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.

Question

How much evidence is there in 1 Corinthians that a distorted eschatology lies behind the errors and excesses of the Corinthian church? What do we learn from 1 Corinthians concerning Paul’s own eschatological perspective?

Abstract

This paper posits an ‘over-realised’ eschatology in Corinth as foundational to many of the errors and excesses observed and addressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians. The evidence for this position is presented, largely following the work of Thiselton,¹ and defended against the competing claim of Hays that the Corinthians suffered from a lack of eschatological thinking rather than an overabundance.² This over-realized eschatology is then connected to many of the errors and excesses on view in 1 Corinthians, particularly those associated with their pneumatic enthusiasm. A second stream of eschatological distortion, a denial of future bodily resurrection based on a Hellenistic dualism, is then identified. This is tied to the errors and excesses of the libertines and ascetics in chapters 5-7. Throughout, the Apostle’s own eschatological position is traced, and found to reflect a dialectical tension between that which is and that which will be: the age to come is inaugurated in the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and this brings attendant blessings; but the present age has not yet passed away, nor will it do so until all things (including death) are placed under Christ’s feet.

Essay

The Apostle Paul uses eschatological language throughout his first epistle to the Corinthians, starting in his opening prayer (1:7-9) and eventually climaxing in his sustained defence of a bodily resurrection (15:1-58). He frequently stresses future events as a basis for present action (4:5; 6:2, 9; 7:29-31; 11:26, 32; 15:58). In fact, this very stress on future events (as future events) has led numerous scholars to posit the presence of an eschatological distortion in the Corinthian church, which Paul attempts to correct in this epistle. The most common such reconstruction is that of an ‘over-realised’ eschatology, in which the Corinthians saw themselves as already living in the eschatological kingdom. This view boasts support from impressive array of scholars, including Barrett, Thiselton, Mearns, Fee and Witherington.³ Recent years, however, have seen the rise of a new theory, offered by scholars such as Hays (1997), Horsley (1997), and Wright (2003).⁴ This reconstruction suggests that the Corinthian problem was not one of too much eschatology, but rather too little. In spite of Wright’s confident assertion that ‘[m]any scholars have come round’ and that the earlier reading is ‘increasingly abandoned’, this latter is still by far the minority reading.⁵ The works of Thiselton and Hays may be considered representative of these two viewpoints, and will usefully serve as touchstones for the following comparison.

In his landmark article, Thiselton lays out the evidence for an over-realised eschatology in Corinth by showing that it provides a ‘single common factor which helps to explain an otherwise diverse array of apparently independent problems at Corinth’.⁶ Thus, he detects in chapters 1-4 a Corinthian party challenging the need for spiritual leadership now that all believers have the Spirit;⁷ an anti-nomian party in chapters 5-10;⁸ the Lord’s Supper interpreted as an eschatological banquet in chapter 11;⁹ eschatologically driven pneumatic enthusiasts in chapters 12-14;¹⁰ and a denial of a future bodily resurrection in chapter 15.¹¹ Repeatedly, on Thiselton’s reading, Paul urges the Corinthians to remember that significant aspects of the eschatological kingdom remain yet future. Christ will return (1:7-9; 11:26; 15:23) and it is in his wake that resurrection (15:23), judgement and reward (3:10-15; 4:5; 6:2, 9; 9:24-27; 11:32), perfect knowledge and wisdom (4:8-13; 8:2; 13:2) will follow.

Hays offers a number of criticisms of Thiselton’s reconstruction.¹² He accuses Thiselton of basing his hypothesis on ‘an improbable construction about Gnosticism in Corinth’,¹³ although Thiselton explicitly denies this in a later work.¹⁴ Hays’ primary criticism, however, is that Thiselton’s case rests on only two substantive texts (4:8 and 15:12).¹⁵ The rest, he says, is merely repeatedly showing that Paul appeals to future eschatology in order to correct the Corinthians’ behaviour, but this does not prove a realised eschatology. Hays’ criticism is undermined by his imprecise characterisation of Thiselton’s position,¹⁶ yet he is correct in his analysis of Thiselton’s exegetical support. 1 Corinthians 4:8 and 15:12 are the key texts upon which Thiselton’s case hangs.

Over against this position, Hays offers two theses: (a) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthians to think eschatologically; and (b) Paul wanted the Corinthians to reshape their identity in the light of Israel’s Scripture.¹⁷ Of these the first is directly relevant to the present discussion, for it implies that the Corinthians did not have any concept of an eschaton to start with, whereas a realised or over-realised eschatology necessarily presupposes such an eschatological framework.¹⁸ Instead, Hays posits that the Corinthians drew upon non-eschatological Greco-Roman culture, and specifically popular Cynic and Stoic thought.¹⁹ In support of this he reads πάντα ἔξεστιν (10:23) as a Corinthian slogan reflecting the belief that the σοφός is free to do whatever he wishes for he possesses knowledge to choose.²⁰ On Hays’ reading, then, the source of freedom is wisdom and knowledge. But it may be argued in response that wisdom and knowledge were themselves considered eschatological gifts (cf. 12:8; 13:12b). Paul says that, when they were called, not many amongst the Corinthians were σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα (1:26), and the implication is that if they are now wise they are σοφοὶ κατὰ πνεῦμα. Hays has not disproved eschatological thinking in Corinth but may rather have identified a means by which it may have been expressed in the language of the contemporary culture.

Both sides claim 4:8 as positive evidence for their respective positions, and so this is the obvious place to begin comparing them. 1 Corinthians 4:8-13 represents biting irony on the part of the Apostle, made apparent by the emphatic ἤδη at the start of the first two statements.²¹ The difficulty lies in discerning Paul’s purpose in using such irony. Lincoln is here representative of the over-realised eschatology reading, arguing that the Corinthians believed themselves to be living – indeed, ruling (4:8) – in the eschatological kingdom, and thus the beneficiaries of the Spirit and attendant charismatic gifts.²² Hays concedes that they were ‘suffering from an excess of pride and self-satisfaction’ but responds that ‘there are other ways to arrive at such a state besides having an accelerated apocalyptic timetable.’²³ In support of this, he points out that claims to be rich and to reign were made by both Cynic and Stoic philosophers.²⁴ Witherington goes further, citing numerous specific instances.²⁵ Importantly, however, he does not find this insight incompatible with the over-realised eschatology reading.²⁶ In fact, in noting the presence of an imperial eschatology in Corinth he may well have suggested the idea linking the two.²⁷

Fee points out that the three verbs chosen – κεκορεσμένοι, ἐπλουτήσατε and ἐβασιλεύσατε – directly attack both the Corinthians’ pride in general and specifically their view of spirituality.²⁸ The aorist tenses of the latter two suggest eschatological fulfilment.²⁹ They believed that all gifts had been given and were enthusiastically exercising them to the exclusion of all else. This led to significant errors and excesses, such as arrogance (4:18), flirting with idolatry (8:9-13; 10:14-17), a ‘magical’ view of the sacraments (10:1-6; 11:28-30; 15:29)³⁰ and an exalted view of the χαριματα that precluded a need for others (12:21). They believed that by the Spirit, and especially the gift of tongues, they already spoke the language of the angels, the language of heaven (13:1).³¹ This last is particularly important, since it highlights a significant weakness in Hays’ reconstruction: it is unable to account for the evident pneumatic enthusiasm in Corinth. If the source of the Corinthian excesses and errors lies in their Stoic knowledge and wisdom, how did they understand the presence of the Spirit and the charismatic gifts? It is difficult to conceive of a Christian pneumatology not derived from eschatology; 1:7 suggests that Paul made an explicit connection between the two,³² whilst 13:1 may suggest the Corinthians did also. Thus Thiselton’s conjectured over-realised eschatology is to be preferred as it brings coherence to more of the overall epistle than does Hays’.

Paul attempts to correct both the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ of the Corinthian position. He does this by emphasising the contrast with the acknowledged leaders of the church, the apostles, for whom suffering was a present and continuing reality (4:9-13).³³ He also reminds them later on that they are in a race not yet completed (9:24f.) and that they do not yet know as they ought (8:2; 13:8-10). On the subject of spiritual gifts and spirituality, he explains that they are not of the same order as those that characterise the eschatological kingdom, though they may herald it; they will not be needed in the age to come.³⁴ The only thing with abiding significance is love (13:8). As Thiselton writes, ‘Paul’s futurist perspective… is not only to qualify an over-realized eschatology at Corinth; it also represents an anti-enthusiastic stance’.³⁵

According to Paul, Christians live at the intersection of two ages: the proof that the new has come is the availability of eschatological gifts (1:7; 4:7);³⁶ the proof that the old is not yet gone is the continuing presence of affliction and death (4:9-13).³⁷ The Corinthians evidently think of themselves as having commenced life and reign in a kingdom (whether eschatological or otherwise) as evidenced by the repeated ingressive aorist ἐβασιλεύσατε (4:8, twice).³⁸ Paul instead points to a kingdom inaugurated but not yet consummated.³⁹ Similarly, the Apostle’s response in 15:54-57 suggests that the Corinthians made much of the ‘victorious’ life, so that Paul had to point to a victory still future.⁴⁰ The kingdom is inaugurated by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, but will only be consummated when the full and final victory is won and every enemy is placed under his feet (15:25).⁴¹ And the last such enemy is death (15:26).

Death, or rather life after death, is the subject of another Corinthian eschatological distortion. That this is proved by 15:12 – ‘some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead’ – is not seriously contested by scholars. This is as far as the consensus goes, however, with the exact nature of the distortion hotly debated. Reconstructions are legion, but most commentators posit one or more of the following as Corinthian beliefs: (a) there is no life after death; (b) the resurrection has already occurred; (c) their Hellenistic dualism precluded belief in a bodily resurrection.⁴² To the first, Barrett objects that they could not have been considered Christians – ἐν ὑμῖν (15:12) – and hold such a belief. Mearns raises the possibility that this is Paul’s (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of the Corinthian position, but his case is unpersuasive.⁴³ Of the second there are many variant readings. Schweitzer argued that the Corinthians believed the Jewish notion that only those alive at the Parousia would enter the kingdom, and the corollary that those alive at the coming of the Messiah (a past event in their eyes) would enter the kingdom; thus, since they were alive at his appearing they must now have gone through the resurrection event (baptismal regeneration) and be living in the Messianic kingdom.⁴⁴ Davies argues against this, pointing out that there were unlikely to be such ultra-conservative Jews in Corinth, and that there are other far more plausible explanations.⁴⁵ Instead, Davies endorses Héring’s view that there was no need for resurrection, as they were already experiencing the blessings of the kingdom.⁴⁶ Mearns develops this further, suggesting that they believed the mechanism by which they were transferred into the kingdom was through baptism, and thus the Corinthians interpreted resurrection as a metaphor for baptism,⁴⁷ whilst both Fee and Lincoln suggest that the Corinthians’ magical view of baptism and eucharist was such as for them to preclude the possibility of death altogether.⁴⁸ Thiselton argues strongly against all of these, on the grounds that they could hardly have misconstrued Paul so thoroughly after he lived with them for 18 months.⁴⁹

The third main view, that the Corinthians were possessed of a Hellenistic dualism that held a low view of the body, is the majority view.⁵⁰ Such a preconception would cause a natural resistance to the new (to them) idea of a bodily resurrection.⁵¹ As Davies puts it, ‘it was escape from the body, not any future reunion with it in resurrection, that seemed desirable to the Hellenistic world owing to its particular anthropology’.⁵² The main textual evidence for this is that the apostle devotes substantial energy in 15:35-49 towards answering the questions: πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί; and ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται; (15:35). Wright is persuasive in his argument that these are distinct, though related, questions.⁵³ On his reading, the first question pertains to the mechanism by which resurrection is accomplished (the Spirit) and the second relates to the nature of the post-resurrection existence.⁵⁴ The most attractive aspect of Wright’s hypothesis is the neatness of Paul’s use of σῶμα πνευματικόν as an answer to both questions. Ultimately, however, the syntax of 15:35 mandates against this as it would require δέ to function in a correlative manner without a corresponding μέν (or οὐ).⁵⁵ Thus the more natural reading is to take the second question as a specification of the first, with δέ functioning in a more mundane connective manner.⁵⁶ Thus Robertson and Plummer capture the sense of the first question in their paraphrase, ‘Can we conceive of such a thing? We cannot be expected believe what is impossible and inconceivable’.⁵⁷ In either case, judging by Paul’s response the emphasis seems to be on the second question: ‘With what kind of body do they [the dead who are raised] come?’ (15:35, NRSV). The nature of the anticipated objection is suggestive that Paul believed the Corinthians would not accept a future bodily resurrection.

