some small advantages, in that though I was known as a Christian I was not rejected as a so-called ‘campus Christian’. But the disadvantages were that I had no immediate support network when sharing the gospel, and I missed out on the work being done by the campus church to equip students for university mission.

So, to recap, proclaiming and promoting the gospel requires that we know the shape (the gospel) and the style (the manner of presenting the gospel, dictated by context). And for a school or uni student the context is dominated by such things as developing habits of learning and critical thinking, an excess of discretionary time, intellectuals and intellectualism, and so on.

If this all seems a bit intimidating, well… you’re not alone in that! But, fortunately, neither are we alone in doing the work because, ultimately, it is God himself who is responsible for contextualising the gospel. It is his gospel, and he sends his Spirit to do this very work. He has already done so by putting his word into human language, which we can read and share. And the Holy Spirit works through us to translate words written thousands of years ago into culture of all kinds in order to reach and transform those very cultures.

Bibliography

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006.

Keller, Timothy J. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2008.

Endnotes

1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), 35-6.
2. Timothy J. Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2008).

Wisdom is a matter of good life and good actions (3:13)

If I gave you a series of photographs, and asked you to identify which of these people were ‘wise’ and which not, how do you think you would go?

How do you tell whether or not someone has wisdom? Is it necessary to have knowledge?Is someone with a high IQ ‘wiser’ than someone with a lower IQ? What about practical experience? All of these, I think, would be common definitions of wisdom in the world today.

The first point that James wants to make about wisdom is what it results in:

‘Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.’ (3:13)

Clearly, in James’ day some where claiming to have ‘wisdom’, but were not actually doing anything about it. But is this still a problem today? In his 1986 book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman accused the western world of being a bunch of LIARs. Not liars in the sense of not telling the truth (though there may also be substance to such an accusation). Rather, Postman meant that we have a low ‘information-action ratio’ (L. I. A. R).¹ Prior to the invention of the telegraph most of what people knew was actionable, relating to their local community, work, neighbours, family etc. However, with the telegraph, radio, modern newspaper, television etc., we are constantly flooded with information that is no relevance to us, makes no difference to the way we live our lives. We make a virtue of being well-informed and knowledgeable, and invent games that allow us to exercise our endless store of trivia. Only a small proportion of what we know ends up being converted into action, and even this is being eroded away as we are exposed to Facebook, Twitter and other technologies that overwhelm us with even more information.

Wisdom without action is as impossible as faith without works.

But what kind of action? Here in this one verse are three ways in which wisdom is demonstrated: (i) the way you live; (ii) the things you do; and (iii) the attitude with which you do both. All three are necessary – miss one and you miss them all! Unless you are living right, then your actions will not carry conviction or credibility. People do not care what you do or say until they can see who you are. Similarly, humility that is not rooted in a good life and good actions is simply an invitation for pity.

This contrasts strongly to the way the world expects people to manifest wisdom. The stereotypical ‘wise’ person is one who, having lived a long time and gained knowledge and experience, now sit around and pontificate, rendering judgment on all and sundry who cross their path. But those qualities – age, knowledge, experience – are all about things that have happened in the past. For James, however, wisdom is about what you do in the present! To be sure, experience will help to build wisdom in you; knowledge will help you to understand your situation and respond accordingly. But it is that response that is all important. Wisdom results in continual action today, not continual reflection on the actions of yesterday.
But James does not stop there, for he wants to make his hearers aware that there are two kinds of ‘wisdom': counterfeit and genuine.

Two Kinds of Wisdom (3:14-18)

How do you spot a fake? The simple answer is by being intimately aware of what the real deal should look like, then closely examining the object in front of you. So if I gave you a $100 note, you would draw on your knowledge of what Australian currency looks like. Perhaps you would even know what some of the distinguishing marks of a hundred dollar note are, and if they are not present, or something else is in their place, you would rightly refuse to accept it. Sometimes it’s obvious; sometimes not. But the better you know the real thing, the easier it will be to spot a fake.

So it is with wisdom. Perhaps someone seems wise, but there are just these one or two things that seem off. Or perhaps you are trying to decide on the wisest course of action, and one seems at first glance to have merit, but when you reflect on it later and it wasn’t really right after all. As one commentator notes, ‘The most natural thing in the world is to think that your own reaction as a Christian is surely of divine origin. If you’re a new Christian, there may be a feeling that because God is with you and he’s for you and you’re doing something right for a change then everything you’re going to say is going to be right. And then you find yourself saying something that is wrong and somebody rebukes you for it.’² How, then, can we tell the difference between wisdom that is real, and that which is fake? James is very helpful in giving us a couple of major warning signs to watch out for.

Counterfeit wisdom (3:14-16)

The first is what he calls ‘bitter envy’ (3:14). This might be characterised as an action or attitude which seeks to pull others down because of jealousy. This is common in the world today: the student who denigrates their high-performing classmate; the person who speaks ill of the wealthy, all the while wishing they had that wealth; the hypocritical backlash against ‘celebrities’ who don’t live up to standards we ourselves have no intention of heeding.

When considering what you will do and what you will say, then, stop and consider the other people involved. What is your attitude toward them? Are you jealous of what they have or are? Do you resent them? Are you bitter and angry against them? If any of these things are true then, no matter how right or good the action itself is, you need to stop. ‘To the extent that you have bitterness you then and there surrender true righteousness.’³ Any work that grows from the root of bitterness will ultimately bear bitter fruit.

Similarly, James highlights ‘selfish ambition’ (3:14) as a sign of counterfeit wisdom. This happens in the world, of course, but sadly it often finds its way into the church as well. We fight for control, to be proven right, to see our needs met ahead of our brothers’ and sisters’. The worst thing is that we can fool ourselves into thinking that it is ‘right’.

Let me give you an example. At one church it was proposed that the time of the evening service on a Sunday be moved from 7pm to 6pm. This, it was argued, was to allow young families to attend, and still get their kids home to bed at a reasonable hour. Funnily enough, however, the people doing the arguing were – you guessed it – young families, who were doing so because they preferred the style of service that was conducted in the evening. As a result they would not hear the argument put against the idea that many amongst the youth who attended worked during the day on Sundays and would be unable to attend, or to contribute to the service by playing in the band etc., if the time was changed. Can you see that the ‘parties’ in this discussion were, by and large, driven by ‘selfish ambition’?

‘When we fight for power in Christian circles, evil establishes a foothold. When we operate with worldly values, seeking our own honor and status, we even offer Satan an entrance into the house of God! Our actions no longer demonstrate our faith (as throughout ch. 2), but rather show our commitment to the world and its standards of behavior (setting up ch. 4).’⁴

James says that counterfeit ‘wisdom’ is ‘earthly, unspiritual, of the devil’. This thing that these three descriptions have in common is that they are direct opposites to God. Just like any currency not printed at the mint is counterfeit by definition, the reason that this kind of ‘wisdom’ is counterfeit is that it does not originate from God. God gives good gifts (1:17), but counterfeit wisdom results in ‘disorder and every evil practice’ and is thus clearly not ‘good’ and so not from God.

Genuine Wisdom (3:17-18)

Genuine wisdom, on the other hand, does come from God. And it too, has particular characteristics:

‘But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.’ (3:17)

First and foremost, James says, genuine wisdom is ‘pure’. This is a word that means that it is all of one substance, and has nothing foreign mixed in. Consider what James has said about speech (an aspect of wisdom) earlier in this chapter:

‘Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.’ (3:11–12)

Godly wisdom must not be diluted by triviality or inaction, nor sullied by being mixed with sin through compromise.

The truly wise person is also a lover of peace. This is a strong contrast to the counterfeit wisdom which results in ‘bitter envy and selfish ambition… disorder and every kind of evil practice’ (3:14, 16); genuine wisdom that comes from God seeks to promote peace within the community of God’s people and in the world. Yet, because wisdom is ‘first of all pure’, we know that this peace cannot be achieved at the expense of compromise with sin. Simply avoiding the issue is not wisdom. We must still contend for the truth of the gospel, even where that leads to conflict; the difference between counterfeit and genuine wisdom, though, is that even in the midst of conflict genuine wisdom longs for peace.

The rest of the words James uses in this verse to describe heavenly wisdom are variations on and contributors to the idea of peace.⁵ Being considerate towards one another is a good way to avoid unnecessary friction. To be submissive is often misunderstood as being a ‘doormat'; whoever wants to can walk all over you as and how they like. But this is not a biblical concept of submission, and conflicts with the stress on purity. In this context, it is better to think of the word as meaning ‘teachable’. The submissive person is willing to admit that they are wrong, and to learn from their mistakes; this, too, is wisdom. This is then complemented by mercy, which is a gracious acknowledgement that others may also be in the wrong. In particular, it means forgiving others who have wronged you. Impartial means not ‘taking sides’ on the basis of friendships or natural affinity or external things such as wealth or social status. This is a point that James made very strongly in chapter 2, as Ted shared with us last week. Finally, James tells us that true wisdom is sincere, a word which might more literally be translated ‘without pretense’ or even ‘without hypocrisy’.⁶ Once again, these things are barriers to peace within the people of God, for they drive people apart.

‘In essence, peace is the ultimate goal of wisdom, and wisdom only reaches its fullest potential in the midst of peace.’⁷

James is his own best example of the value of peace in the church, as the picture that we get of him in Acts makes clear. For it is James who chairs the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:13-21), the event above all others that made peace between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.

So the wisdom that comes from heaven is recognised by its purity, and the peace that it brings, in that order. And, just as counterfeit wisdom has its fruit, so too does genuine wisdom. On the one hand, earthly wisdom results in ‘disorder and every evil practice’ (3:16); but of heavenly wisdom James says, ‘Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness’ (3:18).

Trade in your counterfeit for genuine

But what do you do when you detect counterfeit wisdom in yourself or someone else? Well James tells us what not to do: don’t boast about it and don’t try to cover it up (3:14). But what should we do instead? The exact opposite of these two things: repent and confess! And the more you do these things, the more you will find that the gap in time between sin and repentance will shrink until, eventually, you find yourself stopping before you commit the sin. This is genuine wisdom.

Unlike counterfeit currency, it is always possible to trade in counterfeit ‘wisdom’ for the genuine wisdom. Well, ‘trade in’ is not quite right; what you actually do is to throw away the counterfeit, and go to God for the real deal. In chapter 1, James wrote: ‘If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him’ (1:5). Wisdom is a gift that comes from God – and only from God. No matter how much time you spend trying to increase your knowledge, no matter how old or experienced you are, these things will never be transformed into wisdom unless God by his Spirit does the transforming. And so we find we have come full circle to where we started: a wise man or woman demonstrates their wisdom by what they do… and the first thing they do is to ask God for wisdom!

Brothers and sisters, don’t settle for counterfeit ‘wisdom'; go to God for the real thing!

Bibliography

Blomberg, Craig, and Mariam J. Kamell. James, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008.

Kendall, R. T. Justification by Works: How Works Vindicate True Faith, New Westminster Pulpit Series. Waynesboro: Authentic Media, 2001. Reprint, 2005.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. 20th anniversary ed. New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Penguin Books, 2006.

Endnotes

1. Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, 20th anniversary ed. (New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Penguin Books, 2006), 69.
2. R. T. Kendall, Justification by Works: How Works Vindicate True Faith, New Westminster Pulpit Series (Waynesboro: Authentic Media, 2001; reprint, 2005), 270.
3. Ibid., 271-2.
4. Craig Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008), 175.
5. The ordering here is less likely to be important – in the Greek, the words appear to be grouped in a manner that maximises assonance.
6. BDAG, “ἀνυπόκριτος”.
7. Ibid., 177.

Question

The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, was the birthplace of the modern ecumenical movement.’ (K. S. Latourette).

To what extent is Latourette’s claim justified in terms of the Conference itself and the development of the World Council of Churches?

Abstract

This paper argues that the World Missionary Conference of Edinburgh, 1910, cannot claim to be ‘ecumenical’ in the modern sense, and thus should not be considered the ‘birthplace of the modern ecumenical movement’. To establish this, the Conference is evaluated in terms of its geographical and ecclesiastical ‘ecumenicality’ and found wanting on both counts. The ‘modernness’ of Edinburgh 1910 is then assessed by comparing it with previous mission conferences and subsequent ecumenical movements, including the World Council of Churches. Particular note is made of the imperialism and triumphalism that pervaded the Conference. Finally, the World Missionary Conference is held up to Latourette’s own analysis of the characteristics of the modern ecumenical movement; of his four characteristics, the Conference makes, at best, minor contributions to two and is at odds with the other two. Thus Latourette’s claim that the Edinburgh Conference should be thought of as the ‘birthplace of the modern ecumenical movement’ is shown to be unpersuasive.

Essay

In 1954, Kenneth Scott Latourette famously claimed that, ‘The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, was the birthplace of the modern ecumenical movement.’¹ He supported this assertion by adducing seven evidences that the Conference ‘marked a distinct advance over its predecessors,’² namely: (a) its representative nature; (b) that it enlisted and empowered a younger generation of leaders; (c) its institutional continuity with later ecumenical organisations; (d) its rigorous preparations for deliberations; (e) the presence of members from so-called ‘younger churches'; (f) the network of ecumenical relationships established at and in preparation for the Conference; and (g) its ecclesiastical breadth as a result of its self-limiting of scope.³ Broadly, these may be collected into arguments for the modernity of the World Missionary Conference (a – e) and for its ecumenicality (e – g). These categories also encompass the challenges offered to Latourette’s view, and so form a useful framework for deliberation.

Before embarking upon this discussion, however, it is important to consider Latourette’s assumption that the ecumenical movement ‘was in large part the outgrowth of the missionary movement';⁴ for if this is proven false then the rest of his argument fails with it. The missionary movement largely sees church unity as a means to the end of evangelisation; only occasionally do they acknowledge the relationship operating also in the reverse direction.⁵ The ecumenical movement, on the other hand, sees church unity as a necessary end in itself, with more effective evangelism a happy by-product. The two are related, but not identical as they are aimed at different ends, and must not be conflated.⁶ Yet, with this qualification granted, Latourette’s assumption may be permitted.

Was the World Missionary Conference of 1910 truly ‘ecumenical’? Edinburgh was initially planned as the ‘Third Ecumenical Missionary Conference’, but the word ‘ecumenical’ was dropped in July 1908 to avoid confusion arising from its recently acquired technical sense.⁷ Nevertheless, Latourette rightly argues that the presence of Anglo-Catholics represents a significant advance upon previous conferences, which were largely gatherings of evangelicals.⁸ This feat was achieved by a voluntary limitation upon the scope of the Conference in two important respects. Firstly, it was agreed by the international organising committee in July 1907 that ‘no resolution shall be allowed which involves questions of doctrine or Church polity with regard to which the Churches or Societies taking part in the Conference differ among themselves’.⁹ Secondly, the scope of the Conference was limited to missions in regions that could unambiguously be described as non-Christian, thus excluding Latin America and Russia.¹⁰ These measures were sufficient to quell the of Anglo-Catholic elements in the Church of England, resulting in their participation in the Conference. As J. H. Oldham wrote to John Mott, they had ‘never done anything of the kind before, and I think this marks an important event in the religious history of this country.’¹¹ Yet the Conference remained ‘decidedly Protestant, and broadly evangelical’.¹² There were no representatives of the Roman, Orthodox or the fledgling Pentecostal movement amongst the delegates.¹³ Thus, though it was ‘more comprehensively ecclesiastical’¹⁴ than its immediate predecessors, the World Missionary Conference of 1910 was still far from being ‘ecumenical’ in the ecclesiastical sense.

The second argument adduced by Latourette in characterising the Conference as ‘ecumenical’ is the presence of members of the ‘younger’ churches.¹⁵ Their presence was a ‘breath of fresh air’ that ‘stirred into being a whole series of national Christian councils all over the world’.¹⁶ Though numerically few,¹⁷ these delegates were accorded a status out of proportion with their number; six of the forty-seven public addresses were allocated to them, and all were active in the discussions.¹⁸ Yet most missionary societies failed to fulfil even the modest request from the international organising committee that they include ‘one or two natives from mission lands’.¹⁹ Stanley concludes:

What proved decisive was Thompson’s conviction that the ‘younger’ churches were not yet ready to take their place in such exalted company: ‘I do not think the time is ripe for the inclusion of delegates appointed by the Churches in non-Christian lands in any great Conference such as ours.’²⁰

Thus, the Conference as a whole remained predominantly Anglo-American in spite of individual efforts by Mott and Oldham to the contrary.²¹ Once again, whilst it represented an advance on previous conferences, the World Missionary Conference of 1910 fell short of being comprehensively ‘ecumenical’ in the geographical sense.

That the World Missionary Conference of 1910 fostered and improved ecumenical relationships no-one will deny.²² Yet this too was limited in scope since networks were largely formed amongst Anglo-American evangelicals, the predominant demographic. The major advance on previous conferences in this regard was that the delegates were representatives of the missionary societies rather than missions enthusiasts; thus the relationships formed were amongst those already active in the missionary movement, and so more readily converted into tangible results.

Thus, the Conference was not fully ecumenical in the geographical or ecclesiastical sense. Yet it may still be admitted that Edinburgh was the ‘birthplace of the modern ecumenical movement’²³ if it can be shown that it was in some sense ‘modern’ in a way previous movements and conferences were not. But was Edinburgh 1910 truly the herald of a ‘modern’ era or simply another step (albeit a significant one) along the way?

In establishing the ‘modernity’ of the World Missionary Conference it is necessary to consider the ways in which it has continuity with future developments and discontinuity with past initiatives. Latourette acknowledges the importance of previous conferences, notably in London (1878 and 1888) and New York (1900), stating that ‘Edinburgh 1910 was the outgrowth and climax of earlier gatherings’.²⁴ Yet he argues that the Edinburgh meeting was an advance in several respects. Some of these have already been highlighted, including the presence of Anglo-Catholics and members of ‘younger’ churches, and the limiting of the scope and membership of the Conference. To these Latourette adds: (a) the significant preparation done for the Conference, in the form of the eight Commissions and the employment of a full-time Secretary (Oldham) to oversee them; (b) the enlisting and empowering of a younger generation of leaders; and, most significantly, (c) the organisations formed directly or indirectly as a result of the Conference, particularly the appointment of a Continuation Committee to carry forward the work of the Conference.²⁵

The Commissions were not a new initiative at Edinburgh, but the scope of them was unprecedented.²⁶ ‘Missions were becoming a matter of induction and experiment in which method was everything,’²⁷ and this impacted on the ecumenical movement in several significant ways. Firstly, commission members and correspondents were chosen on the basis of their qualifications, rather than their denominational affiliations, thus promoting an ‘ecumenical atmosphere’.²⁸ Getting people of such diverse ecclesiastical and geographical backgrounds to collaborate was a significant milestone for the ecumenical movement.²⁹ Secondly, the content of the reports issued by the commissions pointed up the need for ecclesiastical unity in order to achieve global evangelisation. Thirdly, this pattern of questionnaires and reports for deliberation by the Conference was adopted by later gatherings, including meetings of the International Missionary Council in 1928, 1938 and 1948, the Conference on Life and Work at Oxford in 1937, and the first Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1948. Thus the World Missionary Conference was closer in methodology to the ecumenical conferences and movements that followed it than those that preceded.

The two names most commonly associated with the World Missionary Conference are John Mott and Joseph Oldham, its Chairman and Secretary respectively. These two men were propelled to a new preeminence as a result of the Edinburgh Conference. In Mott’s case, the Conference came at a crucial time, having recently been offered a position at Yale as the head of a newly reformed Divinity School.³⁰ Oldham’s suggestion that ‘the climax of your life work’ might come from the Edinburgh Conference was to prove prescient,³¹ and Mott admitted that that thought ‘may yet be the determining factor’ in declining the invitation, a decision he made within a few weeks of so writing.³² Oldham himself, though initially reluctant to be part of the Continuation Committee formed as a result of the Conference, was eventually persuaded by the ‘advantages of enlisting [Mott’s] tremendous energies in the service of the missionary movement’.³³ Thus the Edinburgh Conference was instrumental in more tightly binding these two laymen to the ecumenical mission movement.³⁴ Yet it is also true that the change effected by the conference was one of scale rather than direction, for both were already involved in ecumenical missions organisations and (the Yale invitation not withstanding) likely to remain so.³⁵

The Continuation Committee itself was also a notable influence upon later ecumenical institutions. From its actions sprang an ecumenical journal, The International Review of Missions, and the International Missionary Council (I.M.C.), thus ensuring the ‘institutionalisation of communication and co-ordination between mission actors’.³⁶ Yet Latourette’s claim that the Continuation Committee was also ‘in part responsible for the two organizations, the World Conference on Faith and Order and the Universal Christian Council for Life and Work’³⁷ is overstated. Specifically, the assertion that ‘It was as a delegate to the Edinburgh Conference that Bishop Charles H. Brent saw the vision which led him to initiate’ the Faith and Order movement has been strongly challenged.³⁸ There seems even less justification for connecting the World Missionary Conference to Life and Work, since the primary driving force behind that organisation, Nathan Söderblom, was not even present at Edinburgh.³⁹ Nevertheless, it is true that both organisations readily adopted the idea of forming their own Continuation Committees.

One of the strongest arguments against continuity between the World Missionary Conference and subsequent ecumenical movements was its noticeable imperialism. In ruling out discussion of South American mission fields, the Conference relegated the global south to a secondary place, reinforcing the belief that ‘mission was what the West did to the rest of the world’.⁴⁰ Commission VIII reported on ‘the duty of the Church in the West to transmit to the Church newly planted in the mission field as rich and full and complete an interpretation of Christianity as possible’.⁴¹ Newbigin argues that ‘there were strong voices bringing a Christian critique to bear on elements of the so-called Christian civilization’ yet concedes that there was still a confidence in missions born primarily of a confidence in western civilisation.⁴² Mott, in his work based on the Commission I materials, acknowledges that ‘The evangelisation of the non-Christian world is not alone a European and an American enterprise; it is to an even greater degree an Asiatic and an African enterprise’,⁴³ yet this seems representative of his own view rather than that of the Conference at large. This by itself is sufficient to put the Edinburgh Conference at odds with modern missionary (let alone ecumenical) movements.

Further dissonance between the World Missionary Conference and today’s ecumenical movements is discovered in the triumphalistic message proclaimed by the Conference. This is most evident in the report of Commission VIII, wherein the rhetoric occasionally devolves into militaristic metaphors: ‘The work is a campaign of allies'; ‘the Christian forces are confronting their gigantic task without… sufficient generalship’ and so on.⁴⁴ In this Mott shows himself typical, as evidenced by his closing address: ‘The end of the Conference is the beginning of the conquest’.⁴⁵

Thus the relationship between Edinburgh and later movements is primarily one of common personnel and methodology, rather than being organic. This conclusion encompasses also the Conference’s connection to the World Council of Churches (W.C.C.), which came about as an amalgamation of the Life and Work and Faith and Order movements in 1948, and only incorporated the International Missionary Council at the New Dehli Assembly of the W.C.C. in 1961.⁴⁶ Significantly, the first secretary general of the W.C.C., Willem Visser t’ Hooft, in tracing the ‘genesis of the World Council of Churches’, takes as his starting point the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (1920);⁴⁷ he mentions the Edinburgh Conference only in connection with the its leading figures, Mott and Oldham.

In the same essay in which he proclaims Edinburgh 1910 to be ‘the birthplace of the modern ecumenical movement’, Latourette concludes by offering four characteristics of this same movement: (a) it was a movement ‘almost world-wide in its scope’, which ‘embraced both older and younger churches'; (b) ‘co-operation was largely by national and regional units… drawn into a global structure'; (c) it respected ‘historical confessional and denominational confessions'; and (d) ‘Unity was sought not as an end in itself but as a means to evangelism’.⁴⁸ As shown above, the first two were patently untrue of the World Missionary Conference, limited as it was in geographical and ecclesiastical scope; and, whilst the latter two may be true, there is little evidence to suggest innovation in these areas at Edinburgh. On Latourette’s own analysis, then, the Edinburgh Conference is not congruent with the modern ecumenical movement.

Thus Latourette’s argument founders on the grounds that the Conference was not comprehensively ‘ecumenical’, especially when considered in the ‘modern’ sense. Neither the Conference itself, nor the development of the World Council of Churches offer sufficient justification for Latourette’s claim that Edinburgh 1910 was ‘the birthplace of the modern ecumenical movement’.

Bibliography

Bliss, Kathleen. “J. H. Oldham (1874-1969): From “Edinburgh 1910″ to the World Council of Churches.” In Mission Legacies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary Movement, edited by Gerald H. Anderson, Robert T. Coote, Norman A. Horner and James M. Phillips, xviii, 654 p. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1994.

Clements, K. W. Faith on the Frontier: A Life of J.H. Oldham. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.

Dowsett, Rose. “Cooperation and the Promotion of Unity: An Evangelical Perspective.” http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads/t2010paper08dowsett.pdf.

Graham, Carol. “V. S. Azariah (1875-1945).” In Mission Legacies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary Movement, edited by Gerald H. Anderson, Robert T. Coote, Norman A. Horner and James M. Phillips, xviii, 654 p. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1994.

The History and Records of the Conference, Together with Addresses Delivered at the Evening Meetings., World Missionary Conference (1910). Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson, & Ferrier, 1910.

Hopkins, Charles Howard. John R. Mott, 1865-1955: A Biography. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Kinnamon, Michael, and Brian E. Cope, eds. The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices. Geneva; Grand Rapids, Mich.: WCC Publications; W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1997.

Kobia, Samuel. “Reflections on Commission Viii and Wcc.” http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads/t2010paper08kobia.pdf.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. “Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movement and the International Missionary Council.” In A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, edited by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill, 353-73, 401-02. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1954.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1954.

Mott, John R. The Decisive Hour of Christian Missions. London: Young People’s Missionary Movement, 1910.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1989.

Oldham, Joseph Houldsworth. “Reflections on Edinburgh, 1910.” Religion in Life 29, no. 3 (1960): 329-38.

Report of Commission Viii: Co-Operation and the Promotion of Unity. World Missionary Conference (1910). Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1910.

Robeck, Cecil M. Jr. “Cooperation and the Promotion of Unity: A Pentecostal Perspective.” http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads/t2010paper08robeck.pdf.

Ross, Kenneth R. “Edinburgh 1910 – Its Place in History.” http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads_int/1910-PlaceHistory.pdf.

Söderblom, Nathan. “Nobel Lecture.” http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1930/soderblom-lecture.html?print=1.

Stanley, Brian. “Edinburgh 1910 and the Oikoumene.” In Ecumenism and History: Studies in Honour of John H.Y. Briggs, edited by Anthony R. Cross, xxii, 362 p. Carlisle ; Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster Press, 2002.

Stanley, Brian. The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, Studies in the History of Christian Missions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2009.

VanElderen, Marlin, and Martin Conway. Introducing the World Council of Churches. Rev. and enl. ed, Risk Book Series No. 96. Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, 2001.

Visser ‘t Hooft, W. A. “The General Ecumenical Development since 1948.” In A History of the Ecumenical Movement (Vol. 2), edited by Harold Edward Fey, 3-26. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986.

Visser ‘t Hooft, W. A. The Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982.

Yates, T. E. Christian Mission in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Endnotes