In addition to denying the resurrection, the Corinthian disparagement of the body apparently led to errors and excesses in two other directions. Firstly, a party of libertines reasoned that if the body was doomed to eventual destruction anyway then what was done with, through and to it was of no importance. Their slogan was πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν (6:12; cf. 10:23). The results of this logic may be seen in the case of the incestuous man (5:1) and subsequent pride on the part of the church that such a thing should occur in their midst (5:2, 6). Similarly the sexual promiscuity on display in 6:12-20 may be attributed to this radical devaluing of that which is physical. The body was free to indulge fleshly appetites so long as the spirit was also free to meet spiritual appetites (6:13). To these people Paul offers the instruction δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν (6:20). Secondly, however, a party of ascetics applied their understanding of physical existence in a different direction. They reasoned that any indulgence of the σῶμα would be at the expense of the πνεῦμα.⁵⁸ Thus they argued that believers should abstain from sexuality altogether, reflected in their slogan  καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι (7:1b).⁵⁹ Paul is more circumspect in his response to this group, acknowledging that abstinence is indeed appropriate if it aids in serving the Lord (7:32-35); if it does not, however, there is nothing wrong with sexuality providing it is in the context of marriage (7:36). Thus, whilst Paul agrees to some extent with the ascetic party line, he does not agree with the reasoning that led them to it.⁶⁰

That Paul himself conceived of a bodily resurrection is quite clear. Resurrection is mentioned first in 6:14, in support of the argument that culminates in the imperative, ‘glorify God in your body’ (6:20, NRSV). Robertson & Plummer note that the inclusion of ἐκ νεκρῶν in 15:12 suggests a bodily resurrection, for Christ could not be conceived of as among the spiritually dead.⁶¹ The strongest evidence, however, is Paul’s response to the anticipated Corinthian objection (15:35). Paul offers two analogies that reveal the shape of his thought: (a) the planting of a seed (15:36-38); and (b) different kinds of bodies (15:39-41). The first emphasises both continuity and transformation.⁶² That which is sown goes from one existence to another by passing through death (36), at which time it is transformed from one body to another, according to the will of God (38). The second analogy stresses the adaptation of each body to its sphere of existence (39-41), with the implication that there will be an appropriate body for resurrection life. The σῶμα πνευματικόν is both continuous with and utterly distinct from σῶμα ψυχικόν. Thus Paul, whilst affirming a bodily existence in the age to come, distinguishes his position from a ‘crass Jewish conception of a “fleshly” resurrection’.

Neither σῶμα nor ψυχικόν hold negative connotations in this context, except possibly that of perishability (15:42b).⁶³ As Vos points out, the absence of the σαρκικός / σαρκινός word group in this passage is strong proof that the contrast here is between the creation body and the resurrection body, for these are Paul’s stock terms for describing the body invaded by sin (e.g. Rom 7:14; 1 Cor 3:1, 3; 2 Cor 10:4).⁶⁴ The Apostle is neither disparaging the ψυχικός nor exalting the πνευματικός but rather contrasting between the bodies belonging to the pre-eschatological and the eschatological ages respectively.⁶⁵

In 15:45-49, Paul appeals to the analogy of Adam and Christ, further reinforcing the eschatological flavour of his argument. Lincoln points out the progression in his comparisons: first, types of bodies (15:35-41); next, representatives of those types (15:42-46); finally Adam and Christ are reconsidered as representatives of two world orders, γῆ and οὐρανός (15:47-49).⁶⁶ Once again, the trajectory of Paul’s thought is an eschatological one.

What, then, may be said in conclusion? Thiselton’s case for an over-realised eschatology in Corinth is persuasive. The key exegetical evidence for the position is found in 4:8-13, wherein Paul satirises their arrogance and wilful blindness to the affliction that surrounds them, not least his own. The real strength of Thiselton’s argument is that it provides sufficient cause for the Corinthians’ pneumatic enthusiasm, something that Hays’ reading cannot. Even if one allows Hays’ position, however, this merely transforms the Corinthians’ eschatological distortion from too much eschatology to too little; rather than an over-realised eschatology they had an undeveloped eschatology. Either way, Paul’s consistent methodology is to repeatedly emphasise the remaining imperfections of the present age, and the blessings that await in the age to come. In particular, he lays great stress on a future somatic existence. In so doing, he comes into conflict with the second main stream of Corinthian eschatological distortion, a Hellenistic dualism that values the ‘spiritual’ (πνευματικός) to the exclusion of the ‘unspiritual’ (ψυχικός) and thus denies a future bodily resurrection (15:12). Between them, these two eschatological distortions may be seen to be causal in many, if not all, of the excesses and errors observed and addressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians.

Works cited

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London,: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.

Blomberg, Craig. 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994.

Carson, D. A. The Cross and Christian Ministry : Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians. Paperback ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 2004.

Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism : Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 4th ed. Mifflintown: Siegler Press, 1980 (1947). Reprint, 1998.

Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987.

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997.

———. “The Conversion of the Imagination : Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians.” New Testament Studies 45, no. 3 (1999): 391-412.

Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.

Hurd, John C. The Origin of 1 Corinthians S.P.C.K, 1983.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.

Kreitzer, L. Joseph. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology, Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 19. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987.

Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet : Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Mearns, Christopher L. “Early Eschatological Development in Paul : The Evidence of 1 Corinthians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 22 (1984): 19-35.

Morris, Leon. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985.

Pate, C. Marvin. The End of the Age Has Come : The Theology of Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995.

Plevnik, Joseph. Paul and the Parousia : An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. Edited by Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer and Charles Augustus Briggs. Second ed, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914.

Thiselton, Anthony C. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth.” New Testament Studies 24, no. 4 (1978): 510-26.

———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.

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

Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God. London: SPCK, 2003.

Yarbrough, O. Larry. “Not Like the Gentiles : Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul.” PhD, Scholars Press, Yale University, 1986.

Endnotes

1. Anthony C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” New Testament Studies 24, no. 4 (1978).
2. Richard B. Hays, “The Conversion of the Imagination : Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians,” New Testament Studies 45, no. 3 (1999).
3. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London,: Adam & Charles Black, 1968), 108f.; Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology.”; Christopher L. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development in Paul : The Evidence of 1 Corinthians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 22 (1984): 25.; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987), 12, 172.; Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 139, 292, 302-4.
4. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997), 70.; Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination.”; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 69.; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God (London: SPCK, 2003), 279, 96-7.
5. Ibid., 279.
6. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 512.
7. Ibid.: 513ff.
8. Ibid.: 515ff.
9. Ibid.: 521-2.
10. Ibid.: 512, 22.
11. Ibid.: 523-4.
12. Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 407-8. cf.
13. Ibid.: 408 n. 41.
14. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1174.
15. These are representative of two of the three main categories of eschatological thought found in this epistle: fulfilment/abundance (1:7-9; 4:8-13; 8:2; 10:11; 13:8-12; 15:20-28) and resurrection (6:14; 15:1-58). The third category is judgement/reward (3:10-15; 4:5; 6:2, 9; 9:24-27; 11:32).
16. In addition to reading a Gnostic element into Thiselton’s article (on which see above), Hays attacks the ‘tortuous interpretation’ of 15:12 as a belief that the Corinthians had already experienced resurrection ‘on the analogy of 2 Tim 2.17-18… which requires us to suppose that Paul misunderstands or misrepresents the Corinthians’ actual opinions’ (Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 408.). In this he misrepresents Thiselton, whose actual position was that the Corinthians ‘placed such weight on the experience of transformation in the past and present that when they thought about resurrection the centre of gravity of their thinking was no longer in the future.’ (Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 524.)
17. Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 391.
18. Ibid.: 407.
19. Ibid.: 399. cf. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 279. Contra Barrett, First Epistle, 108f.
20. Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 399. cf. 8:1.
21. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 172. Both Fee and Witherington note the possibility that these could be a continuation of the rhetorical questions in 4:7 (Ibid., 172 n. 36.; Witherington, Conflict & Community, 141.). The force of the irony remains undiminished in either case.
22. Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet : Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 33.
23. Hays, First Corinthians, 70.
24. Ibid.
25. Witherington, Conflict & Community, 142f.
26. Ibid., 139.
27. Ibid., 139, 304.
28. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 172.
29. Barrett, First Epistle, 108f.
30. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 34. Lincoln suggests that the Corinthians viewed the sacraments as expressions of pneumatic existence in the kingdom.
31. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 12, 778. cf. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 34, 41.
32. Admittedly the connection in this case is with the ‘already’ of Paul’s eschatological outlook, but the emphasis here seems to be on the fact that they are given for the interval until the parousia.
33. D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry : Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians, Paperback ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 2004), 105.
34. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 295.
35. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 515.
36. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998), 477.
37. C. Marvin Pate, The End of the Age Has Come : The Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995), 106.
38. Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 138. Kistemaker also argues that the periphrastic construction of the perfect passive participle κεκορεσμένοι together with the verb ‘to be’ in the present tense ‘signifies that for a considerable time the Corinthians have had all the things they needed’.
39. Of seven occurrences of the phrase ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Paul, five of them are found in this epistle (4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50). cf. Joseph Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia : An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 148.
40. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 52. Yet, as Lincoln points out, Paul can still use the present participle διδόντι for the giving of victory in 15:57
41. L. Joseph Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology, Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 19 (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987), 148.
42. cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1172ff. Thiselton also notes the possibility that there may have been more than one group with more than one problem (Ibid., 1176.).
43. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development,” 24.
44. Schweitzer, cited in Barrett, First Epistle, 347.
45. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism : Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. (Mifflintown: Siegler Press, 1980 (1947); reprint, 1998), 292.
46. Héring, cited in Ibid. cf. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 37.; Kistemaker, First Corinthians, 540. This is the view that Hays latches on to as representative of Thiselton’s reconstruction of an over-realised eschatology in Corinth (on which, see above).
47. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development,” 20.
48. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 715.; Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 34.
49. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 511.
50. So Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 11-12.; Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 301.; Horsley, 1 Corinthians, 200.; Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia : An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, 151.; Witherington, Conflict & Community, 306.; and Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 316, 30.
51. cf. John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (S.P.C.K, 1983), 286.
52. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 303.
53. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 343.
54. cf. Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed., The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985), 219.
55. cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996), 670.
56. So Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 775, 80. and Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 38.
57. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Second ed., The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), 368. and quoted in Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1262.
58. Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, The Niv Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 132.
59. O. Larry Yarbrough, “Not Like the Gentiles : Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul” (PhD, Scholars Press, Yale University, 1986), 119.
60. Ibid., 5.; Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 136.
61. Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, 351.
62. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 779.
63. Both Fee and Wright follow Jeremias in suggesting that Paul’s usage of φθείρω in 15:42, 50 indicates ‘the dead’ οver against the living. On this reading, ‘perishable’ is an indication of mortality and not intrinsically negative. Ibid., 799.; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 358.
64. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 168.
65. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 40.
66. Ibid., 44.

An art critic once decided to judge, once and for all, which of the great master painters was the most true to life. He arranged for representative works from each of these masters to be gathered in one gallery. He wandered around for a while, gazing upon paintings of great beauty, rich with colour and form, but try as he might he could not decide. Then he struck upon the answer: Going to the gallery’s lighting controls, he dimmed the lights until the paintings could barely be made out and, standing at a distance, declared them all to be the same!