1. Kenneth Scott Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movement and the International Missionary Council,” in A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, ed. Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1954), 362.
2. Ibid., 357.
3. Ibid., 355-62. cf. Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1954), 1343-44. In this latter work, published the same year, Latourette also argued that the restriction of discussion to missions to non-Christians, thus excluding missions amongst traditionally Roman Catholic areas, such as South America, led to the Foreign Missions Conference of North America and consequently the Committee on Cooperation in Latin America. This connection, however, is too tenuous to be considered causal.
4. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 353.
5. ‘Christ emphasised that the mightiest apologetic with which to convince the non-Christian world of His Divine character and claims would be the oneness of His disciples. Experience has already shown that by far the most hopeful way of hastening the realisation of true and triumphant Christian unity is through the enterprise of carrying the Gospel to the non-Christian world’ John R. Mott, The Decisive Hour of Christian Missions (London: Young People’s Missionary Movement, 1910), 277.
6. Kathleen Bliss, “J. H. Oldham (1874-1969): From “Edinburgh 1910″ to the World Council of Churches,” in Mission Legacies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary Movement, ed. Gerald H. Anderson, et al., American Society of Missiology Series (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1994), 572.
7. Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, Studies in the History of Christian Missions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2009), 10. The original intention in including the word in the official title of the New York 1900 conference was, according to New England Episcopalian William Huntington, to indicate that ‘the plan of campaign which it proposes covers the whole area of the inhabited globe’ (cited in Ibid., 18.). The Edinburgh planners felt it more likely to be understood as implying that all portions of the church would be represented by delegates. cf. Brian Stanley, “Edinburgh 1910 and the Oikoumene,” in Ecumenism and History: Studies in Honour of John H.Y. Briggs, ed. Anthony R. Cross (Carlisle ; Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster Press, 2002), 96.
8. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 360.
9. Cited in Stanley, World Missionary Conference, 277-8. cf. Charles Howard Hopkins, John R. Mott, 1865-1955: A Biography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 346.
10. Cecil M. Jr. Robeck, “Cooperation and the Promotion of Unity: A Pentecostal Perspective,” http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads/t2010paper08robeck.pdf, 6. Latin America was considered Roman Catholic, and Russia Orthodox.
11. Oldham to Mott, 17th March, 1909. Cited in K. W. Clements, Faith on the Frontier: A Life of J.H. Oldham (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 83. cf. T. E. Yates, Christian Mission in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 29.
12. Stanley, World Missionary Conference, 9.
13. Indeed, many wistfully spoke from the floor of a desire for Roman and Orthodox involvement, notably Bishop Brent of the Philippine Islands, and the Bishop of Southwark. Report of Commission Viii: Co-Operation and the Promotion of Unity, World Missionary Conference (1910) (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1910), 198, 201-2.
14. Latourette, A History of Christianity, 1344.
15. i.e. those churches born out of missionary activity. cf. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 359.
16. Carol Graham, “V. S. Azariah (1875-1945),” in Mission Legacies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary Movement, ed. Gerald H. Anderson, et al., American Society of Missiology Series (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1994), 327.
17. ‘[O]f the 1,216 official delegates… only 17 were from the non-western world.’ Stanley, “Oikoumene,” 90-91.
18. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 359. Indeed, V. S. Azariah’s ‘plea for friendship from the missionary churches of the West was to prove the longest-remembered address of the entire conference.’ Clements, Faith on the Frontier, 89-90. The text of Azariah’s address may be found in The History and Records of the Conference, Together with Addresses Delivered at the Evening Meetings., World Missionary Conference (1910) (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson, & Ferrier, 1910), 306-15.
19. Stanley, “Oikoumene,” 91.
20. Ibid., 93.
21. ‘As Chairman, Mott recognized the few Orientals for whose presence he had labored, perhaps disproportionately.’ Hopkins, Mott, 357. cf. Clements, who relates the account of Oldham’s last minute ‘flurry of activity’ which resulted in securing the attendance of V. S. Azariah. Clements, Faith on the Frontier, 89.
22. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 353, 61.
23. Ibid., 362.
24. Ibid., 355. cf. Report of Commission Viii, 129.
25. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 356-62. cf. Latourette, A History of Christianity, 1343-5.
26. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 358.
27. Stanley, World Missionary Conference, 4.
28. Hopkins, Mott, 349.
29. cf. ‘The frequently expressed conviction that effectiveness in mission calls for unity marked the inception of the modern ecumenical movement.’ Kenneth R. Ross, “Edinburgh 1910 – Its Place in History,” http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads_int/1910-PlaceHistory.pdf, 7.
30. Hopkins, Mott, 336.
31. Oldham to Mott, 13th October, 1909. Cited in Ibid., 341.
32. Mott to Oldham, 21st October, 1909. Cited in Clements, Faith on the Frontier, 97.
33. Joseph Houldsworth Oldham, “Reflections on Edinburgh, 1910,” Religion in Life 29, no. 3 (1960): 335-6. cf. Hopkins, Mott, 359.
34. Others directly impacted by the Conference include William Temple (later Archbishop of Canterbury), John Baillie, Kenneth Kirk (later Bishop of Oxford and Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Oxford), William Manson, Neville Talbot and V. S. Azariah (to whom reference has already been made). cf. Yates, Christian Mission, 33.
35. At the time of the Edinburgh Conference, Mott was serving as General Secretary of the World Student Christian Federation; National Secretary of the Intercollegiate Young Men’s Christian Association (Y.M.C.A) of the U.S.A. and Canada; and Chairman of the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, a body described at Edinburgh as having ‘done much to further the cause of unity’. Report of Commission Viii, 128.; cf. Hopkins, Mott, passim. Similarly, Oldham had previously been a secretary of the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland and of the Y.M.C.A. in India. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 54.; cf. Clements, Faith on the Frontier, passim.
36. Samuel Kobia, “Reflections on Commission Viii and Wcc,” http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads/t2010paper08kobia.pdf, 3. cf. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 372.
37. Latourette, A History of Christianity, 1344.
38. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 360. cf. Marlin VanElderen and Martin Conway, Introducing the World Council of Churches, Rev. and enl. ed., Risk Book Series No. 96 (Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, 2001), 24.; contra. Stanley, World Missionary Conference, 297. Stanley cites evidence from Brent’s diary, indicating the inspiration for the Faith and Order movement did not come until October, 1910, and attributes the mistaken association to faulty recollection on Oldham’s behalf.
39. cf. The list of official delegates in History and Records, 39-71. In his lecture delivered upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Söderblom notes in passing a letter addressed from the Conference of Churches in Neutral Countries to the Edinburgh Continuation Committee, but attributes the formation of the World Conference on Life and Work to the former body rather than the latter. Nathan Söderblom, “Nobel Lecture,” http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1930/soderblom-lecture.html?print=1.
40. Rose Dowsett, “Cooperation and the Promotion of Unity: An Evangelical Perspective,” http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads/t2010paper08dowsett.pdf, 7. Dowsett continues: ‘this almost certainly delayed the development of the mission movement from the global south by decades, and also for a long time hindered the churches from the global south from taking responsibility for the ongoing evangelisation of their own people groups.’
41. Report of Commission Viii, 135.
42. Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1989), 190.
43. Mott, The Decisive Hour of Christian Missions, 191.
44. Report of Commission Viii, 7. cf. Stanley, World Missionary Conference, 278.
45. History and Records, 347.
46. W. A. Visser ‘t Hooft, “The General Ecumenical Development since 1948,” in A History of the Ecumenical Movement (Vol. 2), ed. Harold Edward Fey (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986), 11. On the relationship of the Edinburgh Conference to these three organisations (Life and Work, Faith and Order, and the I.M.C) see above.
47. W. A. Visser ‘t Hooft, The Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982), 94-97. The text of the encyclical may be found in Michael Kinnamon and Brian E. Cope, eds., The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices (Geneva; Grand Rapids, Mich.: WCC Publications; W.B. Eerdmans Pub.,1997), 11-14.
48. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” 401-2.

Question

Discuss the view that Galatians 4:21-31 represents a response to the Galatian opponents.

Abstract

This study examines the proposition that Paul’s argumentation and, in particular, his choice of texts for exposition in Gal 4:21-31 are in response to similar argumentation on the part of the Galatian agitators. After examining the case put forward by C. K. Barrett and others, several difficulties in this position are noted which prompt the reconsideration of the idea that the initiative is Paul’s own. Several possibilities are critically appraised, including recent studies by Susan Elliott and Karen Jobes. As a result, a proposal is offered, building on Jobes’ work, to the effect that Paul in fact chose Isa 54:1 as his text for exposition. On this reading, the choice of the Genesis narrative was conditional upon his choice of Isaiah, and not a response to exegesis of Gen 16-17 by the Galatian opponents. Finally, this proposal is subjected to critical evaluation, with the result that it is found to be compatible with Barrett’s reconstruction, but that it also renders the latter unnecessary in understanding Gal 4:21-31.

Essay

Galatians 4:21-31 represents a significant challenge for exegetes of the New Testament. The sources of difficulty are many. In particular, modern exegetes struggle to comprehend Paul’s hermeneutical method in applying the OT narrative of Sarah and Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac to the Galatian context, or to appreciate its rhetorical and argumentative force. Further, two semantically important words in the passage – ἀλληγορούμενα (v. 24) and συστοιχεῖ (v. 25) – are hapax legomena in the NT. Indeed, confusion about this passage is not limited to the modern reader, as evidenced by the 11 textual variants exhibited in this short passage. Yet even more basic to the understanding of this passage than Paul’s hermeneutic is the reason he selected the narrative of Sarah and Hagar as the basis for his exegesis. Two main answers to this question have been put forward: (1) Paul adopts texts in use by his Galatian opponents; or (2) Paul selects this narrative of his own accord. It is the aim of this study to examine these two options.¹

In 1976 C. K. Barrett wrote an influential essay proposing that Paul’s choice of texts for exposition in Gal 3-4 was actually determined by the texts in use by the Galatian agitators.² On this reading, Paul takes up the texts presented by the opponents, and corrects their exegesis, demonstrating in the process that these same texts support his own position.³ In relation to Gal 4:21-31, Barrett argues that,

(1) This is a part of the Old Testament that Paul would have been unlikely to introduce of his own accord; its value from his point of view is anything but obvious, and the method of interpretation is unusual with him… It stands in the epistle because his opponents had used it and he could not escape it. (2) Its plain, surface meaning supports not Paul but the Judaizers: the Jews, who live by the law of Moses, are the heirs of Abraham and it is to Jews that the promise applies.⁴

In response to the argument put by the agitators, then, Paul argues that Hagar is to be identified not with Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles, but with the agitators’ nomistic teaching. Then, having turned his opponents’ arguments against them, he turns to his more positive exposition at 5:2, indicated by his words ‘Look! I Paul…’.⁵

Many have followed Barrett in this reading. Fung points out that since the manner of OT exegesis found in this passage is not characteristic of Paul, some explanation for its use here is necessary, with the implication that allegory⁶ was the only way Paul could convert the text to his own use.⁷ More plausibly, Longenecker points to the present participle ἀλληγορούμενα (4:24) and suggests that the agitators were the innovators in using allegory and Paul is simply correcting their system of tropes.⁸ He also adds that it explains the use of affirmative particle μέν (‘indeed’) in vv. 23, 24, which signals points of agreement with the opponents’ interpretation. Drane comments that this text would have been one familiar to Jewish controversialists as demonstrating the superiority of the Jewish nation to those outside the covenant.⁹

Barrett’s proposal has great merit, although some qualification is needed. For instance, Bruce argues that the customary interpretation of Gen 16-17 in rabbinical schools would have been to identify Ishmael as the ancestor of the Gentile nations, but no evidence is adduced in support of this.¹⁰ Neither is it clear how this would advance the push for circumcision, since both Isaac and Ishmael were circumcised. More attractive is the proposal that the agitator’s polemical target was Paul himself; thus Ishmael, the son who did not have the law, is identified as Paul, and the Galatian Christians are his progeny.¹¹

Yet even in its strongest form, Barrett’s hypothesis is not without problems. The most obvious is that it fails to account for why this passage is not treated before the shift of direction signalled in 4:12-20.¹² That the Hagar/Sarah narrative should be an ‘afterthought’ is hardly plausible if it was one of the key texts in the agitators’ argument;¹³ that it should occupy such a significant position, as the climax of Paul’s exegetical argument, less plausible still. Are we to believe that Paul did not bring any Scripture of his own to the debate, except in an effort to ‘commute’ his opponents’ exegesis? Even then, the strongest basis Barrett and those who follow him can suggest for Paul’s introduction of Isa 54:1 is a thematic link with the idea of barenness.¹⁴ Barrett’s conclusions, whilst possibly apt for Paul’s use of Scripture in Gal 3, seem less appropriate for Gal 4:21-31. Thus it is necessary to reexamine the possibility that the choice of the narrative of Gen 16-7 is Paul’s own initiative.

Several suggestions have been made. Bligh proposes that Paul’s speech to Peter carries through to 5:13a, and thus 4:21-31 constitutes a rhetorical flourish more appropriate to a Jewish audience than a Gentile one.¹⁵ Barrett notes this hypothesis as his point of departure, agreeing that it gives a concrete setting to the pericope and would have been an impressive conclusion to a speech.¹⁶ However, he also rightly points out that it ‘fails to carry conviction’, since Paul did not call it a speech and it fails to account for the direct address (‘O foolish Galatians…’) in 3:1. One might add that it relegates the function of this passage to being a mere adornment,¹⁷ rather than a part of the argument proper, surely insufficient cause for Paul to depart from his usual methods of exegesis in favour of allegory.¹⁸

Elliott suggests that Paul is constructing an argument targeted at the Galatians themselves, and rooted in their own context.¹⁹ Her proposal is that the Galatians would have understood Paul to mean that Mount Sinai was an incarnation of the mother of the Gods, who was often identified with a mountain overlooking the cities and villages she was held to protect and who would then be known by the name of her mountain e.g. Meter Dindymenē, Meter Sipylenē, Meter Zingotenē, Meter Kotianē etc.²⁰ This ‘Mountain Mother’ held a role in Anatolian culture as an ‘enforcer deity,’ upholding the laws of men and gods,²¹ and so would have been readily identified with the Jewish law and nomism. Further, this goddess was often served by ‘sacred slaves’ (ἱερόδουλοι), including the galli, young men who would castrate themselves during orgiastic rituals in her honour.²² Thus, according to Elliott, we see why the Galatians may have been willing to undergo the rite of circumcision (5:2) and providing context for Paul’s outburst in response (5:12). To be the slave of the Mother of the Gods would have been a real attraction, so the argument based on freedom/slavery in chapter 3 would not, of itself, have been sufficient.²³ Paul’s rhetorical purpose, then, is to show that she is herself a slave, for being the slave of a slave would not have been attractive.²⁴

Elliott’s thesis has strength in explaining some of the distinctive aspects of this passage. It eases somewhat the notorious difficulty of the otherwise bare geographical fact in v. 25 (τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ), which would thus be translated as ‘now Hagar-Sinai is a mountain [mother] in Arabia’. It explains why Sarah and ‘her’ mountain are not named, since this would make ‘our mother’ just another Mountain Mother.²⁵ It may also offer entry points for understanding Paul’s use of στοιχεῖα (4:9; cf. 4:3; 5:25; 6:16) and ‘Jerusalem above… is our mother’ (4:26). Yet Elliott’s proposal has failed to find much support among NT scholars, for a number of reasons. Elliott cites a substantial body of lithographic and textual evidence to establish the basic facts of the background, yet provides no indication of dates for that evidence. Yet even supposing that her montage accurately depicts first century Anatolia, there are numerous problems with her application to Paul’s Epistle. Whilst Elliott’s interpretation brings a measure of unity to 4:21-5:11 with a sustained focus on the broader Anatolian context, it fails to find much basis in the rest of the Galatian Epistle. It also presupposes that Paul²⁶ had sufficient knowledge of Anatolian culture to construct this elaborate allegory to refute it, and that he should be willing to do so under the guise of ‘exegeting’ OT Scripture. Finally, the association of the Mountain Mother with law (and hence nomism) seems too tenuous to bear the weight Elliott gives to it, and it is by no means clear that the Galatians would have equated castration with circumcision. Thus Elliott’s proposal fails, and must be rejected as having insufficient textual basis.

The most persuasive explanation for Paul’s use of the OT in this passage has been offered in an important study by Karen Jobes.²⁷ Building on work by Hays, she approaches the issue by considering the ‘intertextual space’ set up by Paul’s three uses of Scripture in this passage.²⁸ Of particular interest is the quotation of Isa 54:1 in 4:27 which ‘metaleptically evokes the whole rippling pool of promise found in the latter chapters of that prophetic book’.²⁹ Thus, Isaiah speaks of barrenness (49:21; 54:1), inheritance (14:21; 49:8; 57:13; 58:14), seed (6:13; 59:21), the Holy Spirit (11:12; 28:6; 30:1; 32:15; 34:16; 42:1; 44:3; 48:16; 59:21; 61:1; 63:10, 14) and Jerusalem (passim, but particularly 51:17). Indeed, Isa 51:2 is the only reference to Sarah in the OT outside of the Genesis narrative. But this correspondence is more than just verbal – Isaiah ‘provides a canonical basis for at least three points with which Paul later resonates':³⁰ (1) Sarah is the mother, not just of Israel, but of those ‘who pursue righteousness and who seek the LORD’ (Isa 51:1-2); (2) the images of matriarchal barrenness and female personification of capital cities are conjoined to produce two Jerusalems, one barren and cursing, the other rejoicing; and (3) a barren Jerusalem miraculously gives birth as demonstration of God’s power to deliver a nation of people from death (Isa 54). Thus, in Jobes’ words, ‘Paul’s argument in Gal 4:21-31 resonates, not with the Genesis narrative, but with Isaiah’s transformation of its themes of seed and inheritance’.³¹

Jobes’ argument shows great strength, in that it explains Paul’s juxtaposition of the texts from Genesis and Isaiah. This is made more plausible still when considered in the light of Di Mattei’s observation that synagogue reading practices sought to eschatologize the Torah by reading Genesis through its haftarah, or interpretation in the prophets.³² Thus Paul’s allegorical use of the Genesis narrative mimics how Paul may have conceived Isaiah using it.³³ Jobes is also successful in explaining why Paul names only Hagar and not Sarah, since this preserves sufficient ambiguity to allow the Isaianic identifications to prevail. Jobes accounts for the unusual nexus of ideas in this passage – Sarah, Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit – as well as certain parallels between the two texts (e.g. Isa 53:1 // Gal 3:2; Isa 53:2-12 // Gal 3:1; Isa 54:1 // 4:27). In short, Jobes provides a concrete explanation for Paul’s otherwise arbitrary allegorical method, and demonstrates that it is an integral part of Paul’s argument.³⁴

The most substantial objection to Jobes’ position is one that she notes herself: would the Galatians have been sufficiently versed in Isaiah to understand the nuances of Paul’s argument?³⁵ Would the Galatians even have known which slave girl and which free woman Paul was referring to? Evidently, if this was part of the teaching of the opponents then they would, but is Jobes’ reading necessarily dependent upon Barrett’s? In response, Jobes conjectures that Paul is reminding the Galatians of what he taught them during his initial visit, a solution not without problems of its own. Apart from the obvious fact that Paul is not generally shy about signalling such reminders (cf. Rom 15:15; 1 Cor 15:1; 2 Tim 1:6), one may well ask, ‘If Paul has already taught them on this subject, why are they taken in by the agitators’ teaching? What makes him think simple reiteration will prevent it from happening again?’ A more likely possibility is that Paul gave such fuller instruction to the emissary with whom he sent the Galatian Epistle. In either case, it is not at all implausible that Paul’s original proclamation included teaching from Isaiah, particularly when we consider that right in between the text Paul quotes (Isa 54:1) and one of the texts Jobes sees being metaleptically invoked (Isa 51) lies Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the Suffering Servant (Isa 52:13-53:13), a text very relevant in explaining how the Messiah came to die on a Roman cross.³⁶ And Paul includes numerous quotations from these chapters in his own writings (Rom 2:24; 10:15, 16; 15:21; 1 Cor 2:9; 2 Cor 6:17; Gal 4:27; cf. Acts 13:34, 47). The quotations in his Epistle to the Romans – a church he had never visited, and thus to whom he was proclaiming the gospel for the first time – are particularly significant in suggesting that Isa 51-54 formed a key component of Paul’s kerygma.

Thus, Jobes makes a good case for metalepsis as the reason for Paul’s selection of Isa 54:1 as a text through which to interpret the Genesis narrative. But is it sufficient cause for the selection of the Genesis text in the first place? In other words, is Barrett’s reconstruction of Paul responding to opposing exegesis still necessary in explaining Gal 4:21-31? Certainly, the two readings are compatible – the opponents selected Gen 16-17 (Barrett) and Paul selected Isa 54:1 in order to correct their exegesis (Jobes) – and this renders a thoroughly consistent overall picture. But Barrett’s proposal was made in response to a number of perceived problems within Gal 4:21-31, and these same problems are independently solved by Jobes, rendering Barrett’s hypothesis unnecessary. Thus, where Barrett found that the Genesis narrative was selected by the opponents, Jobes opens up the possibility that Paul selected the Isaiah text first and then summarised the Genesis background accordingly. Both provide explanations for describing Jerusalem as ‘our mother’ (4:26) and Jobes provides the stronger explanation for Paul’s allegorical method. The weakness of Jobes’ reading (the necessity of familiarity with Isaiah) is inherent in Barrett’s as well, otherwise the Galatians will not understand Paul’s response. Perhaps the only area where Barrett’s hypothesis provides a stronger reading is in Longenecker’s point that Paul uses μέν to signal points of agreement with the opposing exegesis, but other explanations have been offered for this as well.³⁷

In summary, then, whilst Barrett’s argument that in Gal 4:21-31 Paul is responding to and correcting exegesis of Gen 16-17 offered by the opponents is possible, it is rendered unnecessary if Jobes’ explanation is accepted. The selection of Isa 54:1 was clearly Paul’s (on either reading), and was motivated by metaleptic invocation of a nexus of themes integral to his argument, and thus apt for serving as a conclusion to his proof from Scripture and a sound basis for transitioning to paraenesis in 5:1ff. His method is therefore calculated rather than arbitrary, and is part of Paul’s positive argument from Scripture rather than an apologetic response to the exegesis of the Galatian agitators.

Bibliography

Barrett, C. K. Essays on Paul Westminster Pr, 1982.

Bligh, John. Galatians: A Discussion of St. Paul’s Epistle, Householder Commentaries. London: St. Paul Publications, 1969.

Boer, Martinus C. de. “Paul’s Quotation of Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27.” New Testament Studies 50, no. 3 (2004): 370-89.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Accordance electronic ed, New Internation Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Caneday, A. B. “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured: “Which Things Are Written Allegorically” (Galatians 4:21-31).” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14, no. 3 (2010): 50-77.

Dahl, Nils A. “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure.” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, edited by Mark D. Nanos, 117-42. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.

Davis, Anne. “Allegorically Speaking in Galatians 4:21-5:1.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 14, no. 2 (2004): 161-74.

Di Mattei, Steven. “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21-31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics.” New Testament Studies 52, no. 1 (2006): 102-22.

Drane, John W. Paul: Libertine or Legalist. London: SPCK, 1975.

Elliott, Susan M. “Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians 4:21-5:1 in the Shadow of the Anatolian Mother of the Gods.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118, no. 4 (1999): 661-83.

Fee, Gordon D. Galatians: Pentecostal Commentary. Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2007.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988.

Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.

Jobes, Karen H. “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4:21-31.” Westminster Theological Journal 55, no. 2 (1993): 299-320.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books, 1990.

Luther, Martin. A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: Based on Lectures Delivered at the University of Wittenberg in the Year 1531 and First Published in 1535. London: James Clarke & Co, 1953.

Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 1st ed, The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

Silva, Moisés. Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of Galatians. Accordance electronic ed, The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

Tamez, Elsa. “Hagar and Sarah in Galatians: A Case Study in Freedom.” Word & World 20, no. 3 (2000): 265-71.

Endnotes

1. There are 3 OT texts in view in this passage: (1) Gen 16-17, which Paul summarises in vv. 21-23 rather than quoting; (2) Isa 54.1, which is cited in v. 27; and (3) Gen 21:10, cited in v. 30. (3) Is clearly dependent upon the choice of (1), and that (2) is Paul’s own choice, being of no service to the agitators, would scarcely be contested by the majority of interpreters – so, for example, J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 1st ed., The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 441. Thus, the focus of this study is on the selection of the Genesis narrative as exegetical battleground.
2. C. K. Barrett, Essays on Paul (Westminster Pr, 1982), 154-68. This essay was originally published as “Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in Rechtfertigung (Tübingen: J C B Mohr, 1976).
3. Ibid., 158ff.
4. Ibid., 162.
5. Ibid., 165.
6. Much controversy attaches to the translation of ἀλληγορούμενα in Gal 4:24. The points of contention are twofold: (1) should it be translated ‘is written allegorically’ or ‘is interpreted allegorically’?; and (2) is it more accurate to describe Paul’s method as ‘typological’ rather than ‘allegorical’? For recent studies on these issues, see Anne Davis, “Allegorically Speaking in Galatians 4:21-5:1,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 14, no. 2 (2004). and A. B. Caneday, “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured: “Which Things Are Written Allegorically” (Galatians 4:21-31),” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14, no. 3 (2010). The findings of this study are not dependent on answers to either of these questions, although the findings of the study may be relevant to answering (1). Thus both questions may be left open; in particular, the traditional translations ‘allegory’ and ‘allegorical’ will be used in a non-technical sense that also encompasses ‘typology’ and ‘typological’. Overall, the important thing to remember is that, as Stott puts it, Paul’s method ‘is allegorical, although not arbitrary.’ John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, Accordance electronic ed., The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 121.
7. Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), 219.
8. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed., Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word Books, 1990), 210.
9. John W. Drane, Paul: Libertine or Legalist (London: SPCK, 1975), 39.
10. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Accordance electronic ed., New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 218-9. cf. Longenecker, who says, ‘When one looks into the rabbinic traditions for a similar contemporization of the Hagar-Sarah story in which the interpreter’s opponents are identified with Hagar and Ishmael and so denounced or marginalized, one finds the potential but not the reality—that is, one finds all the elements being present, but not, with only rare and generally late exceptions, being brought together for polemical purposes.’ Longenecker, Galatians, 205.
11. Ibid., 199-200, 07-8, 18.
12. Barrett’s own explanation, that Paul is catering for a Gentile audience and supplying real world examples more familiar to them, misses the different character of argumentation from 4:12 (Barrett, Essays on Paul, 160-1.). Various theories have been suggested for this ‘interruption’ in the flow of Paul’s argument. Notably, Dahl uses epistolary analysis and concludes that 4:12 marks a transition from ‘rebuke’ to ‘request’ (Nils A. Dahl, “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 134.). Similarly, Hansen arrives at a compatible conclusion using rhetorical analysis, arguing for a shift from forensic to deliberative rhetoric at 4:12. His conclusion is that ‘The unity of 3.1-4.11 as a section on its own makes it difficult to see how 4.21-31 is related structurally to that section.’ (G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 143.)
13. Caneday, “Covenant Lineage,” 56.
14. Bruce, Galatians, 222. and Martinus C. de Boer, “Paul’s Quotation of Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27,” New Testament Studies 50, no. 3 (2004): 379.
15. John Bligh, Galatians: A Discussion of St. Paul’s Epistle, Householder Commentaries (London: St. Paul Publications, 1969), 235-6.
16. Barrett, Essays on Paul, 158.
17. cf. ‘For as painting is an ornament to set forth and garnish an house already builded, so is an allegory the light of a matter which is already otherwise proved and confirmed.’ Martin Luther, A Commentary on St.Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: Based on Lectures Delivered at the University of Wittenberg in the Year 1531 and First Published in 1535 (London: James Clarke & Co, 1953), 417.
18. cf. Elsa Tamez, “Hagar and Sarah in Galatians : A Case Study in Freedom,” Word & World 20, no. 3 (2000): 269. Tamez argues that Paul’s purpose in choosing this constellation of texts (Gen 16-17; 21:10; Isa 54.1) is to demonstrate God’s preference for excluded ones. This is not implausible, but is probably not sufficient cause to explain the distinctives of this passage. Nevertheless, it is compatible with other explanations, and is worth bearing in mind as a secondary purpose.
19. Susan M. Elliott, “Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians 4:21-5:1 in the Shadow of the Anatolian Mother of the Gods,” Journal of Biblical Literature 118, no. 4 (1999).
20. Ibid., 672.
21. Ibid., 674-5.
22. Ibid., 675.
23. Ibid., 680.
24. Ibid., 681.
25. Ibid., 682.
26. Or one of his associates, perhaps whoever brought news of the Galatian situation in the first place. Yet no associate is mentioned in the epistolary greeting.
27. Karen H. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4:21-31,” Westminster Theological Journal 55, no. 2 (1993).
28. Ibid., 305.
29. Hays, quoted in Ibid.
30. Ibid., 309.
31. Ibid., 310.
32. Steven Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21-31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics,” New Testament Studies 52, no. 1 (2006): 102.
33. Ibid., 119. This, of course, does not solve the problem of what warrants allegorical interpretation of the Genesis narrative in the first place, merely shifts the initiative from Paul to Isaiah. ‘Yet one does not usually hear complaints that the OT prophets are guilty of using allegorical exegesis; nor is it common to argue that, in their view, Scripture contained a sensus plenior (“fuller meaning”). We simply recognize that the prophets knew how to exploit their literary tradition.’ Moisés Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 164.
34. Contra Gordon D. Fee, Galatians: Pentecostal Commentary (Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2007), 197. Fee writes ‘[T]he most striking thing about the paragraph [sc. Gal 4:24-27] is how unnecessary it is to the present passage itself… [O]ne could very easily go from v. 23 to v. 28 without missing a beat, which suggests that nothing in this brief “interpretive” moment is actually crucial to Paul’s point.’
35. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother,” 318.
36. Indeed, we have at least one account of a God-fearing Gentile reading from this prophecy (Acts 8:32).
37. Longenecker, Galatians, 208. cf. Di Mattei, who argues that it is part of a μέν… δέ construction, for which the ‘other’ apparently never eventuates, thus creating tension and provoking thought. Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 109.

Question

In Part I of The Cost of Discipleship Dietrich Bonhoeffer contrasts cheap and costly grace. Discuss how the context of the Lutheran Church of his day influenced his teaching on cheap and costly grace.

Abstract

This paper argues that Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s teaching on ‘costly grace’ in The Cost of Discipleship was directly influenced by the the context of the Lutheran Church of his day. In particular, the failure of the Bethel Confession of 1933 disillusioned Bonhoeffer with respect to the Confessing Church, causing him to reject an institutional approach to reforming the Church in favour of an individualistic one. His appointment as director of the Zingst/Finkenwalde seminary in 1935 both reflected this attitude and gave it an outlet. As a result, Bonhoeffer taught ‘cheap grace’ as an institutional problem and individual discipleship founded upon ‘costly grace’ as its solution.

Essay

The political turning point on 30 January 1933 [sc. the ascension of Adolf Hitler to the German Chancellorship] would force Bonhoeffer’s life onto a different course.¹

So wrote Eberhard Bethge, friend, confidante and (later) nephew by marriage to Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his monumental biography. A scant two days after Hitler’s investiture, Bonhoeffer participated in a radio broadcast on “The Younger Generations Altered View of the Concept of Führer” in which he offered criticism of the newly instated leader and the foundations of his leadership.² Yet whilst he was concerned about developments on the national political stage, it was the invasion of the church by the Reich that drew his ire; he wrote a paper and a pamphlet on the church’s response to the Aryan clause during this year.³ Thus, whilst his life was irrevocably redirected by the events of 1933, his theology instead grew more focused; as Hanfried Müller noted, Bonhoeffer became from this time a theologian ‘who labors for the church not so much to interpret it, but to try aggressively to change it.’⁴

This new activism on behalf of the church certainly resonates in Bonhoeffer’s teaching on ‘costly grace’ in his most famous and enduring work, The Cost of Discipleship. Whilst not published until 1937, Bethge tells us that this book finds its genesis much earlier, and was given its razor edge by the events of 1933.⁵ The insight of the one Bonhoeffer would later call his ‘pastor’⁶ and who was present as Bonhoeffer put the finishing touches on Discipleship, is not to be ignored.⁷ But is this sharp focus reflected in Bonhoeffer’s teaching on ‘cheap grace’ and ‘costly grace’?

The opening line of the first chapter reads: ‘Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting to-day for costly grace.’⁸ Bonhoeffer explicitly connects cheap grace with the Lutheran church, saying, ‘We Lutherans have gathered like eagles round the carcase of cheap grace’.⁹ The result, he says, is ‘the collapse of the organized Church’ as an ‘inevitable consequence’ of cheap grace.¹⁰ Most stinging of all: ‘We confess that, although our Church is orthodox as far as her doctrine of grace is concerned, we are no longer sure that we are members of a Church which follows its Lord.’¹¹ Thus, in Bonhoeffer’s eyes, cheap grace was endemic to the Lutheran church of his day.

Two things are surprising about Bonhoeffer’s teaching here. Firstly, he nowhere distinguishes between the Confessing and Reich churches. This might, perhaps, be attributed to a discretion required in order for Bonhoeffer to continue his ministry; but this didn’t seem to influence his other writings. More likely, it reflects a measure of disappointment with the witness of the Confessing Church.¹² In any case, his message is for Confessing Christians and German Christians alike.