This story is, of course, absurd. You cannot evaluate the truthfulness of a painting (or anything else) by obscuring or ignoring the things that make it distinctive… yet that is exactly what some people try to do when they examine the competing claims of the world’s religions! ‘All religions are the same,’ they claim, ‘they all teach the same things.’ A common illustration used to explain this is that different religions are simply different paths up the same mountain; they all lead to the same God in the end. The name given to this viewpoint by people who like to name such things is pluralism.

What motivates such people? Some do it out of laziness – there are so many religions, so many views and perspectives, that it is easier to lump them all together and condemn them all at once.¹ Others prefer a kind of generalised spirituality that borrows from each of the major religions, allowing them to pick and choose the elements that most appeal to them and binding them to none. More commonly in recent years, however, it is driven by a fear of religious intolerance. This last is a genuine concern, yet it is best dealt with not by closing our eyes to the differences between, say, Hinduism and Judaism, but by encouraging adherents of each to listen to one another respectfully even when we disagree.

Occasionally, pluralists will claim that, ‘If you put Abraham, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and other religious leaders in the same room they would get on just fine.’ This is the claim that I intend to explore today. To do so, we will consider the lives and teachings of three very different men, each of whom in his own way changed the world. Incidentally, if you wish to explore further on this topic, I can highly recommend John Dickson’s book A spectator’s guide to world religions, from which much of the material for this sermon has been gleaned.²

Some time in the 5th century BC, a man name Siddhartha Gautama was born into a Hindu family of the ‘warrior-king’ caste of Indian society. Around 29 years of age, so it is told, he left his palace to survey his kingdom, and was overcome with grief by what he saw: a frail old man; a desperately ill man; and a corpse. The next day, however, Gautama saw a very different man who was to change his life forever: a Hindu ‘ascetic’ – a guru who had chosen to pursue the ‘Path of Knowledge’. Siddhartha was so impressed by the serene appearance of this guru that he decided then and there to give up his life of luxury and seek the secret of serenity in a world of suffering. And so he left his privileged life, his beautiful wife, and his newborn baby, to search for an answer to the problem of suffering. He found it, one May night, sitting under a tree meditating. This was the moment of ‘enlightenment’ for Prince Siddhartha, and henceforth he was known to his disciples as the Buddha, which means ‘the enlightened one’.

What was the Buddha’s insight? It may be summarised in what has come to be known as ‘The Four Noble Truths’ of Buddhism: (1) suffering exists; (2) suffering springs from desire; (3) suffering goes when you eliminate desire; and (4) to eliminate desire you must follow the ‘Eightfold Path’, a sequence of steps that aim to help eliminate any concept of the self. The force of the logic is powerful: it is our desire for self-satisfaction, self-existence and self-advancement that creates the experience of pain. Therefore if you remove the self, desire goes; and when desire goes, so too does suffering.

Some thousand years after the Buddha lived another man, named Muhammad. Born in modern-day Saudi Arabia, his early life was filled with tragedy: before he was born his father died, whilst his mother also died when he was 6; after a brief stint living with his grandfather (who died when he was 8 ) he was cared for by his uncle, Abu Talib, a prominent clan leader in the city of Mecca. Muhammad was a contemplative man who frequently left the busyness of Mecca in favour of a cave where he could consider the mysteries of life.

One day, when he was about 40, he heard a heavenly voice repeating the word, ‘recite’. Muhammad didn’t know what to ‘recite’ until finally the voice – identified as that of the angel Gabriel – explained that he had been chosen as a ‘Messenger of God’ to restore to the world the truth about the Creator. From that moment on, Muhammad was referred to by his followers as the ‘Prophet’.

At first, Muhammad found little welcome in his home town of Mecca. His calls for equity and charity were not popular in this centre of commerce and trade. In the end, Muhammad was forced to leave Mecca for Medina, a city some 400km north. In Medina, Muhammad was able to establish a community founded on two things: belief in Allah as the one true God (rather than a Zeus-like overlord of the gods); and belief in Muhammad as his messenger. More than just being the religious leader of this community, however, he was also made the civil ruler of the city – and so the first Islamic state came into existence.³

Relations with Mecca continued to be strained until, in the year 624AD, Muhammad fought a major battle at the town of Badr. In spite of being massively outnumbered, by about 3 to 1, Muhammad prevailed. Over the following years, Muhammad’s forces steadily grew, until in 628AD the Meccans were forced to sign a truce, allowing the Prophet’s followers to visit his birthplace. This did not last long, however, for in the following year Muhammad accused the Meccans of breaking the truce, and lay siege to the city with 10, 000 men. The Meccans, helpless, surrendered and converted to Islam.⁴

The central concept of the Muslim life is submission to God’s law as revealed in the Koran and the example of the Prophet. Indeed, the word ‘Islam’ means ‘submission’, whilst the word ‘Muslim’ means ‘one who submits’ (to Allah). Surrendering yourself to God’s law leads to eternal Paradise, whilst disobedience leads to destruction on the Day of Judgement. The heart of the law is found in what are often called the ‘Five Pillars of Islam’. These are (1) a declaration of faith, that ‘There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet'; (2) daily prayers; (3) payment of a tax for the poor; (4) the fast of Ramadan; and (5) a pilgrimage to Mecca. By submitting to these 5 demands, men and women hope to secure their place in Paradise.

Nestled in the middle of the years separating these two men is Jesus of Nazareth. The birth of this man literally divides history, with the preceding years numbered as BC – ‘before Christ’ – and the following numbered as AD – anno domini, or ‘the year of the Lord’. Born to working-class parents, and growing up in the backwater Palestinian town of Nazareth, Jesus had little to distinguish him from other men, except some unusual events surrounding his birth. Yet in his early thirties he began a public ministry that was attended by extraordinary miracles and, in the eyes of some at least, even more extraordinary teachings. About 3 years into this ministry, he was arrested by Jewish authorities, illegally tried, and turned over to the Roman authorities to be put to death. He was certified as dead by a Roman executioner, buried in a tomb, and yet 3 days later he was seen alive by numerous people – even as many as 500 at one time!

Chief among Jesus’ teachings concerned the nature of his relationship with God, whom he claimed as his Father in an utterly unprecedented way. As he spoke the words that we have heard read, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6), he both affirmed his own ability to bring others into relationship with God, and denied that anybody else was able. In fact, the relationship between Father and Son is so profound, that knowing the Son is equivalent to knowing the Father (14:7, 9), for Jesus and the Father are one (10:30)!

It is at this point that it becomes utterly impossible to sustain the belief that ‘all religions are the same’. The Buddha rejects the notion of any God at all, yet Jesus claims not only that there is a God, but that to know Jesus is to know God. You don’t have to be a mathematical genius to realise that no God is not the same as one God – let alone the many gods of the Hindu religion! Muhammad claimed to have a revelation from God, whereas Jesus claimed to be a revelation from God. And for Jesus to claim, as he did, that he and God are one would be cause for death in Muhammad’s eyes.

Another irreconcilable difference between Jesus and the others is their different solutions to the problems of human existence. The Buddha taught that the problem was suffering, which originates in desire; the solution, then is to eliminate desire and so eliminate suffering. The Prophet taught that the problem is that men and women are disobedient towards Allah, and that the solution is to submit to the Law. Both men implied that you have the ability, by what you do, to solve the problem of your existence. This is attractive in our age of self-help, where independence is almost the cardinal virtue.

Jesus’ view of the problem is similar to both the Prophet and the Buddha: disobedience towards God – which he calls sin – leads to suffering, death and, ultimately, judgement. It is Jesus’ solution that is so very different for, he says, men and women are not capable of overcoming this problem. Instead, it is only by the actions of Jesus himself – God taking on human flesh, suffering death as a penalty for sin and being raised from the dead – that sin, suffering and death can be defeated. Where the Buddha and the Prophet point you to what you must do, Jesus points to what he has already done.

It is this personal intervention that is at the heart of the often-used image of the shepherd in Jesus’ teaching. A man was travelling with a guide through Palestine, and came across a shepherd and his sheep. The shepherd showed him the fold into which the sheep were led at night; it consisted of four walls with a way in. The man said, ‘But there is no door,’ to which the shepherd replied, ‘I am the door.’ ‘What do you mean?’ ‘When the light has gone, and all the sheep are inside, I lie in that open space, and no sheep ever goes out but across my body, and no wolf comes in unless he crosses my body; I am the door.’⁵ This is what Jesus means when he says, ‘I am the gate for the sheep… whoever enters through me will be saved’ (Jn 10:7, 9) and ‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep’ (Jn 10:11). It is Jesus who acts to rescue us from the terrible fate that sin has brought us to. Without the shepherd we are but prey; with him, we are utterly safe. Men like Siddhartha Gautama and Muhammad may give an appearance of protection and security through what they teach, but when the wolf comes they are no help, for they are merely hired hands and have no investment in you.

Consider the case of Kobayashi Issa, a Japanese poet and devout Buddhist, whose life was marked with tragedy. He believed what the Buddha taught, that the things of this life are fleeting, in his words a ‘world of dew’. Yet after the death of his second child, he wrote the following haunting words:

This world of dew
Is only a world of dew
And yet… and yet…

When tragedy struck this man, the teachings of the Buddha were little consolation.

A lot more could be said in comparing these three men, if time permitted… but unfortunately it doesn’t! As mentioned earlier, if you’re interested in exploring these issues further, I highly recommend John Dickson’s book A spectator’s guide to world religions, which also considers the teachings of Hinduism and Judaism.

What then are we to conclude? Claiming that all religions are the same is nonsense, for as we have seen even the three religions we have examined are neither compatible nor interchangeable. Indeed, claiming two things are the same when they are not leads to tragedy, as witnessed by a Sydney couple convicted this week of the manslaughter of their nine-month-old daughter. Tragically, the couple wrongly believed that their homeopathic remedies for the girl’s eczema were as effective as western medicine… and their little girl paid the price as a result.

So a choice must be made. The Buddha offers a path from a life of suffering to a life stripped of desire. The Prophet prescribes a life of submission to the Law in order to achieve Paradise. Jesus Christ calls you to a life lived under the protection of the Good Shepherd… and has himself done everything necessary for that to happen. The choice is yours.

    – Tim Campbell (4/10/2009)

Bibliography

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006.
Dickson, John. A Spectator’s Guide to World Religions : An Introduction to the Big Five. Sydney South: Blue Bottle Books, 2004.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995.

Endnotes

1. e.g. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), 35-6. Dawkins writes, ‘Life is too short to bother with the distinction between one figment of the imagination and many… I decry supernaturalism in all its forms. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.’
2. John Dickson, A Spectator’s Guide to World Religions : An Introduction to the Big Five (Sydney South: Blue Bottle Books, 2004).
3. This event was so important, that it marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. The current year, for a Muslim, is not 2009AD, but 1430 AH, where AH stands for the Latin anno Hegirae, ‘in the year of the emigration’ to Medina.
4. Lest it be thought that Islam is a religion founded on military force, it is important to recognise that Muhammad was no more warrior-like than any other clan leader of his time; in many ways he was considerably more just and compassionate. He customarily offered three options when communities came into contact with Islamic expansion: (1) Conversion; (2) Protection, meaning that the community could keep its way of life, but was obliged to pay a tax to the wider community; or (3) Battle. Only when a community refused the first two options was the third exercised.
5. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995), 451 n. 32.

Question

How does an understanding of miracles as a limited foretaste of the consummated kingdom help us in approaching the question of miracles today? Should we expect similar miraculous occurrences today as are recorded in the NT? At a practical level, how should we go about dealing with sickness and other personal needs in our congregations?

Abstract

Miracles are a dividing issue for Christians and non-Christians alike. This essay will show that this is as it should be, since they are intended to provoke a response; that a concentration of miracles around the apostles does not mean that they are limited to the apostolic age; but that the Christian is to respond prayerfully, rather than powerfully, when facing needs of all kinds.