The second surprising feature of his teaching is that, having identified cheap grace as a church-wide problem, his remedies are predominantly directed toward individuals. He defines ‘costly grace’ in singular terms: ‘The only man who has the right to say that he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ.’ His call is to ‘personal obedience’¹³ and ‘personal communion’.¹⁴ Bonhoeffer defines Christ’s mediatorship at an individual level: ‘We cannot establish direct contact outside ourselves except through him, through his word, and through our following of him’.¹⁵ Indeed, the choice of title for his book, Nachfolge,¹⁶ and the selection of the Sermon on the Mount as the key text for exposition, both speak to Bonhoeffer’s focus on the individual. If he was indeed labouring ‘aggressively to try to change’ the church,¹⁷ his strategy was to do so one disciple at a time.

Two reasons may be offered for this strategy. The first also finds its roots in 1933, with the failure of the Bethel Confession. Bonhoeffer and others gathered in Bethel in August, 1933 and, between the 15th and 25th, worked hard to draft a confession that would clearly highlight the differences between the Confessing Church and the German Christians. He was intensely disappointed when the experts consulted to review the document watered it down to a point where he was no longer willing to sign it.¹⁸ Whilst the later Barmen¹⁹ and Dahlem²⁰ declarations were more successful, it seems that Bethel left a bitter taste in Bonhoeffer’s mouth, making him consider a grass-roots approach essential in combatting the Reich’s influence on the church.

This leads to the second reason for Bonhoeffer’s individualistic approach in Discipleship; for, in the summer of 1935, Bonhoeffer became the founding director of an illegal seminary in Zingst (later moved to Finkenwalde), a position he held until its closure in September 1937.²¹ In this capacity, he was responsible for the training of ordinands for the confessing churches, and his thoughts were inevitably drawn to the discipleship of individuals. It was the closure of Finkenwalde which afforded Bonhoeffer the opportunity to complete Discipleship, as well as Life Together and The Prayerbook of the Bible, three books which ‘take us to the heart of the theological and practical preparation that Bonhoeffer gave to the five sets of ordinands who went through the six-month-long course’.²² As Bethge put it, ‘The Cost of Discipleship was to become Finkenwalde’s own badge of distinction.’²³ Shortly after its publication, Bonhoeffer wrote to his former students that he had

dedicated it in spirit to you all. I would have done so on the title page had I not feared to lay the responsibility for my theology and my ideas on your shoulders… In any case you all know what’s in it.²⁴

Thus it is not altogether surprising that the tone of Discipleship should largely be personal, directed to students facing persecution and arrest.

In conclusion, as a result of the events of 1933, and in particular the failure of the Bethel Confession, Bonhoeffer was disillusioned with the efficacy of an institutional approach to church reform. His appointment to the directorship of the Finkenwalde seminary served to redirect (or perhaps itself reflected a pre-existing redirection) toward influencing individuals. This is not to say that Bonhoeffer had abandoned ecclesiology, nor that he refused to address the corporate church.²⁵ Rather, this paper has suggested that he sought to implement his ecclesiology by first influencing individuals to follow Christ; he sought to solve the problems of the church by calling the individuals who made up the church to a radical and costly grace.

Bibliography

Bethge, Eberhard. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography. Edited by Victoria Barnett. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
———. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theologian, Christian, Contemporary. Translated by Eric Mosbacher, Peter and Betty Ross and Frank Clarke. Edited by Edwin Robertson. London: Collins, 1970.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison. Edited by Eberhard Bethge. Enlarged ed. London: The Folio Society, 2000.
———. The Cost of Discipleship. 1st Touchstone ed. New York: Touchstone, 1995.
Currie, James S. “Christianity and Marxism: A Historical Perspective on the Role of Ideology in the Thought of Hanfried Müller.” PhD, Rice, 1997.
Metaxas, Eric. Bonhoeffer : Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy : A Righteous Gentile Vs. The Third Reich. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010.
Plant, Stephen. Bonhoeffer. London: Continuum, 2004.
Robertson, Edwin Hanton. The Persistent Voice of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bath: Eagle Publishing, 2005.
Willmer, Haddon. “Costly Discipleship.” In The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, edited by John W. De Gruchy, 179-89. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Endnotes

1. Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, ed. Victoria Barnett, Rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 258.
2. Radio Broadcast,1 February, 1933. The broadcast was interrupted before Bonhoeffer finished talking, meaning that his stinging conclusion was lost, leaving Bonhoeffer in consternation the “he might actually be suspected of joining in the general acclaim. He therefore had the script duplicated and sent to his friends and relations with the explanation that he had been cut off, which “had distorted the greater picture.”‘ Ibid., 260.
3. “The Church and the Jewish Question” in the June issue of Vormarsch; and “The Aryan Clause in the Church”. The latter resulted in Bonhoeffer being excluded from representing the German church in London. Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer : Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy : A Righteous Gentile Vs. The Third Reich (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010), 186.
4. Cited in James S. Currie, “Christianity and Marxism: A Historical Perspective on the Role of Ideology in the Thought of Hanfried Müller” (PhD, Rice, 1997), 112.
5. ‘Both the theme and the underlying thesis of The Cost of Discipleship were already fully evolved before 1933, but it is to that year that the book owes its single-minded concentration.’ Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theologian, Christian, Contemporary, ed. Edwin Robertson, trans. Eric Mosbacher, Peter and Betty Ross, and Frank Clarke (London: Collins, 1970), 375.
6. Letter to Bethge, 18 November, 1943. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge, Enlarged ed. (London: The Folio Society, 2000), 115.
7. Edwin Hanton Robertson, The Persistent Voice of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Bath: Eagle Publishing, 2005), 138. Bethge was also present with Bonhoeffer at Klein-Kössin (estate of Ruth von Kleist-Retzow, grandmother to Bonhoeffer’s future fiancée) as the latter put the finishing touches on Discipleship at Easter, 1937.
8. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 1st Touchstone ed. (New York: Touchstone, 1995), 43.
9. Ibid., 53.
10. Ibid., 54.
11. Ibid., 55.
12. See comments on the Bethel Confession below.
13. Ibid., 59.
14. Ibid., 122.
15. Ibid., 96.
16. Commonly translated as ‘following’ or ‘emulation’. It is only in a Christian context that it can be translated ‘discipleship’.
17. Hanfried Müller, cited in Currie, “Christianity and Marxism”, 112.
18. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, 302-3.
19. 29-31 May, 1934.
20. 20 October, 1934.
21. Robertson, Persistent Voice, 132-3.
22. Haddon Willmer, “Costly Discipleship,” in The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ed. John W. De Gruchy (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 173.
23. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theologian, Christian, Contemporary, 369.
24. Cited in Stephen Plant, Bonhoeffer (London: Continuum, 2004), 97.
25. Indeed, he published an important paper in the June 1936 urging to church to be clear in defining its boundaries. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, 517-31.

It is well known that Martin Luther didn’t think much of James’ Epistle, calling it a ‘right strawy epistle’,¹ and arguing that it should be thrown out of the University of Wittenberg where he taught because ‘it doesn’t amount to much’.² His main criticisms were that James does not emphasise the work of Christ, and appears to teach justification (and hence salvation) by what you do – anathema to the man who spent half a lifetime defending the truth that justification is by faith alone. But are these valid criticisms? It is true that James rarely mentions his brother Jesus directly, but we will discover throughout this series numerous allusions to the words and teachings of the brother he acknowledges as ‘Lord’ (1:1).

The charge of teaching justification by works is somewhat harder to answer. After all, James does say ‘You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone’ (2:24) – that seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? I think we start to come near to understanding the solution to this ‘problem’ when we realise that James is arguing against a particular kind of faith – a ‘dead’ faith (2:17, 26). By implication, therefore, there must be a ‘living’ faith which contains and results in certain characteristics, certain actions… and he spends this entire letter telling us what those characteristics and actions are! As has been well said,

though we are justified by faith alone, the faith that justifies is never alone. It produces moral fruit; it expresses itself “through love” (Gal. 5:6); it transforms one’s way of living; it begets virtue.³

I put it to you that if we equate James’ ‘living faith’ with Paul’s ‘faith’ then we find that the two are not in conflict but rather in agreement.

Since describing and defining ‘living faith’ is so important to James, it is and should be important to us also. So, over the next five weeks, we will be exploring what James teaches us about ‘living faith’.

James 1

In his opening chapter, James gives us a sampler of all of the main themes that will appear in the remainder of the epistle. If you’ve ever tried to separate different coloured paints that have been mixed together, you will have some idea what it is like trying to distinguish distinct themes in this chapter; they are all of one texture, and so closely related that it is difficult to tell where one leaves off and the next begins. But if I’m right, there are four key themes here: perseverance in the face of trials and temptations (1:2-4), seeking after God’s wisdom (1:5-11) trusting God in the midst of temptations (1:12-18) and obedience to God’s word (1:19-27).

A living faith perseveres in the face of trials (James 1:2-4)

After the briefest of introductions, James gets straight to work: ‘Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance’ (1:2–3). We don’t know the precise circumstances of the recipients of James’ letter, but we can infer straight away that their life wasn’t one of comfort and security – James clearly expected that they would soon face, if they weren’t already facing, ‘trials of many kinds’. They would not have been surprised at James addressing the topic of trials, but they would no doubt have been surprised to hear his command that they consider it ‘pure joy’!

James is not asking the impossible here; he does not instruct his audience (including us!) to ‘feel’ joyful when we undergoing trials. When external circumstances are against you – you’re out of work, with few prospects; your child is sick and the doctors can’t put their finger on the issue; your finances bottom out and you don’t know where your next meal is coming from – James would not expect you to go about with a maniacal grin on your face. Rather, he invites you to ‘consider’, to think things through and to seek God’s perspective on your circumstances. Above all, he points out that such trials serve a purpose – that of ‘testing’ (or ‘proving’) your faith and building perseverance. It is perseverance that results in blessedness, not the circumstances themselves.

‘Perseverance’ is an important word in James’ vocabulary, and one which will come up again in chapter 5. It means more than just passive endurance of circumstances; it is an active advance in spite of those circumstances. The boat that endures drops anchor in the storm; the boat that perseveres continues on toward the destination. The old saying, ‘What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger,’ though often uttered in bitter jest, contains truth. Often when I was in school or uni, I would come to a realisation that today’s lesson builds on one I struggled to learn last week, or last month; yet ironically that very struggle to learn, though painful at the time, was what entrenched the lesson so firmly in my mind that it could now form a solid building block in overcoming today’s challenge. The same is true in life in general. Struggles, trials and persecutions are powerful precisely because they are so memorable. If today’s challenges had come yesterday, last week or last month they may have overwhelmed you, but because you persevered yesterday, last week or last month, you have grown to a point where you can persevere again today. The end result is that you will become ‘mature and complete, not lacking anything’ (1:4) and you will ‘receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him’ (1:12).

What is your response when you face trials? When you are falsely accused by a workmate, or crash your car, or get bad news from the doctor, what do you do? What do you think? When the storm comes, is it time to batten down the hatches… or to put on more sail? Is your faith ‘dead’ or ‘alive’ when trials confront you? James calls you to ‘consider it pure joy…. because… the testing of your faith develops perseverance’ (1:2, 3).

A living faith seeks wisdom (James 1:5-11)

The final result of perseverance is that we will be lacking in nothing, but in the meantime James acknowledges that we may lack wisdom (1:5). Fortunately he is prepared with a remedy for that too. God-willing I hope to return to the subject of wisdom in two weeks, when we come to chapter 3 and so won’t say too much now, but it is important to note now how wisdom is related to the overall direction of James’ thought in this chapter. It is trials that form the immediate context of the need for (and lack of) wisdom, but not in the way that we might think. Our natural association between the two would be that when we are undergoing trials we require wisdom from God in order to persevere, and there is truth in that. But that is not James’ point. Rather he is showing that perseverance comes first, then prayer then wisdom. In fact, one might even say that perseverance (1:2-4), prayer (1:5) and faith (1:6-8) are all prerequisites for receiving God’s wisdom.

‘Wisdom’ on this context is not about intelligence, accumulated knowledge, practical expertise or life experience. It’s not even about having complete knowledge of the specific contents of God’s will and plan for you. Instead, it is the ability to to see yourself and your circumstances from God’s perspective, and to act accordingly. James has already given us an example of the wisdom granted him when he pointed out God’s perspective on trials, showing that they are developing perseverance and should be cause for joy. Similarly, in vv. 9-11, he explains God’s perspective on poverty and wealth, and the required responses to each.

Do you have this kind of wisdom? If not, one of three things has gone wrong: (1) you have not persevered; (2) you have not asked; (3) you have not believed. Is yours a living faith when you lack wisdom? Do you seek is from him? James commands: ‘If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him’ (1:5).

A living faith trusts God when tempted (James 1:12-15)

James returns to the subject of trials, but primarily as an introduction to the topic of temptation.⁴ Perseverance and God’s wisdom are also the order of the day when faced with temptations. Just as trials lead to perseverance, which results in us being ‘mature and complete, not lacking in anything’ (1:4), so too temptation leads to desire, which conceives and gives birth to sin, which in turn gives birth to death.

When tempted, we are liable to think, ‘God is tempting me.’ Can you see the magnitude of the lie? For, if it is God doing the tempting, if God is somehow trying to entrap us and lead us astray, then he is to be rejected rather than turned to. James quickly heads off this line of thinking, and he is at pains to point out that the source of temptation and sin is not God but our ‘own evil desire’ (1:14). Temptation results in death (1:15); God’s gifts result in life (1:18); therefore temptation cannot be a ‘gift’ of God. Trials are to to be counted as joy, for they are from God and result in life – not so temptations!⁵ Once again, God’s wisdom, his perspective on our temptation, helps us to understand how to respond.

What is your response to temptation? Do you turn away from God, blaming him for sending this temptation upon you? Do you believe that God is secretly winking at your sin? Or do you turn to him, cling to him, confessing that the sin stems from your own evil desires, and asking forgiveness? Is your faith alive, or is it dead when facing temptation? In the end, ‘Not all of us have the same weakness but all have the same responsibility and the same resource: God’s word – the word of truth.’⁶ It is to this word of truth that we now turn.

A living faith hears and obeys God’s word (James 1:19-27)

‘My dear brothers,’ says James, ‘take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry’ (1:19). He then goes on to unpack this statement in the remainder of the chapter, showing what it means to be slow to anger (1:20-21); quick to listen (1:22-25) and slow to speak (1:26). We will save discussion of James’ commands for speech until we come to chapter 3 in a couple of weeks.

My son, Aedan, is 2 years old, and Katrie and I are trying to teach him to be obedient. The first challenge in getting him to obey me, is teaching him to listen to me. When I can attract his attention then half the battle is won. Conversely, when Aedan is himself talking, he is not listening. Hence we are trying to teach him to listen and not to speak when we are speaking. In this manner also we should obey God.
Anger is also an obvious impediment to obeying God, particularly when that anger is directed at God. This is another reason why James has been so clear that temptation is not from God (1:13-15). The order is important here: James says ‘be quick to listen’ and ‘slow to speak’ first, and doing these things will make us ‘slow to become angry’. This is a sign of humility, and one who is humble cannot at the same time be angry; in this way you can ‘humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you’ (1:21).

Being quick to listen, however, is not enough – it must be coupled with active obedience. If Aedan listens but doesn’t do what I say then I’m not likely to be terribly happy. James compares a person who listens to God’s word but doesn’t act on it to a man who stares at himself in a mirror yet doesn’t retain enough memory of what he looks like to pick himself out of a lineup!⁷ Mirrors in James’ day were not the crystal-clear affairs we have today, but were made of polished bronze. Using them, then, wasn’t a casual affair but was always for a purpose, usually remedial. So also with God’s word: we read it for a purpose, and that purpose is that we should do (and keep doing) what is says. If we don’t use it for that purpose, we are either vain (we just like looking), careless (we can’t be bothered acting) or stupid (we can’t see that there is a problem).

As a Bible college student, this is a trap I regularly fall into. I spend so much time trying to understand the parts of the Scriptures that I don’t currently understand, instead of obeying the parts that I do understand. As the psalmist wrote, God’s ‘word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path’ (Ps 119:105), but a lamp is not a torch; it illuminates only a pace or two around me, and I need to take a step before I can see the next step beyond that.

Do you obey God’s word? Do you obey what you understand first, then work to understand what you don’t? Is your faith alive or dead when confronted with God’s word? James instructs: ‘Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says’ (1:22). And he promises that if you do you will be blessed in what you do (1:25).

Conclusion – A living faith

So, James has shown us what it means to have a living faith: perseverance in the face of trials; seeking God’s wisdom; trusting God in the midst of temptation; and hearing and obeying God’s word. Yet the distinctions are largely of convenience, for they are all so closely related that it is hard to tell where one leaves off and the next starts. For instance, perseverance is itself a form of wisdom, trust and obedience; as we saw wisdom is only granted in conjunction with perseverance, and leads to obedience and so on. What’s more, they build on one another: perseverance brings wisdom; wisdom reminds us that God is not the source of temptation, allowing us to trust him; trust in God works itself out in obedience.

So, what is your diagnosis? Is your faith alive? Yes? Well praise God for that! But what if it’s not? What if, after reading all that James has said in this chapter and, indeed, in this entire Epistle, you look at your life and faith and come to the conclusion that it is dead? What if you lack perseverance, wisdom, trust or obedience? This is the good news, the gospel of Christianity! For there is only one who can bring life out of death, and he ‘gives generously to all without finding fault’ (1:5) as he has promised. That one is God, so ask him. What God commands he also gives!⁸ As James says,

‘Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.’ (1:17)

Bibliography

Augustine, Saint Bishop of Hippo, and R. S. Pine-Coffin. Confessions: Penguin, 1961.
Blomberg, Craig, and Mariam J. Kamell. James, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008.
George, Timothy. “”A Right Strawy Epistle”: Reformation Perspectives on James.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4, no. 3 (2000): 20-31.
Kendall, R. T. Justification by Works: How Works Vindicate True Faith, New Westminster Pulpit Series. Waynesboro: Authentic Media, 2001. Reprint, 2005.
Packer, J. I. Concise Theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1993.

Endnotes

1. Cited in Timothy George, “”A Right Strawy Epistle”: Reformation Perspectives on James,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4, no. 3 (2000): 23.
2. Cited in R. T. Kendall, Justification by Works: How Works Vindicate True Faith, New Westminster Pulpit Series (Waynesboro: Authentic Media, 2001; reprint, 2005), 1.
3. J. I. Packer, Concise Theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1993), 160. I have seen a similar quote attributed to John Calvin and John Owen, but could not find it in print.
4. The two words ‘trial’ and ‘temptation’ both translate the same Greek word, πειρασμός, and it is only by context that we can tell which one is intended.
5. Kendall, Justification by Works, 57. cf. Paul’s instructions to ‘flee’ from various temptation in 1 Cor 6:18; 10:14; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22.
6. Ibid., 103.
7. Baker, cited in Craig Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008), 90.
8. cf. ‘Give me the grace to do as you command, and command me to do what you will!’ Saint Bishop of Hippo Augustine and R. S. Pine-Coffin, Confessions (Penguin, 1961), x.30.

Recently Zondervan announced a blog tour for their relatively new series of commentaries, the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (ZECNT). The deal was that they would supply a review copies to those willing to post a review on their blog and their favourite retailer (Amazon etc.) during the week of the 15th-22nd December. Well, being an Australian, it seems that the international timezones worked in my favour for once, and I managed to sign up quickly enough to ‘make the list’! Sadly my copy of Thomas Schreiner’s volume on Galatians¹ only arrived a couple of days before the blog tour was to begin, so my review will be slightly truncated.²

My plan, therefore, is to try and give an overview of the volume, before demonstrating how it might be used by a student to prepare an exegesis paper, or a preacher to prepare a sermon. I have chosen Galatians 4:21-5:1 as a case study for this purpose, being one of the more difficult passages to comprehend in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.

Series overview

Target audience

According to the back cover, the series is ‘Designed for the pastor and Bible teacher'; the series preface qualifies this by noting that ‘Those who will benefit the most from this commentary will have had the equivalent of two years of Greek in college or seminary’ (11). This is a fairly good fit with my own situation, and indeed I had little difficulty following Schreiner’s arguments when discussing the Greek text. Occasional reference to Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics³ should be sufficient for most.

Layout

The construction and layout of the commentary is quite pleasant and easily readable.⁴ Those bearing the scars of having to work through any of the volumes in the Word Bible Commentary need have no fear of suffering relapse! The text is mainly in a single column per page, though it moves to two columns per page for the explanation of individual verses and footnotes. One oddity is that a large margin is given around the single-column text (3-4cm), which will please margin-scribblers, but not around the double-column text.

Structure

The macro-structure of each volume in the series is fairly typical: an introduction covering details of authorship, provenance etc.; section-by section commentary on the text itself; and a final chapter surveying themes of the Epistle.

Each chapter of the commentary proper follows a pre-defined structure, composed of seven sections:

• Literary Context
• Main Idea
• Translation and Graphical Layout
• Structure
• Exegetical Outline
• Explanation
• Theology in Application

I will defer discussion of the value of these sections until we come to the case study.

The commentary itself

Thomas Schreiner has produced a thoroughly up-to-date and lucid commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. His position may be broadly classed as conservative evangelical – indeed, he declares his intentions in his preface:

I know it is out of fashion in some circles, but it seems to me that Martin Luther and John Calvin were substantially right in their interpretation of the letter and than their pastoral application of the letter still stands today (13).

Readers of Schreiner’s more systematic works⁵ will find little here to surprise them, saving perhaps his facility with sustained exegesis.

Throughout the remainder of this review, I will assess the utility of this volume in regard to what I suppose to be typical ‘methods’ for exegesis and preaching. For exegesis, I will use Gordon Fee’s New Testament Exegesis⁶ as my reference point; for preaching, Haddon Robinson’s Biblical Preaching. ⁷ Their respective ‘methods’ may be briefly stated as follows:⁸

Exegesis (Fee)9

Preaching (Robinson)10

Survey the historical context in general Confirm the limits of the passage. Become thoroughly acquainted with your paragraph/pericope. Analyze sentence structures and syntactical relationships. Establish the text. Analyze the grammar. Analyze significant words. Research the historical-cultural background. Determine the formal character of the epistle. Examine the historical context in particular. Determine the literary context. Consider the broader biblical and theological contexts. Consult secondary literature. Provide a finished translation. Write the paper.

Selecting the passage Studying the passage Discovering the Exegetical Idea Analyzing the Exegetical Idea Formulating the Homiletical Idea Determining the Sermon’s Purpose Deciding How to Accomplish This Purpose Outlining the Sermon Filling in the Sermon Outline Preparing the Introduction and Conclusion

Obviously, no commentary will be of assistance at all these points – nor should it be. Yet hopefully an analytical framework such as this will be of some assistance to those reading this review in assessing where Schreiner’s commentary might best serve them, even if not familiar with the specific ‘methods’ referred to here.¹¹

Introduction

Useful for: Fee i, viii-xi and, arguably, Robinson ii.¹²

The Introduction covers the essential background of the Epistle (Author, Recipients, Date, Situation etc.). For instance, Schreiner surveys the debate about whether Paul’s intended destination is ethnic Galatians (the North Galatian theory) or those of the Roman province of Galatia (the South Galatian theory) noting both arguments and counter-arguments. He eventually settles on a South Galatian theory, though he rightly notes in conclusion that:

Identifying the recipients of Galatians is important for Pauline chronology and history, but it is not determinative for the interpretation of the letter, and the meaning of the letter does not change dramatically whether we opt for a north or a south Galatian hypothesis.

Also in the Introduction, Schreiner discusses some of the problems inherent in the process known as ‘Mirror-Reading’ (or ‘Mirror-Exegesis’). Here he largely follows an article by John Barclay,¹³ though he does simplify Barclay’s method – and not necessarily for the better. Barclay presents seven criteria to use when mirror-reading a polemical text; Schreiner retains some, amalgamates some, and discards the rest. The differences may be illustrated as follows:

Barclay	Schreiner
	(1) Explicit statements about opponents or recipients
(1) Type of utterance (assertion, denial, command, prohibitions etc.)
(2) Tone
(3) Frequency	(2) Frequency and Clarity
(4) Clarity
	(3) Prefer simple reconstructions
(5) Unfamiliarity
(6) Consistency
(7) Historical plausibility	(4) Historical plausibility

Thus it may be seen that Schreiner’s method is less rigorous than that proposed by Barclay. Indeed, his points (1) and (3) are largely common sense, and applicable to all NT epistles, whilst points (3) and (4), lacking the discipline of Barclay’s categories, are too subjective to be of great benefit.

Schreiner also interacts with two of the more common methods for analysing Galatians, namely rhetorical and epistolary analyses, giving enough background for students to understand what is at issue.

Themes in Galatians

Useful for: Fee xii.

At the other end of his commentary, Schreiner presents a chapter on ‘Themes in Galatians’. Here he traces several topics as they are presented in Galatians, including God, christology, anthropology, the ‘Truth of the Gospel’, ‘Justification by Faith’, the pneumatology, eschatology, the relationship between law and covenant, Jews and Gentiles, ‘Freedom in Christ to Obey’ and the ‘Danger of Apostasy’. His comments in this section are insightful, which is unsurprising in light of his more systematic works already mentioned.

Having surveyed, then, the framework within which his work is presented, let us consider as an example Schreiner’s commentary upon Galatians 4:21-5:1.

Case Study: Galatians 4:21-5:1

Galatians 4:21-5:1 is, in my view, one of the most puzzling portions of Galatians for the modern exegete. Paul here utilises methods of exegesis that are strange indeed to the modern exegete trained in historical-grammatical methods. It is for this reason that I have chosen this passage as a test case; if Schreiner is able to shed light on the most difficult of passages then, presumably, he will be at least as helpful in less difficult texts.

I will address each section of Schreiner’s chapter on this text in turn.

Literary Context

Useful for: Fee ii-iii and Robinson i.

Schreiner notes that the first imperative (apart from 3:7) in the letter appeared in the previous section, leading us to expect further paraenesis here. On the other hand, he also cites Betz’ argument that this section belongs with the probatio (i.e. proofs in support of the main thesis) that commenced at 3:1. Schreiner grouping it with the former.

The principles of allegory are obviously pertinent to this passage, with Paul explicitly stating that certain elements of the narrative regarding Sarah and Hagar should be taken ‘allegorically’ (ἀλληγορούμενα). Thus Schreiner helpfully presents the distinction between technical definitions of ‘allegory’ and ‘typology’. He renders the verdict that the text is ‘typological allegory’ (293), following Betz. Specifically, he identifies vv. 24-27 as allegory, and the rest as typology. The arguments are presented in a helpful manner, including two helpful references to writings by Andrew Lincoln and Charles Cosgrove that the interested reader might follow up.¹⁴

In my view, the most helpful part of this section is the abbreviated exegetical outline presented as part of the ‘Literary Context’.

1. Introduction: Desertion from Paul’s Gospel Is Desertion from the Gospel (1:1-2:21)
2. Paul’s Gospel Defended from Experience and Scripture (3:1-4:11)
3. A Call to Freedom from the Law and Freedom in the Spirit (4:12-6:10)
   1. Live in Freedom from the Law: Argument from Friendship (4:12-20)
   2. Stand in Freedom: Argument from Allegory (4:21-5:1)

Thus, one can see at a glance that we are dealing with (in Schreiner’s view) the second argument within the paraenetic section, without having to refer back to the introduction as is common in most commentaries. It is particularly helpful for those who, like me, are called upon to preach a passage in the middle of a book, without necessarily having time or opportunity to work through the entire book. In other words, it goes a long way to making each chapter of the commentary self-contained.

Main Idea

Useful for: Fee iii, Robinson iii.

Given how short it is, I quote Schreiner’s ‘Main Idea’ in full:

Paul drives to the conclusion of the argument in 4:31 and 5:1. Believers are children of the free woman, not the slave woman. And since they are now free in Christ, they must not return again to the slavery of living under the law (5:1). (294)

This is very useful for those of us who are deductive (or top-down) learners. With this skeleton of understanding in place, provided it is not accepted uncritically, the exegete will be well on the way to understanding the passage and the expository preacher to capturing the ‘big idea’ of their sermon.

Translation

Useful for: Fee v, xiv.

Here, the author’s own translation of the passage from the Greek text. Each clause is presented on its own line, with a brief description and suitably indented to indicate function. Prepositions are highlighted to show their function in the structure of the text. This last allows those unfamiliar with the Greek to observe, for example, that there is no conjunction between 4:20 and 21, signalling a possible break in train of thought. The overall result is that the text is presented graphically so as to represent clearly the logical and grammatical structure of the text. This is of great value to exegete and homiletician alike.

Structure

Useful for: Fee iv, vi, Robinson iv and possibly viii.

This section surveys the ways in which the textual unit is subdivided. Together with the previous section, this is useful in determining the logical flow and objectives of the passage. In this instance, Schreiner highlights the movement towards the conclusion in 4:31, with a restatement and transition to paraenesis in 5:1. Thus any exegetical paper or sermon that fails to deal with 4:31 will be inadequate.

Exegetical Outline

Useful for: As for the previous section, i.e. Fee iv, vi, Robinson iv and possibly viii.

Some preachers may be tempted to adopt the exegetical outline as their sermon outline also, but this will not always be appropriate. Nevertheless, like the previous section it should inform the final product and the two should at least not be inconsistent.

One thing that caught my eye in Schreiner’s exegetical outline was his description of 4:26-27 as ‘Jerusalem above: free and fertile’ (298). It is easy to lose sight of the ‘barren/fertile’ contrast in these verses given the over-riding ‘slave/free’ antithesis in the overall passage. He then develops this idea in the explanation of these verses, to which we now turn.

Explanation of the Text

Useful for: Fee iii-viii, although v may require supplementary resources as Schreiner rarely comments on textual variants. Thus, while there are textual variants in 4:21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31 and 5:1, Schreiner only comments on the most significant one (4:25).