Essay

Miracles are inextricably linked with Christianity. Ask the man on the street what he knows of Jesus and he will likely describe one of two things: Jesus the Great Moral Teacher; or Jesus the Miracle Worker. Their motives and attitudes in doing so are many, across the entire spectrum from awe to skepticism. Opinions amongst Christians are scarcely less diverse. Most will agree that Jesus worked miracles himself, although that opinion is not universally held, even amongst Christians.¹ Where the most substantial divergences of opinion occur, however, is in how we are to understand the significance of scriptural miracles in general and Jesus’ miracles in particular. Should Christians aspire to emulate this aspect of Jesus’ ministry? The question is not idle for, particularly in the case of healing miracles, the stakes are high; it is literally a question of life or death. To begin to answer this question, we must carefully consider the rôle miracles played in Jesus’ ministry.
Jesus declares his mission at the commencement of his ministry (Luke 4:16ff.), quoting from Isaiah 61:1-3:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to provide for all those who mourn in Zion – to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit.

This is a messianic prophecy, and Jesus here proclaims himself as God’s Messiah. ‘Then he began to say to them. “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”‘ (Luke 4:21). His listeners cannot have missed the royal implications of his statement; the Kingdom of God is ready to be inaugurated, the LORD’s favour is to be proclaimed; and miracles are the signposts that it is near. As Wayne Grudem (1994, 360) writes, the miracles of Jesus serve to ‘bear witness that the kingdom of God has come and has begun to expand its beneficial results into people’s lives’.

Saucy (1996) points out that Jesus seeks more than establishing the fact of the presence of the inaugurated kingdom. It is response that he desires, and Jesus’ teachings and works, including his miraculous works, are all geared towards eliciting a response. Thus it is no surprise that miracles form a point of divergence for Christians and non-Christians alike.
Wallis (1992) refines this: miracles free people to respond to God. This expectation of response is seen most clearly in Matthew 11:

Then [Jesus] began to reproach the cities in which most of his deeds of power had been done, because they did not repent. (Matt. 11:20).

John the Baptiser was the first to proclaim Jesus as Christ (John 1:29); later, in prison and facing death, John sends messengers to Jesus for confirmation that he was not mistaken (Matt. 11:2-6). To answer, Jesus points to his works: ‘the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them’ (11:5) – referring to another messianic prophecy in Isaiah 35:5-6.
At least some portion of Jesus’ ministry, then, is a function of his unique identity as the Christ. But how much is unique, and how much is exemplary? Should Christians today seek to emulate Christ’s miraculous acts, or are they to follow another way? Were Jesus’ acts the works of incarnate God, or are they the works of Spirit-filled man?

For Warrington (2000), the answer is clear cut: Jesus’ miracles, and particularly his healings, ‘are uniquely linked to his mission to initiate the Kingdom’ and thus ‘it is difficult to see how believers today may emulate him’. Williams (1993) goes the other way, arguing from Luke 6:40 that Jesus trained his disciples to do as he did. ‘If Jesus trained His disciples to reproduce His message and ministry of the kingdom, then we should expect that they, in turn, were to train the Church to do the same.’

Unfortunately, Jesus does not provide us clear and explicit teaching on the difference between the unique and exemplary components of his works, nor does he offer us nice neat categories in which to understand his actions. We may, however, learn much from the commandments given to his disciples, and the example they set for the church that followed them.

In Luke 10, parallel to the passage we have just considered from Matthew 11, the judgment on the unrepentant cities is offered immediately following the successful mission of the 72, where the acts of power were done not by Jesus himself but by his disciples. Similarly, in the miracles of feeding the 5000 (Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 6:35-44; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:4-13), it is entirely possible that the multiplications took place in the disciples hands rather than in Jesus’. One must be wary of appropriating a mission not one’s own, particularly if unwilling to be subject to the same restrictions imposed on that mission, such as not going to the Gentiles or the Samaritans (Matt. 10:5) and not taking a bag (Luke  10:4) etc. (Carson 1992). Nevertheless, the impetus is clear: ‘proclaim the kingdom of God and… heal’ (Luke 9:2). The kingdom of God is here, and this is what it looks like.

John Wimber, in his influential work Power Evangelism (1985), seizes upon this idea. His reasoning is that the Kingdom is still here, and is still to be demonstrated. Many of the miracles recorded in Scripture, he suggests, have the effect of freeing people to respond to the gospel; he calls these events ‘power encounters’. Examples from the gospels include Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) and his numerous exorcisms (Matt. 8:28ff.; Matt. 9:32ff.; Mark 1:21ff. etc.). Wimber seems more interested, however, in the ‘power encounters’ found in Acts, which he considers to be normative for Christian experience. In Acts ‘we see the birth of a warrior nation, the army of God, the church’ (Wimber 1985, 134). The inauguration of God’s Kingdom brings it into conflict with the powers and principalities of the earthly kingdom. Though the decisive battle has been fought and won by Christ, the war rages on to this day.²

James Montgomery Boice, in his critique of Wimber’s teachings, notes that any Christian reader of Ephesians 6 cannot help but acknowledge the truth of spiritual warfare.
However, we will also remember that Ephesians 6 does not promote miracle-working as the way to do battle against Satan but instead admonishes us to be clothed with Christ’s righteousness and to be armed with “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (v. 17). The Spirit’s weapon, therefore, is not additional revelation, nor “power encounters,” but the written text of Holy Scripture. We are constantly reminded that the way to defend ourselves against Satan’s onslaught is not by miracles but by the effective proclamation and teaching of Scripture. (Boice 1992, 123)

According to Boice, Wimber’s writings demonstrate a serious shortcoming: they make much of the church working ‘signs and wonders’ and no mention of the gospel. It is ‘an evangelism without an evangel’ (129).

Aside from this issue, Boice’s primary criticism of the so-called ‘signs and wonders’ movement is that they appropriate the ‘signs of the apostle’ (Acts 2:43; Acts 5:12; 2 Cor. 12:12) for themselves. This is, in his view, an unwarranted hermeneutical leap as the apostles played a unique rôle in testifying to the risen Jesus and establishing the church. Boice is not the only one to draw this distinction; Warfield ([1918] 1972), Woodhouse (1987) and Carson (1992) are all in agreement with Boice on this point. This is not to say they teach a full cessation of genuine miracles after the apostles, but rather that the authority granted the apostles for miraculous signs and wonders is not transferable to their heirs. ‘We believe in a wonder-working God; but not in a wonder-working church.’ (Warfield [1918] 1972, 58)

Wayne Grudem (1994) argues strongly against this teaching. He outlines the scriptural evidence for limiting miracles to the apostle, claiming that the case rests primarily on two key texts: 2 Corinthians 12:12 and Hebrews 2:3-4. He then goes on to argue that, in 2 Corinthians 12, Paul is attempting to distinguish himself from non-Christian pretenders to the apostolic office, rather than non-apostolic Christians. Similarly, Grudem discounts arguments from Hebrews 2 as drawing more from the passage than is actually there. Even if it can be understood to mean that God confirms by miracles the words of those who heard Jesus, it says nothing of whether or not God will do likewise for those who have not directly heard him. Just because there is a particular concentration of miracles surrounding the apostles does not necessarily imply that they are only for the apostles.

Thus far we have considered miracles only on an a priori basis, but some adopt an a posteriori line of reasoning. Wimber (1985, 151-174), for example, furnishes us with a list of miracles attested throughout the history of the church, as well as a separate list for miracles of the 20th century. His implicit argument is that we should start with the fact that miracles in a Christian context occur today and we therefore should read and interpret Scripture in the light of this reality.

In a similar vein, Wenham (1986) notes the ebb and flow of miracles throughout the Old Testament, with peaks at the times of Moses, Elijah & Elisha, and a relative scarcity at other times. He sees a similar trend in the New Covenantal era, with miracles clustered around fresh movements of God’s Spirit in what are often termed ‘revivals’.

Contrast these with Warfield ([1918] 1972), who provides a more detailed list, drawn from much the same material, yet with vastly different conclusions. His stated argument is that there are few well-attested miracles in the 1st century; that those of the 2nd and 3rd centuries are syncretistic adoptions of heathen aretalogy; and that most, if not all, subsequent accounts of miracles are suspect as fiction legitimised by tradition. Clearly all three authors have their own agendas, and each claims historical evidence in his argument. Such an approach then is fraught with difficulty.

Even should one be able to establish beyond all doubt that genuine miracles have or have not occurred since the apostolic age, the application to the subject at hand must be carefully considered. Miracles have no intrinsic meaning; they are given meaning by the words that accompany them. Jesus warned that many would come working miracles in his name in an effort to deceive the elect (Matt. 24:24), and people on both sides of some of the most crucial theological divides claim miracles as vindication of their cause. As Warfield puts it, ‘heretics of all ages are at least as well provided with supporting miracles as the church itself’ ([1918] 1972, 67).³

We may summarise our findings thus far as follows: Jesus worked miracles, as attested by the canonical gospels, but there is doubt as to what proportion of his miraculous acts are paradigmatic for today’s Christians. Instead we look to the example and teaching of his disciples, who worked miraculously in the regular course of their ministry. Whilst noting the unique rôle of the apostles in establishing the church, there is no compelling reason to suppose that their miraculous works were done solely for this purpose, nor that they were intrinsically tied to their office as apostles. Thus we may rightly expect miracles today, as a foretaste of the Kingdom of God.

But how much of God’s Kingdom should we expect to see manifest here on earth today? Casual readers of James 5:13-18 may be forgiven for believing that all illness and disease should be overcome through the simple expedients of confession, prayer and anointing. How then are we to reconcile this with our experience of suffering and death even amongst the most faithful of Christians?

‘Are any among you sick? They should call the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord.’ (James 5:14). Kendall (2002, 288) rightly points out that the context is members of a church; this is not a mandate for us to go out and heal people in the street. Furthermore, he argues, the sickness described must be serious⁴, and the initiative lies with the person who is sick to call the elders; the elders are not instructed here to wander around the church looking for aches and sniffles to heal.

Kendall goes on to explore the link James draws between sickness and sin, noting that whilst sin is not always the cause of illness, sometimes it is (2002, 287). God does this for disciplinary rather than punitive reasons (Dickson 2006, 111-2). For this reason, it is one’s own elders to be called when sick, as they are the best suited for enquiring about sin and facilitating repentance (Shogren 1989).

What of the oil? It has been variously understood to represent: the medicine of the day; the Sacrament of Extreme Unction; a Psychological Reinforcement, i.e. a placebo; and a symbol of divine favour (Shogren 1989). Shogren, Kendall and Dickson all find agreement on the latter, with Kendall arguing that the oil performs the same symbolic function as the bread and the wine of the eucharist: ‘It’s a visual, tangible reminder of the Spirit and his power to heal’ (2002, 292).

James continues: ‘The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective’ (James 5:15-6). Prayer is key in James’ thinking. It is prayer that saves, rather than elders, oils or even faith. Kendall puts is aptly when he writes: ‘The prayer of faith takes place… when there is a simultaneous coinciding of the believer’s faith and God’s will’ (2002, 299).
As yet, we have only a limited foretaste of the Kingdom of God; we must live, act and teach accordingly. As Wallis (1992) writes,

if we stress the in-breaking of the kingdom in Jesus’s ministry, we raise hopes that freedom from suffering and healing will be experienced now; but if we offer the cross as the controlling symbol for Christian discipleship, we encourage the view that suffering is a necessary – if unpleasant – travelling companion through this life.

Reference List

Boice, J. M. 1992, “A Better Way: The Power of the Word and Spirit”, in M. S. Horton (ed.), Power Religion: The selling out of the evangelical church?, Homebush West: Anzea, 119-136.

Carson, D. A. 1992, “The purpose of signs and wonders in the New Testament”, in M. S. Horton (ed.), Power Religion: The selling out of the evangelical church?, Homebush West: Anzea, 89-118.

Dickson, J. 2006, James: The wisdom of the brother of Jesus, Sydney: Aquila.

Grudem, W. 1994, Systematic Theology, Nottingham: IVP, 355-375.

Kendall, R. T. 2002, The Way of Wisdom, Waynesboro: Authentic Media, 285-319.

Saucy, M. R. 1996, “Miracles and Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 153 (July-Sept 1996), 281-357.

Shogren, G. S. 1989, “Will God Heal Us – A Re-examination of James 5:14-16a”, EQ, 61/2 (1989), 99-108.

Wallis, I. G. 1992, “Christ’s continuing ministry of healing”, Expository Times, 104/3 (Nov 1992), 42-45.

Warfield, B. B. 1972, Counterfeit Miracles, London: Banner of Truth (first ed. 1918).

Warrington, K. 2000, Jesus the Healer: Paradigm or Unique Phenomenon? Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1-29.

Wenham, D. 1986, “Miracles Then and Now”, Themelios 12/1, 1-4.

Williams, D. 1993, “Following Christ’s example: a biblical view of discipleship”, in  G.S. Greig & K. N. Springer (eds.), The Kingdom and the Power: are healing and the spiritual gifts used by Jesus and the Early Church meant for the church today?, Ventura: Regal, 175-196.

Wimber, J. & Springer, K. 1985, Power Evangelism: Signs and Wonders Today, London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Woodhouse, J. 1987, “Signs and Wonders and Evangelical Ministry” in R. Doyle (ed.) Signs & Wonders and Evangelicals, Homebush West: Lancer.

Bibliography

Adamson, J. B 1976, The Epistle of James, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 196-202.

Brown, C. 1985, That You May Believe: Miracles and Faith Then and Now, Grand Rapids/Exeter: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 151-175.

Johnson, B. 2005, The Supernatural Power of a Transformed Mind: Access to a Life of Miracles, Shippenburg: Destiny Image.

Lewis, C. S. 2002, Miracles, London: HarperCollins.

Marshall, C. D. 1992, “Ghostbusters – Then and Now”, Reaper, 74/5 (Oct-Nov, 1992),14-16.

Motyer, A. 1985, The Message of James, 2nd ed., Leicester: IVP, 186-214.

Endnotes

1. The Jesus Seminar, for instance, discounts the majority of Jesus’ miracles recorded in the canonical gospels, including his resurrection, as fanciful interpolations by later editors.
2. Wimber uses an helpful illustration here, borrowed from German theologian Oscar Cullman. The turning point in World War II was D-Day, when troops landed on the shore of Normandy, but peace was not declared until V-E Day, some 11 months later. We live, he says, in the time between Christ’s decisive victory on the Cross (D-Day), and his parousia (V-E Day) – and there are still battles to be fought. ibid., 33.
3. This, in large part, appears to be the motivator behind Warfield’s animosity towards what he calls ‘ecclesiastical miracles’. He is implicitly fighting the Roman Catholic assertion that God vindicates the Roman church over against the protestant church through provision of miracles.
4. He argues this based on James’ choice of sōzō (I save) rather than therpeuō or iaomai (I heal) in verse 15.

God’s delight

In the 18th and 19th Centuries it was quite fashionable to view God as being a watchmaker who, having brought about a magnificent creation, wound it up and left it to work according to its own principles.¹ That is, he invented the world, he put in place the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and everything else that makes it ‘tick’… and then he left it to its own devices.

But this is a long way from the God that the Bible presents to us. Jesus tells us that he knows when each sparrow falls,² that no raven goes unfed nor lily unclothed.³ Is this a description of a God who is disconnected and uninvolved? Does this sound like a God who does not care about the fate of his creation?

Check out God’s words to Job:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

“Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?

Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-

while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,

when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,

when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,

when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

“Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,

that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?⁴

And again:

“Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the time they give birth?

They crouch down and bring forth their young;
their labor pains are ended.

Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds;
they leave and do not return.

“Who let the wild donkey go free?
Who untied his ropes?

I gave him the wasteland as his home,
the salt flats as his habitat.

He laughs at the commotion in the town;
he does not hear a driver’s shout.

He ranges the hills for his pasture
and searches for any green thing.⁵

God’s solution to Job’s problems is not a stinging rebuke for his lack of faith; nor is it a reasoned argument about why he needs to suffer. God calls on Job to look up and to look around at the world that God has created, a world which itself points back to God; the Creation that reminds us of the Creator. The Apostle Paul puts it like this: “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”⁶

God delights in his world, great and small. We are invited to enjoy the creation and to delight in it as God does. Again and again, God invites Job to consider, to wonder, to rejoice and to reflect on the splendour of what he has created.

The trouble is that we have become consumers rather than lovers; our delight has turned to greed, our service to exploitation.

Created to protect and serve

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”⁷

Adam and Eve were created to “work [the Garden] and take care of it” – to protect and to serve. In return, they were given the run of the place, and God provided “trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.”

The Garden centred around the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the man and his wife, perhaps to remind Adam and Eve that the garden was not theirs: God’s plan was one of interdependence, of relationship; that is what makes what follows even more tragic.

First Eve and then Adam reach out and take from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the only tree which God had put off-limits, and in doing so sought to place themselves at the centre of the garden.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.⁸

This is the first recorded example of humankind exploiting the environment for their own benefit, rather than working to enjoy it and protect it; sadly it is but the first of many.

The consequences were catastrophic, not only for Adam and Eve, not just for the human race, but for the whole of creation:

To Adam [God] said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”⁹

God’s creation has been corrupted. Not for nothing does the Apostle Paul write, “[w]e know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.”¹⁰ However, just a paragraph earlier, he writes, “[t]he creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”¹¹ Christians look forward to the day when God’s new creation dawns, when he will make all things new.¹²

Some Christians take this to extremes, though, claiming that the degradation of this world is OK, because it means that that day of new creation will come all the quicker. This is (literally) rubbish! If God grieves over each sparrow that falls and each lily that dies, can you imagine how offended he is by our wilful and persistent destruction of the world that he has entrusted to our care?

No, Christians should be leading the charge towards protecting and serving our environment.

This is easy to say; but how can we do this? Where do we start?

Tending the Garden

There are many things that can be said here, but let me highlight a few of the common ones that we can all do in order to preserve this world that God has entrusted to our care.

Broadly speaking, Jack Johnson has the right idea when he says “we gotta learn to reduce, reuse, recycle” – in that order. Recycling is good… but reusing is better. Reusing is good… but reduction is better!

Appliances

• Refrigerator: The single household appliance that uses the most energy is the refrigerator. So let me ask, do you really need that second fridge? If you only use the second one when you’re having a party, why not consider turning it off and unplugging it the rest of the time? Do you need one that big?
• Lights: The next biggest energy consumer is electric lighting. Some simple ways of reducing the amount of energy you use:
  • Use compact fluorescents – traditional incandescent bulbs waste about 90% of their energy as heat.
  • Turn off the lights when you’re out of the room for more than 60 seconds.
• Televisions: The third biggest power user is the television. Even when they’re not on, most televisions are still drawing power in order to be able to turn on in response to a remote. Consider turning them off at the wall. Other ways to save power here are to watch less (!) and to not fall asleep with them on!!
• Audio equipment: The U.S. Government has published statistics that show that Americans spend more money to power audio equipment when they’re off than when on! Again, consider turning off at the wall.
• Computers: Turn off when not in use. Laptops use about half the power of desktops.
• Microwaves: Whilst microwaves draw a large current, they do so only for a short time. Don’t be shy about using them to precook food – in that way you can cut down on using larger (less efficient) appliances like ovens.

Transport

If you drive a car, make sure the tyres are inflated correctly. Having under-inflated tyres will reduce your fuel efficiency by up to 10% !

On the subject of fuels, ethanol based-fuels are better for the environment (less emissions), but have impacts in other areas. This is because much ethanol used for fuel is derived from corn, a staple food around the world, and so an increase in demand for corn can have a devastating effect on the global poor, so think carefully.

The new seatbelt

Many years ago seatbelts in cars were unheard of; then they were an optional extra; required by law; and, finally, so common-place that to not wear one makes us feel as though something is wrong.

We need to promote the same kind of mentality regarding the environment. This will involve a transformational change… and there is only one who has ever been good at transformational change – God. Ultimately we need to realise that any solution that relies entirely upon our own efforts is doomed to fail. Our natural sinfulness will lead us to take short-cuts, to seek our own advantage, to leave it for someone else to deal with. If we want to see our world changed for the better, if we want to see God’s creation restored to the point where God once again declares it ‘Very Good,’ then we must first seek transformation of ourselves. We must once again become God’s caretakers, his gardeners, people who delight in and protect the world God has entrusted to our care rather than consuming and exploiting it; and this kind of transformation can come only through the saving work of Jesus. Jesus’ sacrifice, his blood, his death on the Cross on our behalf, is the only means by which we can be recreated – reborn – as the people God wants us to be.

Endnotes

1. See, for example, William Paley’s Natural Theology.
2. Matt 10:29
3. Luke 12:24,27
4. Job 38:1-13
5. Job 39:1-8
6. Rom 1:20
7. Gen 2:8-17
8. Gen 3:6
9. Gen 3:17-19, emphasis added.
10. Rom 8:22
11. Rom 8:19-21
12. Rev 21:5

This was a training course I ran in September 2007 for i.d, the young adults’ ministry of St John’s, Sutherland.

• Week 1 – Why I am a protestant Christian
• Week 2 – Why I am a reformed Christian
• Week 3 – Why I am an evangelical Christian

I presented a series of sermons along the same lines in July 2010:

• What is a protestant Christian?
• What is a reformed Christian?
• What is an evangelical Christian?

Introduction

On Sunday the 3rd of February, 1788, Richard Johnson preached the very first Christian sermon on Australian soil. Johnson had been appointed as chaplain for NSW and travelled with the First Fleet. His appointment was in no small part due to the influence exerted by two remarkable and influential men, William Wilberforce and John Newton, who believed it very important that the chaplain for this important expedition should be a committed evangelical Christian.But why were Wilberforce and Newton so keen to have an evangelical presence in NSW? And why was Johnson willing to up and transplant himself from a comfortable life in England for the sake of enduring the privations of sailing to the other side of the world?

This week we will explore these questions and more.

However, the evangelical story does not begin with Johnson, nor even with Wilberforce or Newton. Unlike the protestant and reformed innovations, the evangelical movement cannot really be linked to one man in particular. There were so many great leaders: Jonathan Edwards in America; Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine in Scotland; Howel Harris in Wales; and George Whitefield, William Wilberforce and John Newton in England. However, if I were to select one person as being representative of the movement as a whole, it would be John Wesley.

John Wesley

Toward the end of January 1736, the good ship Simmonds, bound for Savannah, Georgia, sailed into a series of violent Atlantic storms. The wind roared; the ship cracked and quivered; the waves lashed the deck.

A young, slightly built Anglican minister on board was frozen in fear. John Wesley had preached the gospel of eternal salvation to others, but he was afraid to die. He was deeply awed, however, by a company of Moravian Brethren from Herrnhut. As the sea broke over the deck of the vessel, splitting the mainsail in pieces, the Moravians calmly sang their psalms to God.

Afterward, Wesley asked one of the Germans if he was frightened.

“No,” he replied. “Weren’t your women and children afraid?” Wesley asked.

“No,” said the Moravian, “our women and children are not afraid to die.”

“This,” Wesley wrote in his Journal, “was the most glorious day I have ever seen.”

At that “glorious” moment Wesley was a most unlikely candidate for leadership in a spiritual awakening soon to shake England to its moorings. He had a form of godliness, but had yet to find its power.¹

John Wesley was born in Epworth, England. He was the fifteenth of nineteen children. At the age of five, John was rescued from the burning rectory where he lived. This escape made a deep impression on his mind; and he regarded himself as providentially set apart, as a “brand plucked from the burning.”² The Wesley children’s early education was given by their parents in the Epworth rectory. Each child, including the girls, was taught to read as soon as they could walk and talk. In 1713 John was admitted to the Charterhouse School, London, where he lived the studious, methodical, and (for a while) religious life in which he had been trained at home.