Here Schreiner offers a number of valuable observations on individual verses. For instance, he brings out the negative connotations of ‘according to the flesh’ (κατὰ σάρκα) in 4:23, and the ‘startling’ nature of the link between Hagar and Sinai in 4:24b-c, although his explanation for the latter is a little vague. ‘Just as Hagar was Sarah’s slave and Ishmael did not receive God’s covenantal promises, so too Israel’s life under the law was marked by slavery to sin’ (301). True enough, but hardly a link the (Gentile) Galatians would have made without further prompting.

One of Schreiner’s most trenchant observations is on Gal 4:27:

Isaiah 54:1 is introduced to support Paul’s argument in Gal 4:26, showing that the Gentile Christians in Galatia are the children of the Jerusalem above, for [304] they are the children of the barren woman from whom no children were expected. Miraculously and supernaturally they have new life. (303)

Here, at last, we have a plausible explanation for the connection drawn between ‘the free woman’ and the Gentiles. This deserves further exposition.

Theology in Application

Useful for: Fee xii and, sometimes, Robinson iii.

This is, in my view, the weakest portion of the ZECNT format in general and Schreiner’s commentary in particular. Whilst the idea – to capture the ‘theological message of the passage’ (12) – is laudable, in practice this section does not always seem to be governed by the intent of the author. As a result, some of these reflections prove orthogonal to the text they purport to exposit, with the intersection limited to a word, phrase or concept. As a case in point, the reflections for the current passage are on ‘Liberation from Sin’ and ‘Living under Grace’. The former deals with the nature of ‘freedom’, but the exposition thereof has little to do with the text. Similarly, the latter concerns ‘signs that we are living under grace’ (309), again boasting only a tenuous connection to the text.

Conclusions

Thomas Schreiner has offered a solid exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. His comments are generally quite insightful, and his prose fluent and lucid. Those undertaking more in-depth exposition of the Greek text, exhaustive analysis of grammar and background, or cutting-edge research in the field, however, will need to look elsewhere as that is not the intent of this series. In other words, Schreiner and Zondervan have hit their target audience, but the utility of the volume falls off fairly sharply as you move to either side of that target.

Who, then, would I recommend this volume to? Seminary and Bible college students will profit by Schreiner’s diagramming of structure and his thoroughly up-to-date pointers to the secondary literature, though the value of the latter will obviously decline with time. For pastors and preachers, this volume will be a reliable guide to the exegetical portions of sermon preparation but, as noted above, your mileage may vary on hermeneutical suggestions – this is, after all, the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series! Thus, if you are looking for an up-to-date exegetical commentary on Galatians from a conservative evangelical position, this volume would be a very good choice.

Bibliography

Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 31 (1987): 73-93.

Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, edited by Mark D. Nanos, lvi, 517 p. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.

Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis : A Handbook for Students and Pastors. 3rd ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Robinson, Haddon W. Biblical Preaching : The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010.

Schreiner, Thomas R. New Testament Theology : Magnifying God in Christ. Nottingham: Apollos, 2008.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ : A Pauline Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2001.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996.

Endnotes

1. Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010). Page numbers from this work will be given in parentheses in the text.
2. I was unable to read the entire commentary in the time allotted; the comments that follow, therefore, are based on my reading of the preface, introduction, chapters 1-3, 8, 17-18 and the chapter on ‘Themes in Galatians’.
3. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996).
4. A sample is available, which gives access to the introduction and first couple of chapters.
5. See, e.g., Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology : Magnifying God in Christ (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 646-62. and ———, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ : A Pauline Theology (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2001), 103-26,307-30 for some of Schreiner’s previous expositions of Pauline attitudes to the Law.
6. Gordon D. Fee, New Testament Exegesis : A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 3rd ed. (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002).
7. Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching : The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001).
8. I will refer back to this table using a combination of the author’s name and small roman numeral e.g. Fee ii.
9. Fee, Exegesis, 6-7 and passim. Specifically, the following steps are Fee’s method for writing an exegetical paper on an epistle.
10. Robinson, Biblical Preaching, passim.
11. Fee xiii may be assumed throughout, as Schreiner is a reliable and thoroughly informed guide to the secondary literature.
12. In fact, in many ways Robinson ii = Fee i-xv!
13. John M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 31 (1987): 84-5. = ———, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 376-8.; cf. Schreiner, Galatians, 32-3.
14. One small detail, somewhat obscured by Schreiner’s discussion here, but picked up somewhat in the comments on individual verses, is that neither Sarah nor Ishmael are mentioned by name in this passage.

Let me tell you about the second scariest day of my life. When I was 17, and newly arrived in Sydney to attend university, I awoke one morning to find that I could not open my eyes because any light brought me intense pain. The day before one eye had been very bloodshot, and I had gone to hospital to get treatment, but was sent home with some ointment, an eyepatch and the doctor’s advice that they couldn’t see a problem. But there was no ignoring it this time – I am reliably informed by a (female) optometrist that this kind of pain is of a comparable level with childbirth, except entirely concentrated in one eye!

I called my Dad, a GP, who drove 2 hours to reach me and take me to Sydney Eye Hospital. At this point I began to wonder whether the cure might not be worse than the problem. On the long list of things I hope never to hear again, the phrase, “Please hold still whilst I take a ‘sample’ from your eye with my spatula,” rates very close to the top! I am proud to say that I held rock steady whilst this went on (and quite possibly for some minutes afterwards) though I did plenty of trembling later.

Why was I so afraid? I think perhaps it was because since before I can remember I have been so dependent upon my eyes for everything I do. Whilst my eyesight is far from perfect, with a bit of assistance it suffices for most things that I would ever want to do. This dependence was brought home to me in the week that followed this particular incident, since both my eyes were kept completely dilated and I was not able to focus upon anything and so I couldn’t read, couldn’t see the friends who came to visit or do much of anything else that I wanted to do… I was reduced to listening(!) to television, and it doesn’t get much worse than that.

Imagine, then, the tragedy of a man born with sight that he later loses, such as Mark records for us. Whilst I was at risk of losing sight in one eye, this man had lost sight in both eyes. (We deduce that he had, at some time, had sight by the fact that he can recognise trees and people when he does see them.) This happened in a society lacking the blessings of guide dogs, braille, text-to-speech computers and so on – meaning that he thus became completely dependent upon others for everything.

Bring your friends to Jesus… and let them bring you!

We become aware of this dependence straight away: ‘some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him’ (v. 22). This man had friends who had obviously heard of Jesus, and the wonderful things he had done. This was in Bethsaida, Peter’s hometown,¹ so perhaps they had even met Peter’s mother-in-law, whom Jesus had healed from a fever,² or one of the many others that Jesus had previously healed there.³ In doing so, they acted in faith, believing that Jesus could heal their friend.

Do you bring your friends to Jesus? If you are a Christian, the best and most important thing you can do for your friends is to bring them to Jesus, making requests on their behalf if need be. I have a good friend who is overseas at the moment, and undergoing an intensely difficult period in his life. Throughout this, I have noticed something disturbing in myself: a frustration that, since he is on the other side of the world, ‘all’ I can do is pray for him, as though that weren’t sufficient. Yet this is the first and most important thing I can do. Were he here, I might run around doing other things, so-called ‘practical’ things, but if I do so at the expense of bringing him to Jesus in prayer then I would be doing him no favour at all.
There is no need that your friend be a Christian for you to bring them to Jesus. There is no indication in this account that the blind man asked to be brought to Jesus, and it is the friends who do the asking. In fact, it is your non-Christian friends who most need the healing that only Jesus can bring! Don’t be timid – these friends ‘begged’ Jesus to heal their friend. Here’s how the conversation didn’t go: “Um, Jesus, if you’re not too busy, could you please, if you don’t mind, give our friend back his sight, or at least some of it.” And it didn’t go like this either: “Oh Lord, who art the Great Physician and healer of all the earth, we humbly beseech the that thou shouldst turn thy healing hand to the restoration of our friend’s ocular faculties…” No, the request was at once both simple and profound: please heal our friend.

Equally important, though, do you have friends who will bring you to Jesus? One of my earliest experiences of the power of this was when I was 10. I had just come to Christ, as part of a Christian holiday camp. About a week later, I was picked up early from vacation care and told that we had to go to Sydney because I had been diagnosed with a life-threatening brain tumour. Whilst what followed should have been extremely traumatic for a 10-year-old, amongst my most precious memories from that period is the feeling of wonder I had at hearing that my church was holding special gatherings to pray for me and my family, and that others were praying for me throughout Australia (and a few in New Zealand). This brought with it a sense of great peace: I had friends – some of whom I had never met, yet friends nonetheless – who loved me enough to bring me to Jesus.

Brothers and sisters, bring your friends and family to Jesus as your first and highest priority – and allow them to do the same for you. The Lord may well have a plan for actioning your prayer that involves you acting, but he is waiting for you to first bring it to him before he reveals what that is. On the other hand, his plan may not involve you at all, as was the case with these friends. Their only contribution was to bring their friend to Jesus. Pray first, then act if necessary – but trust Jesus for the how.

Trust Jesus for the how

What do I mean by ‘trust Jesus for the how’? Consider the specific request these friends made: ‘some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him’ (8:22). They had probably heard stories of people being healed with a touch, and wanted the same for their friend. But when the touch comes, it is not at first a healing touch: ‘He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village’ (8:23).

There may have been a number of reasons for leading the man outside the village. Mark consistently shows Jesus avoiding misguided veneration from crowds.⁴ His mission was to preach the kingdom of God, and healing the sick was secondary to that; and public healings sometimes made it impossible to preach.⁵ This is confirmed at the end of this story where ‘Jesus sent him home, saying, “Don’t go into the village.”‘ (8:26)
In this case, however, I believe the reason is a little deeper. Jesus touches the man in order to enter into the man’s blind world in a personal way, for where sight is absent sound and touch become more important. He leads the man by the hand in order to engender trust, for a blind man must implicitly trust the one leading him. Up until this point, the blind man has been entirely passive; Jesus is encouraging him to engage his faith and trust in Jesus.⁶ To do this, he must leave the crowds (some of whom, no doubt, hoped themselves to be healed), and so we get a little bit of an insight into Jesus, the Good Shepherd who is willing to leave the 99 sheep for the sake of the 1.⁷

Then Jesus spits on the man. This is, to our minds, strange at best and disgusting and degrading at worst. In truth, it wouldn’t have been much less strange in that culture,⁸ although this is the second time in Mark’s gospel where Jesus employs saliva in a healing.⁹ This is almost certainly not what the blind man or his friends had expected when they approached Jesus for healing. They could have taken offence as Naaman did when Elisha told him to bathe in the Jordan to cure his leprosy.¹⁰ But to do so would have been to miss out on the blessing that Jesus had in store for this man.

We don’t get to dictate terms to God. To do so is a form of idolatry, since we make an idol of whatever it is that we want, and we ask God to serve that idol. Instead, we need to bring our needs to God and leave it up to him to decide how to meet those needs. This means that sometimes the results will be very different to what we might have hoped for.

One of the great joys of being a Dad is that I have a legitimate excuse for reading kids’ books. Many are trivial or mundane, as might be expected, but every now and then you come across one that is beautiful and thought-provoking in its very simplicity. Such a book is Claudia the Caterpillar.¹¹ Claudia the Caterpillar looked out at the butterflies and thought, ‘That’s the life for me – I was born to fly.’ After two failed attempts at flying, she brings her problem to God who leads her to the top of the tall tree she had been trying to fly from, and instructs her to climb into the chrysalis he has prepared. Claudia, dismayed, says to God, ‘If you make me go in there I’ll die.’ She had asked God for wings to fly, and the answer was a closer confinement than she currently experienced. It wasn’t what she wanted, but it was the necessary first step to get there. God knew what was needed, and Claudia had to trust him.

This lesson was brought home to me a couple of years ago. A dear friend of mine had been battling against cancer for some years. One particular day, many of us gathered to pray on her behalf – to bring her to Jesus for healing just as the friends in this story did. Late that night I was reading the scriptures prescribed for that day in my reading plan, which included James 5. I read these words: ‘Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up’ (James 5:14–15). Once again I felt compelled to pray that prayer on behalf of my prayer and did so. After some time, I was overwhelmed by a sense of peace like I have rarely felt before or since; I went to bed rejoicing, convinced that she had been completely healed. The next morning I found out that she had indeed been healed… but not at all in the way I had hoped and prayed for. Instead, the Lord had called her home.

Was the Lord playing some kind of cruel joke on me? Of course he was not, any more than he was taunting Claudia the caterpillar by confining her in a cocoon when all she wanted was freedom to fly, or being callous towards Naaman the leper by sending him to wash in the Jordan, or offending the blind man by healing him with saliva. God doesn’t owe us any explanations for how and why he does what he does; instead we owe him our faith and trust because he is a God who cares for us and works all things for his glory and our good.¹²

Brothers and sisters, bring your friends to Jesus (and let them bring you too!), but trust Jesus for the how. And when you do, watch closely, because lives will be transformed.

Watch as lives are transformed

It is at this point that the story gets a little bit strange. Because, having spit and laid hands on the blind man, Jesus asks him what he sees and it becomes clear that the healing is only partial. The man can see, but people look like trees. Has something gone wrong?
The unusual nature of this healing has led many commentators to believe that Jesus is here acting out a parable. If true, this would be in the tradition of many of the prophets who God called to perform specific actions as a means of prophecy. For example, God told Hosea to marry a prostitute¹³ and Ezekiel to lie on his left side for 390 days followed by 40 days on his right side in order to make a point.¹⁴ In this case, the likely target is the disciples, who would likely have been present at the healing, suggesting that they were spiritually blind, have now been given some measure of sight, but will require further intervention from Jesus before they see everything clearly. There is some justification for this as Jesus has just rebuked the disciples for their lack of understanding,¹⁵ and this healing and the healing of blind Bartimaeus form a matched pair framing the journey of Jesus and the disciples to Jerusalem during which he seems to focus on teaching them. However, it is not clear what event the completion of the healing is supposed to refer to: is it Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah in the next section? Christ’s death? Resurrection? Second coming? And so I don’t really think that this interpretation really helps us to understand this healing much better than if we take its plain meaning.

The truth is, I don’t know exactly why this healing took place in two parts. As I said earlier, God doesn’t owe us any explanations for what he does; instead we owe him our faith and trust. What is important to note, however, is Jesus’ patience. He could have sent the man away with his imperfect vision; after all, he is a good deal better off than when he came to Jesus. But Jesus persists, with the result that the man ends up with perfect vision. Mark is at pains to emphasise how well he saw: ‘Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly’ (8:25).
This healing occurred in two stages – and we’re all agreed that it was a miracle. The man couldn’t see, and then he could. But would it still have been a miracle if it took three stages? Or four? What about if it took a day? Or a week? Or a month? The man was blind, right… no matter how long it takes, the result is what counts here! This is an encouragement for us, because whilst some of us may have experienced miraculous healing, chances are most of us will be healed in more ‘ordinary’ fashion… yet does that make it any less miraculous when we are healed? Some of us may be converted to faith in an instant, but most of us awaken to faith gradually… yet does that make it any less miraculous?
Contact with Jesus results in more than just minor course corrections; he does not settle for half-results. His goal is complete transformation. Claudia the Caterpillar asked for her current life to be augmented; God responded by transforming her very nature. This series is about Jesus the life-changer, and we will see the same pattern over and again. Where there is blindness, he brings sight, perfect sight. Where there is darkness, he gives light, light that no darkness can overcome. Where there is death he brings life, and life to the full, life that lasts forever. When he calls, people follow; when he speaks, people are changed; when he touches, nothing can remain the same. He does it in his own time and his own way, but he does it!
Friends, bring your friends to Jesus (and let them bring you too!), trust him for the how, and watch closely as lives are transformed.