At seventeen he was off to Oxford University where he studied first at Christ Church and later at Lincoln College. He found little there to stimulate either mind or soul, but took the opportunity to read widely, including such books as Jeremy Taylor’s Holy Living, Thomas à Kemipis’ Imitation of Christ and William Law’s Serious Call to a Holy Life. These men, he said, “convinced me of the absolute impossibility of being half a Christian. I determined, through His grace, to be all devoted to God.” So he listed his weaknesses and developed rules to overcome them.

In 1726 Wesley was elected a fellow of Lincoln College. This gave him not only academic standing at the University but assured him of a steady income. Two years later he was ordained to the Anglican ministry and returned to Epworth for a time to serve as his father’s assistant.

When he resumed his duties at Oxford, he found that his brother, Charles, alarmed at the spread of deism at the University, had assembled a little band of students determined to take their religion seriously. John proved to be just the leader they needed. Under his direction they drew up a plan of study and rule of life that stressed prayer, Bible reading, and frequent attendance at Holy Communion.

The little group soon attracted attention and some derision from the lax undergraduates. Holy Club, they called them; Bible moths, Methodists, and Reforming Club. The Methodist label is one that stuck.

The members of that little society were ardent but restless souls. They found fresh enthusiasm when a townsman or new student joined them, such as the bright and brash undergraduate from Pembroke College, George Whitefield. But they were constantly in search of ways to make their lives conform to the practice of early Christians. They gave to the poor and they visited the imprisoned. But John was quick to confess that he lacked the inward peace of a true Christian. God must have something more in mind.

Then came the invitation to Georgia. A friend, Dr. John Burton, suggested that both John and Charles could serve God in the new colony led by General James Oglethorpe. Charles could be the General’s secretary and John a chaplain to the colony. John welcomed a chance to preach to the Indians so the brothers boarded the Simmons in October with youthful idealism and missionary zeal, totally unaware of the storms on sea and soul just ahead.

The whole Georgia episode proved to be a fiasco. John discovered that the noble American savages were “gluttons, thieves, liars and murderers.” And his white congregation were not fond of his strict high church ways and his prohibition of fancy dresses and gold jewelry in church.

John’s frustrations were compounded by his pitiful love affair with Sophy Hopkey, the eighteen-year-old niece of Savannah’s chief magistrate. Wesley was so mixed up emotionally and spiritually that he didn’t know his own mind. Sophy finally resolved the affair by eloping with John’s rival. The jilted lover then barred her from Holy Communion, and her incensed husband sued John for defaming Sophy’s character. The trial dragged out and after six months of harassment, Wesley fled the colony in disgust.

On his way home, he had a chance to ponder the whole experience. “I went to America,” he wrote, “to convert the Indians, but, oh, who shall convert me?”

Wesley returned to England depressed and beaten. On the night of May 24, 1738, at a Moravian meeting in Aldersgate Street, London, in which he heard a reading of Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans, and penned the now famous line “I felt my heart strangely warmed.” This completely changed the character and method of his ministry.

Though his understanding of both justification and assurance matured, he never stopped preaching the importance of faith for salvation and the witness of God’s Spirit with the spirit of the believer that they were, indeed, a child of God. His unorthodox teachings, however, meant that he was excluded from preaching in most parish churches.

Wesley’s Oxford friend, the evangelist George Whitefield, was also excluded from the churches of Bristol. In February of 1739, he went to the neighbouring village of Kingswood and preached in the open air to a company of miners. Wesley hesitated to accept Whitefield’s invitation to copy this bold step. Overcoming his reservations, he preached his first sermon in the open air, near Bristol, in April of that year.

He was still unhappy about the idea of field preaching, and would have thought, “till very lately,” such a method of saving souls as “almost a sin.” These open-air services were very successful, however, and he never again hesitated to preach in any place where an assembly could be gotten together. More than once he used his father’s tombstone at Epworth as a pulpit! He continued for fifty years — entering churches when he was invited, and taking his stand in the fields, in halls, cottages, and chapels, when the churches would not receive him.

Wesley travelled constantly, generally on horseback, preaching two or three times a day. In fact, by Wesley’s own estimate, he averaged 8000 miles of travel per year, most of it on horseback! He rose at four in the morning, lived simply and methodically, and was never idle if he could help it. He formed societies, opened chapels, examined and commissioned preachers, administered aid charities, prescribed for the sick and superintended schools and orphanages. He received at least £20,000 for his publications, but used little of it for himself. His charities were limited only by his means, and he died a poor man.

All of this activity had one cause: Wesley’s renewed understanding of the importance and preeminence of the Gospel.

The Gospel

The partnership between Wesley and Whitefield was a strange one. Although they had similar backgrounds, their theological viewpoints were wildly different. On the one hand, Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist, subscribing to all of the beliefs we learned about last week; on the other, Wesley was an Arminian, believing, for example, that man is capable of overcoming their own sinfulness enough to be able to turn to God – anathema to a Calvinist. They put aside these differences, however, in order to preach the Gospel.

This renewed Gospel focus led to one of the great missionary movements of all time. The Society for Missions to Africa and the East (later renamed the Church Mission Society) was formed in 1799 by a group of activist evangelicals. Other voluntary societies, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children were also established by evangelicals. Much of the social work that was done by these societies was accompanied by Christian witness and evangelism. In this, they followed Christ’s example – he who preached God’s kingdom come and then worked to see that fulfilled here on earth by caring for the sick, the poor and the outcast.

One of the big battles that evangelicals had to overcome was the perception in society that Christianity was only useful for the purpose of teaching morals (this idea is known as moralism). Most people were baptised as infants, and so considered themselves to be Christians by default. As a result, so it was thought, the Church needed only to preach morality. Wesley, perhaps largely because of his own experience, held to the importance of all people undergoing ‘conversion’ and being born-again.

Assurance of Salvation

Wesley believed that all Christians have a faith which implies an assurance of God’s forgiving love, and that one should feel that assurance, or the “witness of the Spirit”. This understanding is grounded in Paul’s affirmation, “…ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father. The same Spirit beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God…” (Romans 8:15-16, Wesley’s translation). This experience was mirrored for Wesley in his Aldersgate experience wherein he “knew” he was loved by God and that his sins were forgiven.

I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation, and an assurance was given me that He had taken my sin, even mine.³

The Bible

Broadly speaking, there are 4 categories of belief about the source of authority for the church:

• The Bible
• Tradition
• Personal Experience
• Reason

Different groups have different emphases on each of these – for example, as we learned when looked at protestantism, the Catholic church emphasises the role of tradition, and the teachings of the church, to be equal with Scripture. Other churches see the personal experience of the Holy Spirit’s work in your life as being the determining force for that life; hence you are encouraged to always seek the Spirit’s leading before taking action.

John Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture, Wesley argued, is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’ For Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional “sources” for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a “lens” through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience. Reason is the means by which we may evaluate and even challenge the assumptions of Tradition.

But for Wesley, the chief test of the “truth and nothing but the whole truth” of a particular interpretation of scripture is how it is seen in practical application in one’s Experience. Always the pragmatist, Wesley believed that Experience formed the best evidence, after Scripture, for the truthfulness of a particular theological view. He believed Scriptural truths are to be primarily lived, rather than simply thought about or merely believed. Thus, how a particular interpretation of scripture is lived out is the best and most viable test of our theology.

This primacy of Scripture is one of the central tenets of evangelical belief.

Conclusion

John Wesley was one of many leading the evangelical charge in the 18th Century, and many have followed in his footsteps since. His great contributions to Christianity were a renewed emphasis on Scriptural authority, and an appreciation for the need for conversion.

Richard Johnson faced a great struggle as the first chaplain of NSW. Governor Phillip demanded that Johnson should teach the convicts and soldiers good morals; Johnson wanted to preach the gospel… and so that is exactly what he did. And that is why Wilberforce and Newton fought so hard to have an evangelical aboard the First Fleet.

And that is why I am an evangelical Christian.

Endnotes

1. Shelley, “A Brand from the Burning” in Church History in Plain Language (2nd Edition, Thomas Nelson, 1995) p. 331.
2. cf. Zech 3:2.
3. Wesley’s Journal

Introduction

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?¹

With these words, Queen Elizabeth II was entrusted with the responsibility for preserving the Church and the Gospel within the boundaries of her domain. But what do those words mean – “the Protestant Reformed Religion”?

We looked at what it means to be a protestant last week, and religion seems fairly straightforward, but what does it mean to be reformed?

No, it’s not like being a “reformed prisoner” or a “reformed alcoholic”.

Instead, the word ‘reformed’ in this context has to do with being an heir of the teachings of John Calvin.

John Calvin

When Gerard Calvin and his wife Jeanne became parents of a little boy in northern France in 1509, they could not have known that he was destined to become one of the truly great men of all time. They named him Jean. In French his name is Jean Calvin; in the Latinized form, Joannes Calvinus; but we know him as John Calvin.

John Calvin was born July 10, 1509 in Noyon in Picardy, 60 miles northeast of Paris. Upon reaching his teenage years, he began formal studies towards becoming a Roman Catholic priest. He studied theology at Paris from 1523 to 1528, and did quite well. But he became increasingly disillusioned with the corrupt Catholicism of the day, and decided to study law instead. So he transferred to Orleans and Bourges for studies towards becoming a lawyer (1528 to 1532).

But his heart was still restless, until at last it found its rest in God through true conversion in 1533. He left Roman Catholicism forever. But these were dangerous days for those who left Rome. Heavy persecution dogged the French Protestants, and Calvin himself was imprisoned for a short time from 1534 to 1535. So he decided to leave France.

His goal was to move to Basel, Switzerland, and take up a quiet and secluded life of study and writing. It was never to be. Passing through Geneva, he met the leader of, the Swiss French Reformation, Guillaume Farel, who was immediately so impressed with young Calvin that he cautioned him with God’s punishment if he did not stay in Geneva to preach and teach. Calvin stayed.

In 1536 Calvin published the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. It was immediately hailed throughout Europe as the finest systematic theology by a Protestant Reformer. It was to be his literary masterpiece and he later edited and expanded it several times through his lifetime.

Calvin and Farel immediately began the reformation of the church in Geneva. They proposed a confession and oath for the city and its citizenry. All citizens were required to take the oath of faith or leave Geneva. Virtually all Genevans accepted. But when in 1538 Calvin called for the church to have authority to fence the Lord’s Table by excommunicating all those living in public sin, both he and Farel were exiled by the City Council.

So Calvin went to Strassbourg in southern Germany near France. There he pastored the French-speaking congregation and lectured in the theological academy. He became a close friend of Martin Bucer, who would have a profound influence on Calvin’s theology. Calvin would stay in Strassbourg for 3 years until the Geneva City Council changed its mind and agreed that Calvin and Farel were right after all. Yet it would be nearly 20 years until the church formally had the right to excommunicate citizens living in known sin.

It was in Strassbourg that Calvin met his wife. Actually, Bucer and Farel had twice tried to match Calvin with a prospective wife, unsuccessfully. A certain Anabaptist had converted to Reformed thinking under Calvin’s theology, but he soon caught and died of the Plague. Some time later, his widow would become Mrs. John Calvin. Her name was Idelette de Bure. She brought 2 children with her, a teenage boy and a young girl. John and Idelette had only one child themselves, but he died shortly afterwards. Idelette herself was constantly in ill health, and she died in 1549 after only 9 years of marriage. Calvin never remarried. And he too was in continual ill health.

From 1541 Calvin spent almost all of his life in Geneva. In addition to his preaching and teaching duties he organized a school system for the children of Geneva, a system of charity for the poor and elderly; Calvin even designed the public sewer system of Geneva when the City Council couldn’t agree on a plan.

One of his main goals was a truly godly society. He viewed the Church and State on equal levels – separate in some areas, related in others. Before Calvin, Geneva was notorious throughout Europe for its profligacy; after Calvin, it became one of the godliest cities the world has ever known. Calvin’s theology of the godly society gave rise to the modern ideas of the democratic republic, the Free Enterprise economic system popularly called Capitalism, and the Protestant Work Ethic. They were put into practice in Geneva. The plan worked.

In 1555, Geneva became the refuge of Protestant refugees from all around Europe, particularly Great Britain. These English and Scottish leaders sat under Calvin’s teaching and brought that theology back with them when they returned to solidify the English and Scottish Reformations. Another major milestone in Calvin’s life was the establishment of the Academy of Geneva in 1559, which later became the University of Geneva. But for all this, his main calling was to be a pastor and a theologian.

The ‘Five Points’ of Calvinism

Whilst he never formulated them in these words, John Calvin’s most famous teachings are traditionally remembered using the mnemonic TULIP: Total Depravity; Unconditional Election; Limited Atonement; Irresistible Grace; and Perseverance of the Saints.

Total Depravity

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.²

Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity teaches that people are by nature not inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, as he requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are destructive to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passions, and will.

Therefore, in Reformed Theology, God must predestine individuals for salvation since man is incapable of choosing God.

Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. As Wayne Grudem points out:

Scripture is not denying that unbelievers can do good in human society in some senses. But it is denying that they can do any spiritual good or be good in terms of a relationship with God. Apart from the work of Christ in our lives, we are like all other unbelievers who are “darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Eph. 4:18).³

This may seem like a harsh call, but Calvin nevertheless taught optimism concerning God’s love for what he has made and God’s ability to accomplish the ultimate good that he intends for his creation. In particular, in the process of salvation, it is argued that God overcomes man’s inability with his divine grace and enables men and women to choose to follow him. After all, “with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”⁴ And this brings us to the idea of election.

For further reading, see:

• Genesis 6:5: “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.”
• Psalms 51:5: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
• Jeremiah 13:23: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”
• Mark 7:21-23: “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evil things come from inside and make a man ‘unclean’.”
• John 3:19: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”
• John 6:64-65: “[Jesus said,] ‘Yet there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe, and who would betray him.) He went on to say, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.'”
• John 8:34: “Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.'”
• Romans 3:10-11: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one understands, no one who seeks God.”
• Romans 8:6-8: “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.”
• 1 Corinthians 2:14: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
• Ephesians 2:1-3: “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.”

Unconditional Election

As Scripture, then, clearly shows, we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction.⁵

In Protestant theology, election is considered to be one aspect of predestination in which God selects certain individuals to be saved. Those elected receive mercy, while those not elected, the reprobate, receive justice.

In Calvinism, this election is called “unconditional” because his choice to save someone does not hinge on anything inherent in the person or on any act that the person performs or belief that the person exercises. Indeed the influence of sin has so inhibited our ability to act righteously that no one is willing or able to come to or follow God apart from God first regenerating the person’s heart to give them the ability to love him. Hence, God’s choice in election is and can only be based solely on God’s own independent and sovereign will and not upon the foreseen actions of man.

The Reformed position is frequently contrasted with the Arminian doctrine of conditional election in which God’s eternal choice to save a person is conditioned on God’s certain foreknowledge of future events, namely, that certain individuals would exercise faith and trust in response to God’s offer of salvation.

For more:

• John 15:16: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last.”
• Romans 9:15-16: “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
• Ephesians 1:4-5: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.”
• 2 Timothy 1:9: “[God] has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.”

Limited Atonement

The doctrine of the limited scope (or extent) of the atonement is intimately tied up with the doctrine of the nature of the atonement. It also has much to do with the general Calvinist scheme of predestination. Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory (also known as punishment theory) of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory states that the atonement of Christ literally pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men — that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for specific sins and thereby cancels the judgment they had incurred. Since, Calvinists argue, it would be unjust for God to pay the penalty for men’s sins and then still condemn them for those sins, all those whose sins were propitiated must necessarily be saved.

The Calvinist view of predestination teaches that God chose a group of people, who would not and could not choose him, to be saved apart from their works or their cooperation, and those people are compelled by God’s irresistible grace to accept the offer of the salvation achieved in the atonement of Christ. Since in this scheme God knows precisely who the elect are, Christ needn’t atone for sins other than those of the elect.

The Calvinist atonement is thus called definite because it certainly secures the salvation of those for whom Christ died, and it is called limited in its extent because it effects salvation for the elect only. Calvinists do not believe the power of the atonement is limited in any way, which is to say that no sin is too great to be expiated by Christ’s sacrifice, in their view.

On a practical level, this doctrine is not emphasized in Calvinist churches except in comparison to other salvific schemes, and when it is taught, the primary use of this and the other doctrines of predestination is the assurance of believers. To that end, they apply this doctrine especially to try to strengthen the belief that “Christ died for me,” as in the words of St. Paul, “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me“⁶. In fact, contrary to what one might expect on the basis of this doctrine, Calvinists believe they can freely and sincerely offer salvation to everyone on God’s behalf since they themselves do not know which people are counted among the elect and since they see themselves as God’s instruments in bringing about the salvation of other members of the elect.

The classic Bible passage cited to prove a limited extent to the atonement is the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John in which Jesus uses Ancient Near Eastern shepherding practices as a metaphor for his relationship to his followers. A shepherd of those times would call his sheep from a mix of flocks, and his sheep would hearken to his voice and follow, while the sheep of other flocks would ignore any but their own shepherd’s voice (John 10:1-5). In that context, Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me,…and I lay down my life for the sheep” (vv. 14-15), and he tells the Pharisees that they “do not believe because [they] are not [his] sheep” (v. 26). He continues, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” (vv. 27-28). Since Calvinists and nearly all Christians believe that not all have eternal life with God, Calvinists conclude that either Jesus was wrong in saying that he would lose none of his sheep (a conclusion they reject) or that Jesus must not have died for everyone.

Irresistible Grace

According to Calvinism, those who obtain salvation do so, not by their own “free” will, but because of the sovereign discriminating grace of God. That is, men yield to grace, not finally because their consciences were more tender or their faith more tenacious than that of other men. Rather, the willingness and ability to do God’s will, are evidence of God’s own faithfulness to save men from the power and the penalty of sin, and since man is so corrupt that he will not decide and cannot be wooed to follow after God, God must powerfully intervene. In short, Calvinism argues that regeneration must precede faith.

Calvin says of this intervention that “it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant,”⁷ and John Gill says that “this act of drawing is an act of power, yet not of force.

See, for example:

• John 6:37,39: “All that the Father gives me will come to me…. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up on the last day.”
• John 6:44–45: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.”
• John 6:65: “[N]o one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

Perseverance of the Saints

The perseverance of the saints means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God’s power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again.

The Reformed tradition has consistently seen the doctrine of perseverance as a natural consequence to its general scheme of predestination in which God has chosen some men and women for salvation and has cleared them of their guilty status by atoning for their sins through Jesus’ sacrifice. According to these Calvinists, God has irresistibly drawn the elect to put their faith in himself for salvation by regenerating their hearts and convincing them of their need. Therefore, they continue, since God has made satisfaction for the sins of the elect, they can no longer be condemned for them, and through the help of the Holy Spirit, they must necessarily persevere as Christians and in the end be saved.

Traditional Calvinists also believe that all who are born again and justified before God necessarily and inexorably proceed to sanctification. Indeed, failure to proceed to sanctification in their view is evidence that the person in question was not one of the elect to begin with. The suggestion is that after God has regenerated someone, the person’s will cannot reverse its course. It is argued that God has changed that person in ways that are outside of his or her own ability to alter fundamentally, and he or she will therefore persevere in the faith.

On a practical level, Calvinists do not claim to know who is elect and who is not, and the only guide they have are the verbal testimony and good works (or “fruit”) of each individual. Any who “fall away” (that is, do not persevere unto death) must not have been truly converted to begin with, though Calvinists don’t claim to know with certainty who did and who did not persevere.

• John 6:37-40: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
• John 10:28-29: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.”
• Romans 5:9-10: “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”
• Romans 8:31-39: “What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
  “For your sake we face death all day long;
  we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
  No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
• Romans 11:29: “[F]or God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.”
• 1 Corinthians 1:4-9: “I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way – in all your speaking and in all your knowledge – because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.”
• Ephesians 1:13-14:”And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of his glory.”
• Philippians 1:6: “[B]eing confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”
• 1 Peter 1:5: “[The elect] are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.”
• Jude 24: “[God] is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy.”

The Lord’s Supper

The Roman Catholic Church of Calvin’s day (and indeed to this day) had 7 ‘sacraments’ – that is, rites, first implemented by Jesus, which are sacred. They were: baptism; confirmation; the eucharist (what we would call communion or the Lord’s Supper); confession; ordination; anointing of the sick (for those who are terminally ill, you may have heard this referred to as ‘last rites’); and marriage.

Martin Luther, John Calvin and other reformers argued that there was only biblical evidence for 2 of these – baptism and the Lord’s Supper. However, they were by no means in total agreement about what these actually meant. Luther and Calvin, for example, disagreed about what happens when we take communion: Luther believed that, whilst not actually being Christ’s body and blood (as Catholics believe), the bread and the wine by which we celebrate the Lord’s Supper somehow mystically link us to his body and blood, allowing us to participate in his death and thus in his life; Calvin, on the other hand, argued that the bread and the wine were rather a symbol, giving a visible sign of the fact that Christ himself was truly present. This latter view is the one that is held in the Anglican Church:

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.⁸

Conclusion

Few men other than the Lord Jesus himself have had a more significant impact on Christian thinking than John Calvin. His influence can be felt every time we take communion. His understanding of God’s Sovereignty was a precious gift to a church infatuated with its own sense of control; it reminds us that the world exists around God, not God around the world. Some of his teachings are hard to understand or accept – yet they ring true with Scripture over and over again.

And that is why I am a reformed Christian.

Endnotes

1. Archbishop of Canterbury to Queen Elizabeth II at her coronation, 1953
2. Westminster Confession of Faith
3. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (IVP, 1994) p. 497.
4. Matthew 19:26
5. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion III.xxi.7.
6. Gal. 2:20, emphasis added
7. Calvin, Commentary on John’s Gospel 6:44.
8. Article 28 of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.

Introduction

Next year, 2008, the Roman Catholic church will celebrate World Youth Day here in Australia. As a part of this, we can expect to see a massive influx of young people from around the world¹, drawn towards Sydney in particular; the event will climax in an open-air Mass at Randwick Racecourse, conducted by Pope Benedict XVI. On the whole, we can expect the event to be full of life and energy, and no doubt a great witness to Christ… and yet many Christians will feel unable to attend.

It is a fact that no Anglican Archbishop of Sydney has ever attended mass. At the installation of Cardinal Pell as a cardinal, the service was planned with a deliberate pause midway through to allow Archbishop Peter Jensen to withdraw before the commencement of the mass part of the service.

The question must be asked, of course, what kind of issue or issues could be worth splitting the Church over? How can we justify one Christian parting ways with another? Didn’t Christ command unity? Wasn’t Paul’s vision for one Body, rather than many smaller bodies?

In this course it is my aim to explore some of the issues that have split the Church over the years, and tonight we start with the issue of the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide.

History

Martin Luther

In the summer of 1520 a document bearing an impressive seal circulated throughout Germany in search of a remote figure. “Arise, O Lord,” the writing began, “and judge Thy cause. A wild boar has invaded Thy vineyard.”

The document, a papal bull – named after the seal, or bulla – took three months to reach Martin Luther, the wild boar. Long before it arrived in Wittenberg where Luther was teaching, he knew its contents. Forty-one of his beliefs were condemned as “heretical, or scandalous, or false, or offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds, or repugnant to Catholic truth.” The bull called on Luther to repent and repudiate his errors or face the dreadful consequences.