Bibliography

Keener, Craig S. The Ivp Bible Background Commentary : New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark; the English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. Grand Rapids,: Eerdmans, 1974.
McDonough, Andrew. Claudia the Caterpillar, Lost Sheep Series 2. Unley, S.Aust.: Lost Sheep Resources, 2006.

Endnotes

1. John 1:44.
2. Mark 1:29-31.
3. Mark 1:32-34.
4. e.g. 1:35-39, 45; 3:7-9; 6:45.
5. e.g. 1:45.
6. William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark; the English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids,: Eerdmans, 1974), 285.
7. Matt 18:12-13.
8. Craig S. Keener, The Ivp Bible Background Commentary : New Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 156.
9. cf. 7:32-37.
10. 2 Kings 5:11.
11. Andrew McDonough, Claudia the Caterpillar, Lost Sheep Series 2 (Unley, S.Aust.: Lost Sheep Resources, 2006).
12. Rom 8:28.
13. Hos 1.
14. Ezek 4.
15. Mark 8:21.

Over the last 2 weeks, we have considered some of the key anchors that have prevented the Christian church from drifting from its calling over the last 2000 years. Two weeks ago, we found that being a protestant Christian was about being justified by faith alone, and that that faith must be in Christ alone. Last week we explored the concept of being a reformed Christian, and came to the conclusion that it meant being convinced of the sovereignty of God in all things, and consequently that the faith which justifies comes by grace alone and that all things are to be done to the glory of God alone.

This week, we will try to answer the question: What is an evangelical Christian?

We start by looking at the importance of Scripture.

Scripture alone

To get a pilot’s licence, you have to get an “instrument rating”. This means that you understand the instruments that your plane is equipped with – compass, altimeter etc. – and are capable of flying your plane using those and nothing else should the need arise. This is important, because otherwise it is easy to become disoriented when flying through fog or cloud. In some circumstances it is even possible for pilots to suffer what is called vertigo – ‘up’ and ‘down’ become confused, and you feel like you’re upright when you’re actually upside down.

To be able to fly using instruments only, a pilot needs the following:

Good instruments: What’s the point in relying on your instruments if they are telling you the wrong thing? Even a slightly misaligned compass can lead you a long way off course.

Understanding: You need to know how to use your instruments in order for them to be useful. You could hand me a compass, or a GPS device, but unless I had been taught how to use it it would be nothing more than a paperweight to me.

Faith: Sometimes a pilot has to believe his instruments, even when they are in direct contradiction to what his senses are telling him.

I believe that Christians, too, need to get an “instrument rating”. Too easily we can get caught up in what our senses are telling us about the world that we are deceived. This is what happened for John the Baptist, when he sent word to Jesus to ask if he really was the Messiah, or if they should be looking for someone else (Matthew 11:2-6).

Jesus’ response serves to remind John of his instruments. First, he suggests that John needs to consider more than just his immediate surroundings – he tells the messenger to let John know about all the wonderful things that are happening. The things he specifically directs the messengers to take note of, however, are particularly important as they are things spoken of in the scriptures as being indicative of the Messiah. Jesus is commanding, “Go back to your Bible and compare what you find there with what your disciples report – then answer the question for yourself.”

The Bible is Jesus’ answer to not knowing which way is up and which way down. When being tempted in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11), it is scripture which Jesus relies upon in overcoming Satan. If he allowed himself to be caught up in his own situation (I love the subtly understated “After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry” (2)!) then Satan’s suggestions would no doubt have seemed like good sense – after all, how could he possibly be any good to anyone if he starved to death? Perhaps it would be easier to accept the world from Satan’s hand as a gift, rather than pay the price to buy it back. But Jesus knew the scriptures and trusted that the words spoken there were truth, even though his senses and his understanding of the world he was in right then and there were screaming there was a better way.

We need that instrument for ourselves. We need to know what the Bible says in order to know what is right. We need to rely on scripture to navigate us through the fog of this life. We need to trust God’s word, even when it seems totally contrary to what our senses are telling us.¹

Scripture is our authority, and Scripture alone.

The Roman Catholic church teaches, to this day, that the Bible can only be authoritatively interpreted by those members of the church in direct apostolic succession, ultimately embodied in the Pope himself. They take this one step further, holding that the teachings and interpretations of the Popes are themselves authoritative and infallible, and a Christian must obey them as the very Word of God.
This presented a problem for Luther. He was fully convinced from Scripture that the sale of indulgences was not consistent with Christian faith, yet the Pope taught otherwise. So either the Scriptures were wrong or the Pope was. Luther sided with the Scriptures. From that point on, he taught that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative Word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and should be accessible to all believers. It is this last that inspired Luther to translate the Bible into German – he wanted every German man, woman and child to be able to read it, rather than just those priests and monks who had been specially trained in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It is in large part because of his example that we can read from the Scriptures in English tonight.

‘Authority’ is a funny thing. Authority comes from influence, and influence comes from time spent. Our worldview is both formed and informed by the people we spend our time with. When we are young, we spend most of our time with our family, and Mum and Dad are the key authorities on everything. Then we start school, and suddenly Teacher knows everything and if Teacher says something contrary to what Mum or Dad says, who do you think we side with? As adolescence draws near, all of a sudden our peers know best, and so it goes.

This is true not just of people, but of other things. Most of us are probably not aware of how much our thoughts on a huge range of subjects are shaped by television, the internet, advertising an so on. In 2004, a study was conducted into how boys and girls in school years 6, 8 and 10 spend their ‘sedentary recreation’. Small screen recreation, by far the largest contributor, includes activities like television watching, video games, computer use and so on.²

Is it any wonder then that when the world goes looking for answers on spiritual matters, they turn to those same people and things? They ask Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Phil and others, whose strategy is always to try and convert time into influence and influence into authority. They surf the internet, because that is where they go looking for other kinds of ‘information’, blind to the bias and colour they encounter there.

Let me ask you: Where is your time spent? What things are influencing you? Who are your ‘authorities’? Where does God fit into all of this? If you are not spending time with God then there is no point kidding yourself that he is an influence let alone an authority in your life. We cannot leave it to our pastors or elders, we cannot rely on ‘professional’ Christians; each of us is responsible for our own relationship with God, and thus each of us must be spending time with him.

Practically, this means reading, meditating on, praying and, finally, living the Scriptures.³

Reading is the first and most fundamental stage. If this does not happen then none of the other stages will happen either. Let me encourage you to make a plan to read the Bible, because I find that unless I plan it it doesn’t happen. Block out some portion of your day or week when you are able to consistently spend time reading God’s word. Try to pick a time when you are at your most alert; give God your best, rather than the dregs that are left over at the end of the day, or post-lunch or whenever.

Meditation is the act of internalising Scripture. Christian meditation is not like eastern meditation, where the goal is to empty the mind and focus on nothing. Christian meditation is about focusing on a particular Scripture. The apostle John gives us an image of this in Revelation 10:9-10, where he speaks of being told to take a scroll containing the words of God and eating it. As Eugene Peterson writes,

the reading that John is experiencing is not of the kind that equips us to pass an examination. Eating a book takes it all in, assimilating it into the tissues of our lives. Readers become what they read. If Holy Scripture is to be something other than mere gossip about God, it must be internalized… The angel does not instruct St. John to pass on information about God; he commands him to assimilate the word of God so when he does speak it will express itself artlessly in his syntax just as the food we eat, when we are healthy, is unconsciously assimilated into our nerves and muscles and put to work in speech and action.⁴

One of the best ways of accomplishing this is through memorisation. I know all too well that some people find this much easier than others – I find it difficult myself. I like to tell people that I have a photographic memory… and no film for the camera! Nevertheless, the Lord amply rewards any time spent in memorising Scripture. We are told frequently in the Psalms, for example, that ‘Blessed is the man… [whose] delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night’ (Ps 1:1-2).

When we commit to meditation, we find that it naturally affects the way we worship, pray and live. As noted evangelical Christian John Stott notes,

God must speak to us before we have any liberty to speak to him. He must disclose to us who he is before we can offer him what we are in acceptable worship. The worship of God is always a response to the Word of God. Scripture wonderfully directs and enriches our worship.⁵

Psalm 119:11 says, ‘I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you’. Another author writes that ‘Throughout Scripture, the word of God is fundamental to a genuine engagement with him.’⁶

These stages of internalising Scripture are described by a 12th Century monk called Guigo the Second:

Reading… puts the solid food in our mouths, meditation chews it and breaks it down, prayer obtains the flavour of it and contemplation is the very sweetness which makes us glad and refreshes us.⁷

Most importantly, at every step along the way, you should always ask: ‘How does this text point to Jesus?’ Jesus rebuked the Pharisees – masters of the Old Testament Scriptures – because they did not recognise that the Scriptures were all about him. ‘You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.’ (John 5:39-40)

So, if we are to be evangelical, then, we must first ensure that Scripture is our prime authority. This requires that we devote time to reading and meditating, because time naturally becomes influence, and influence becomes authority. And when that happens, it will be reflected in changed prayers, worship and lives.

But an emphasis on Scripture is only half of the evangelical story; the other half is the importance of the gospel in all Christian theology.

The gospel is central

How do you think of the gospel? If you’re a Christian, then chances are you fall into one of three camps. The first group think of the gospel as the first step on a staircase that leads to spiritual maturity. You take that first step, master the gospel, then move on to bigger and better things. The second group are a little less linear, rejecting the idea of a sequence of steps to be walked in order. Instead, they think of the gospel as the doorway to a building containing lots of different rooms. After walking through the doorway, you can go to whichever room most interests you: perhaps a little bit of teaching about spiritual gifts; perhaps some church history; go and knock off some of the rough edges in your life through sanctification and so on. The Christian will be mature when he or she has visited all the rooms in the building, but having entered there is no need to re-visit the doorway except to invite others in.

For evangelical Christians the story is different. Rather than the first step or the doorway, they think of the gospel as the hub of a wheel. All other Christian teaching sits around the edges of the wheel, but it relies upon the spokes connecting it to the hub – the gospel. Or, to change the metaphor, the doctrines of the Christian faith are like facets of a diamond, but the gospel is the diamond itself. Christian theology is about expressing the gospel in as many different ways as we can, because all of these ways are necessary to understand the true glory and splendour of the gospel.

What does this mean in practice? It means that you should be able to see the link between what you are being taught – whether by preachers, elders, Bible study leaders or whoever – and the gospel. If you can’t, push your teacher to show how their teaching is connected to the gospel. If they can’t, then it’s time to be suspicious because what is being taught is at best secondary, and at worst un-Christian.

For example, some years ago, I went to see a Christian artist by the name of Steven Curtis Chapman in concert here in Sydney. After he played, the rest of the night was given over to a preacher whose name is well known in Christian circles. At the end of the message, I was disappointed to realise that he had not mentioned Jesus once all night, nor had he connected anything he said to the gospel. In fact, had he substituted the word, ‘nature’ every time he spoke about ‘God’ his message would have been just as valid. This was not an evangelical message – in fact, I would say it was not even a Christian message. It was simply a collection of self-help recommendations. Suffice it to say that I was extremely disappointed that Steven Curtis Chapman only got to play for 20mins (the first time in Sydney in 20 years!), whilst the preacher spoke for over an hour!

So, in order to avoid making the same mistake myself, I would like to spend these last few minutes connecting the ideas we have explored over the last few weeks back to the gospel.
The word gospel is a translation of the Greek εὐαγγελιον (from which we also get the word evangelical!) which means ‘good news’. For a teaching to be connected to the gospel it must first be ‘good news’.

For example, two weeks ago we learned that we are saved by faith alone. This is good news, because it means that we are not reliant upon the things that we are or do in order to be saved. Instead, we need only trust in what God has done for us to be saved. Justification comes by faith alone… and this is the gospel!

The object of our trust is Jesus Christ alone. This is good news because he, and he alone, is the only one both capable and reliable enough to be worthy of our trust. If our faith had to be placed in some lesser object, that would be terrible news because our faith would then be in something either incapable of saving us, or unreliable… or, most likely, both! Christ alone is our saviour… and this is the gospel!

Last week we learned that even that faith in Christ is itself a gift of God. This is great news, because if we had any opportunity to screw up then we could not be sure of our salvation. If the faith came from us, what is to stop it disappearing as quickly as it arrived? And what would be the point in praying for the salvation of the unsaved, since God would be hampered by whether or not that person were able to muster the faith to believe. As it is, faith – and so salvation – comes by God’s grace alone… and this is the gospel!

A consequence of this is that all glory is to go to God alone. This is fantastic news for us, because we know that God’ glory is ultimately found in Jesus’ saving work on our behalf… in our salvation! God will not allow that glory to be lessened by having us snatched out of his hand. Glory is to be given to God alone… and this is the gospel!

Finally, this week we have spoken about authority that comes from Scripture alone. This is excellent news, because in the Scripture God has revealed himself, his son, and the way we can be saved. In short, he reveals all of the other things that we have spoken about over these three weeks. Scripture alone is to be our authority… and this is the gospel!

In other words, these five things – faith alone, Christ alone, grace alone, the glory of God alone, and Scripture alone – are the anchors which have held the Christian faith over the last 2000 years. But they in turn are held by the anchor of the gospel. The gospel is the hub at the centre of the wheel. They are all facets of the same diamond – the gospel. And that is very good news.

That is why I am an evangelical Christian… and why I hope you will be too.

Bibliography

Booth, Michael, NSW Centre for Overweight and Obesity, and New South Wales. Dept. of Health. “Nsw Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (Spans) 2004 Full Report.” In Shpn 060056. Sydney, N.S.W.: NSW Dept. of Health, 2006.
Kauflin, Bob. Worship Matters: Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.
Peterson, David. Engaging with God : A Biblical Theology of Worship. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Peterson, Eugene H. Eat This Book : A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006.

Endnotes

1. There are a couple of things to avoid when reading Scripture, common mistakes that people make. Firstly, don’t allow yourself to get too bogged down in things that are difficult to understand. The more you read and understand of the things that are clear, and in particular the more you respond in obedience to the things you learn, the more God will reveal of the other things. Secondly, don’t try and shape Scripture to fit your experience. ‘Our experience is too small; it’s like trying to put the ocean in a thimble. What we want is to fit into the world revealed by Scripture, to swim in this vast ocean.’ [Eugene H. Peterson, Eat This Book : A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006), 68.] Thirdly, let the Bible say what it says, without trying smooth over the ‘rough edges’, the things you don’t agree with, or which don’t fit easily into your world-view.
2. Michael Booth, NSW Centre for Overweight and Obesity, and New South Wales. Dept. of Health, “Nsw Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (Spans) 2004 Full Report,” in Shpn 060056 (Sydney, N.S.W.: NSW Dept. of Health, 2006), 57.
3. Peterson, Eat This Book, 91.
4. Ibid., 20.
5. John Stott, cited in Bob Kauflin, Worship Matters : Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008), 91.
6. David Peterson, Engaging with God : A Biblical Theology of Worship (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 286.
7. Peterson, Eat This Book, fn.