Luther received his copy on the tenth of October. At the ened of his sixty-day period of grace, he led a throng of eager students outside Wittenberg and burned copies of the Canon Law and the works of some medieval theologians. Perhaps as an afterthought Luther added a copy of the bull condemning him. That was his answer. “They have burned my books,” he said, “I burn theirs.” Those flames in early December, 1520, were a fit symbol of the defiance of the pope raging throughout Germany.²

Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) was a German monk, theologian, and church reformer. He is generally considered to be the founder of Protestantism.

Luther’s theology challenged the authority of the papacy by emphasizing the Bible as the sole source of religious authority and all baptised Christians as a general priesthood. According to Luther, salvation was attainable only by faith in Jesus as the messiah, a faith unmediated by the church. These ideas helped to inspire the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western civilization.

Luther’s translation of the Bible into the vernacular, making it more accessible to ordinary people, had a tremendous political impact on the church and on German culture. The translation also furthered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation, and influenced the translation of the English King James Bible. His hymns inspired the development of congregational singing within Christianity. His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage within Protestantism.

Early life

Luther was born to Hans Luder (or Ludher, later Luther) and his wife Margarethe (née Lindemann) on November 10, 1483 in Eisleben, Germany, then part of the Holy Roman Empire. He was baptised the next morning on the feast day of St. Martin of Tours. His family moved to Mansfeld in 1484, where his father was a leaseholder of copper mines and smelters, and served as one of four citizen representatives on the local council. Martin Marty describes Luther’s mother as a hard-working woman of “trading-class stock and middling means,” and notes that Luther’s enemies would later wrongly describe her as a whore and bath attendant. He had several brothers and sisters, and is known to have been close to one of them, Jacob.

Hans Luther was ambitious for himself and his family, and was determined to see his eldest son become a lawyer. He sent Martin to Latin schools in Mansfeld, then Magdeburg in 1497, where he attended a school operated by a lay group called the Brethren of the Common Life, and Eisenach in 1498. The three schools focused on the so-called “trivium”: grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Luther later compared his education there to purgatory and hell.

At the age of seventeen in 1501, he entered the University of Erfurt — later describing it as a beerhouse and whorehouse — which saw him woken at four every morning for what Marty describes as “a day of rote learning and often wearying spiritual exercises.” He received his master’s degree in 1505.

In accordance with his father’s wishes, he enrolled in law school at the same university that year, but dropped out almost immediately, believing that law represented uncertainty. Marty writes that Luther sought assurances about life, and was drawn to theology and philosophy, expressing particular interest in Aristotle, William of Ockham, and Gabriel Biel. He was deeply influenced by two tutors, Bartholomäus Arnoldi von Usingen and Jodocus Trutfetter, who taught him to be suspicious of even the greatest thinkers, and to test everything himself by experience. Philosophy proved to be unsatisfying, offering assurance about the use of reason, but none about the importance, for Luther, of loving God. Reason could not lead men to God, he felt, and he developed what Marty describes as a love-hate relationship with Aristotle over the latter’s emphasis on reason. For Luther, reason could be used to question men and institutions, but not God. Human beings could learn about God only through divine revelation, he believed, and Scripture therefore became increasingly important to him.

He decided to leave his studies and become a monk, later attributing his decision to an experience during a thunderstorm on July 2, 1505. A lightning bolt struck near him as he was returning to university after a trip home. Later telling his father he was terrified of death and divine judgment, he cried out, “Help! Saint Anna, I will become a monk!” He came to view his cry for help as a vow he could never break.

He left law school, sold his books, and entered a closed Augustinian monastery in Erfurt on July 17, 1505. One friend blamed the decision on Luther’s sadness over the deaths of two friends. Luther himself seemed saddened by the move, telling those who attended a farewell supper then walked him to the door of the Black Cloister, “This day you see me, and then, not ever again.” His father was furious over what he saw as a waste of Luther’s education.

Luther dedicated himself to monastic life, devoting himself to fasts, long hours in prayer, pilgrimage, and frequent confession. Luther tried to please God through this dedication, but it only increased his awareness of his own sinfulness. He would later remark, “If anyone could have gained heaven as a monk, then I would indeed have been among them.” Luther described this period of his life as one of deep spiritual despair. He said, “I lost hold of Christ the Savior and Comforter and made of him a stock-master and hangman over my poor soul.”

Johann von Staupitz, his superior, concluded that Luther needed more work to distract him from excessive introspection and ordered him to pursue an academic career. In 1507, he was ordained to the priesthood, and in 1508 began teaching theology at the University of Wittenberg. He received a Bachelor’s degree in Biblical studies on March 9, 1508, and another Bachelor’s degree in the Sentences by Peter Lombard in 1509. On October 19, 1512, he was awarded his Doctor of Theology and, on October 21, 1512, was received into the senate of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, having been called to the position of Doctor in Bible. He spent the rest of his career in this position at the University of Wittenberg.

Indulgences

In 1516-17, Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar and papal commissioner for indulgences, was sent to Germany by the Roman Catholic Church to sell indulgences to raise money to rebuild St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In Roman Catholic theology, an “indulgence” is the remission of punishment because a sin already committed has been forgiven; the indulgence is granted by the church when the sinner confesses and receives absolution. When an indulgence is given, the church is extending merit to a sinner from its Treasure House of Merit, an accumulation of merits it has collected based on the good deeds of the saints. These merits could be bought and sold.

On October 31, 1517, Luther wrote to Albert, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, protesting the sale of indulgences. He enclosed in his letter a copy of his “Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences,” which came to be known as The 95 Theses. Hans Hillerbrand writes that Luther had no intention of confronting the church, but saw his disputation as a scholarly objection to church practices, and the tone of the writing is accordingly “searching, rather than doctrinaire.” Hillerbrand writes that there is nevertheless an undercurrent of challenge in several of the theses, particularly in Thesis 86, which asks: “Why does not the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”

Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel that “[a]s soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs,” insisting that, since forgiveness was God’s alone to grant, those who claimed that indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances.

According to Philip Melanchthon, writing in 1546, Luther nailed a copy of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg that same day — church doors acting as the bulletin boards of his time — an event now seen as sparking the Protestant Reformation, and celebrated every October 31 as Reformation Day.

The 95 Theses were quickly translated from Latin into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be fanned by the printing press. Within two weeks, the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe.

On June 15, 1520, the Pope warned Luther with the papal bull (the one about the boar in the vineyard, already mentioned) that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 sentences drawn from his writings, including the 95 Theses, within 60 days.

That fall, Johann Eck proclaimed the bull in Meissen and other towns. Karl von Miltitz, a papal nuncio, attempted to broker a solution, but Luther, who had sent the Pope a copy of On the Freedom of a Christian in October, publicly set fire to the bull and decretals at Wittenberg on December 10, 1520, an act he defended in Why the Pope and his Recent Book are Burned and Assertions Concerning All Articles.

As a consequence, Luther was excommunicated by Leo X on January 3, 1521, in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.

Reformation Teachings

Whilst Luther’s objection to the sale of indulgences was the initial spark that set the flame of the Reformation, it was not the most significant of his teachings. This distinction, in my view, belongs instead to what are referred to as the five solas.

Five Solas

The five solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarise the Reformers’ basic theological beliefs as compared to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. The Latin word sola means “alone” in English. The five solas were what the Reformers believed to be the only things needed for Christian salvation. They were intended to highlight the absolute (and only) essentials of Christian life and practice.

The five solas are:

• Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
• Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
• Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
• Solus Christus (“In Christ alone”)
• Soli Deo gloria (“Glory to God alone”)

Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)

Salvation comes by God’s grace or “unmerited favor” only — not as something merited by the sinner. This means that salvation is an unearned gift from God for Jesus’ sake.

During the Reformation, Protestant leaders and theologians generally believed the Roman Catholic view of the means of salvation to be a mixture of reliance upon the grace of God, and confidence in the merits of one’s own works performed in love. The Reformers argued instead that salvation is entirely found in God’s gifts (that is, God’s act of free grace), dispensed by the Holy Spirit according to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ alone. Consequently, they argued that a sinner is not accepted by God on account of the change wrought in the believer by God’s grace, and indeed, that the believer is accepted without any regard for the merit of his works—for no one deserves salvation. The responsibility for salvation does not rest on the sinner to any degree.

Sola fide (“by faith alone”)

Justification (interpreted in Protestant theology as, “being declared guiltless by God”) is received by faith only, not good works, though in classical Protestant theology, saving faith is automatically accompanied by good works. Some Protestants see this doctrine as being summarized with the formula “Faith yields justification and good works” and as contrasted with the Roman Catholic formula “Faith and good works yield justification.” However, this is disputed by the Roman Catholic position as a misrepresentation; it might be better contrasted with a comparison of what is meant by the term “justification”: both sides agree that the term invokes a communication of Christ’s merits to sinners, where in Protestant theology this is seen as being a declaration of sinlessness, Roman Catholicism sees justification as a communication of God’s life to a human being, cleansing him of sin and transforming him truly into a son of God, so that it is not merely a declaration. This doctrine is sometimes called the material cause or principle of the Reformation because it was the central doctrinal issue for Martin Luther and the other reformers. Luther called it the “doctrine by which the church stands or falls”. This doctrine asserts the total exclusion of any other righteousness to justify the sinner other than the “alien” righteousness (righteousness of another) of Christ alone.

Sola fide is different from Sola gratia because faith alone is considered either a work or is insufficient for salvation which can only be granted freely by God to whom He chooses. This doctrine is especially linked with Calvinism’s unconditional election and predestination, which we will explore more next week.

Sola scriptura (“by 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 (called the Magisterium), ultimately embodied in the Pope himself. They take this one step further, holding that the teachings and interpretations of the Magisterium are themselves authoritative and infallible, and a Christian must obey them as the very Word of God.

Luther and the Reformers, however, took issue with this. Instead, they taught that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative Word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all believers. They held that to add to the Gospel is actually to subtract from it.

Solus Christus (“In Christ alone”)

Some of you will be aware of Pope Benedict’s recent comments to the effect that any church that is not Roman Catholic is not truly God’s church. Because other churches, in his view, are not based upon apostolic succession – that is, they cannot trace a line of successive bishops all the way back to the apostles – their priesthood is invalid, and thus they cannot truly be a part of the Church. This includes the Anglican church, of which we are a part.

According to the Reformers, however, Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and there is salvation through no other. This principle rejects sacerdotalism, which is the belief that there are no sacraments in the church without the services of priests ordained by apostolic succession under the authority of the pope. Martin Luther taught the “general priesthood of the baptized,” which was modified in later Lutheranism and classical Protestant theology into “the priesthood of all believers,” denying the exclusive use of the title “priest” (Latin, sacerdos) to the clergy.

Soli Deo gloria (“Glory to God alone”)

All glory is due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through his will and action—not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The reformers believed that human beings—even saints canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, the popes, and the church hierarchy—are not worthy of the glory that was accorded them.

Summary

These teachings can be summarised as follows:

Category	Roman Catholic Church	The Reformers
Salvation is offered…	by grace to those who do good works.	by Grace alone.
Justification is received…	by faith and good works.	by faith alone, but leads to good works.
Authority is found…	in the Scriptures and the (Roman Catholic) Church.	in Scripture alone.
Access to God is obtained…	through Christ and his appointed Church.	through Christ alone.
Glory is due…	to God, Mary and the saints.	to God alone.

Endnotes

1. The official World Youth Day website estimates that “500,000 participants are expected to attend at least one event during the World Youth Day week.”
2. Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (2nd Edition, Thomas Nelson, 1995).

Searching the Scriptures is a training course in reading and understanding the Bible. I initially developed it in May 2007, to be run over 3 x 1.5hr sessions.

Printable notes available here (NB: may not be as up to date as pages here).

Week 1 (Handout)

• Why read the Bible?
• How to read the Bible
• How to read a narrative
• How to read an epistle

Week 2 (Handout)

• How did we get the Bible?
• How to read a psalm
• How to read an apocalypse
• How to read wisdom literature

Week 3 (Handout)

• How to read law
• How to read prophecy
• How to read the Gospels