Jesus- Unlocking the Hermeneutical door

Jason Strange
3/21/2010

I would have to say that most people who are professing Christians have never heard of the word Hermeneutics and for the few that have I believe would confess that they would not see the necessity as long as you have God in your heart and a Bible in your hand. I anticipate that their rational would be somewhat-biblical, but also at the same time some-what mystical. I hear them saying “Why do Hermeneutics when it’s the Holy Spirit that will lead me into all truth, or why trust in Hermeneutics when they are the methods of fallible men.”) Why should we get all technical and muddy up the simple Gospel? Some might even scoff at those who would suggest the necessity. If I were stranded on an island with just me and my Bible would I be deficient in my exegesis? The exception does not make the rule. Did God intend for us to operate in isolation, just me in my corner, with my Bible, a Vines dictionary, a highlighter and the Holy Spirit peeping over my shoulder just to make sure I get it right; or did he intend for us to employ these skills in community, using all the means available to us so that we might understand His word and his work in Redemptive History.

Hermeneutics is necessary when dealing with any literary work, but since we are dealing with sacred Scripture the stakes are much higher and “cutting the pieces straight” could mean life or death. It is also necessary because we are dealing with an ancient literary work that is thousands of years old, written to a particular people, in a distinct culture, who spoke a different language, along with many other factors.

Biblical Hermeneutics necessitates itself because we are seeking to understand the meaning of what is before us, we are seeking to know the mind of Christ. The question is why would we not employ all means necessary at our disposal to get to the heart of any text? I think for the most part evangelicals tend to be lazy thinkers and just end up tinkling with Gods word. Many Christians are just looking for the fire-side chat or the starbucks devotional.
Goldsworthy says that the function of Hermeneutics is to bridge build across cultural gaps between that world at that time in history and the present world at this time history. John Stott even has said “it’s our job to connect the two worlds.” The goal of doing this would be to draw out application from the significance within the biblical text. And as we observed Goldsworthy’s gaps we find that they are helpful to recognize as we begin our exegesis, but the danger is that “we might focus too much on the gaps and end up with a worldly or earthy hermeneutic, consumed and bogged down with cultural issues. (Not having a Biblical theological heavenly hermeneutic” Bridges and ladders).
Goldsworthy aligns himself with some of the neo-orthodox theologians such as Barth and Bultmann on the gap idea, when the critics argued that there is a gap, actually a huge gulf, one that is caused by human depravity and sin, thus shifting the emphasis from the cultural to the more pressing matters of spiritual alienation and reconciliation. We concluded that the gaps are artificial when the emphasis shouldn’t be on bridging the cultural gaps but on the Christ who is the spiritual ladder, he is the one who connects heaven to earth, and God to his people, and that we as his people are participating in the same eschatological age as the saints of old, and we are listening in, peering into and partaking in the same covenant, promises, and are connected by the same story line, the same Christ event, the same unfolding drama.
There is also a Hermeneutical necessity in the community life of the church. For this is where Gods people are fed and nourished when Gods word is properly understood. This is where grace is dispensed for fainting hearts and straying saints. This is where truth is heralded to make glad the people of God and to convict dead sinners. This is where the body is visibly united and God is glorified. This is where Hermeneutics and song connect in joyful praise and adoration. If sound Hermeneutics are not being employed by the elders and encouraged by the elders to the people than that congregation is in danger and they ought to take heed (Rev. 3) That church will most likely become imperative-driven and instead of reflecting Christ they’ll begin to, by and large, reflect the culture and lose their distinctive quality as Gods unique people. “The Hermeneutic must be Gospel-driven and if it loses the Gospel plot than it ceases to be evangelical.“ The Gospel becomes the interpretative norm for the whole of the Bible. And since Jesus is God and all meaning is derived from him (the gospel itself) becomes the hermeneutical principle for everything that exists. If all of life is not interpreted through the gospel one can not properly understand his world. So for those who go so far as to attack the gospel you actually harm yourself because you are moving further away from the center which rightly interprets all reality, and you perpetuate your confusion.

If I could boil down Goldsworthy’s diagram’s I would say that Jesus is the Chief Hermeneutic. He unites the communicator, the communication, and the receiver into one.

He is the true receiver and interpreter of the Father’s word. And now our receiving of this same word is tied to our union with him. “And as we have been united to the God-man, he provides the paradigm for our understanding as we come to the text where human words and divine words are fused together.”

Hermeneutical Motivation

Jason Strange
3/17/2010

Why should I be motivated to accurately handle Gods word? It’s a simple answer yet a profound answer, because it is God’s word. If God is who He declares himself to be, worthy of all honor, glory and praise; If he is a holy, omnipotent Creator of all things, then is he must be at the apex of our affections and our chief desire. This God has spoken and articulated a message for mankind through a medium ( a book), and this book is the only way out of the mess man has made, it is the only way by which man has any hope now or for the future. It is the only source of truth in the world that explains all that we see and experience, and it is the only way by which we can know the true God and his thoughts about us and His world. For those reasons alone the Bible ought to be handled with the greatest care and diligence.

This is Gods word to mankind. If it is not than we can burn it or stick on a shelf next to the Koran or the book of Mormon. God has entrusted his people who by the intervention of the Holy Spirit are to be the custodians and caretakers of his word. Man alone would mess it all up, but God has not left man alone to not only preserve his words but to accurately handle his word. God gives His people the tools to work with a document that is living and active.

What happens when Gods word is not accurately handled? Men are left in their sins, God is not glorified, he is distorted and falsely represented, the church is not fed, growth is stunted, hell is populated, heaven ceases to celebrate, false doctrines are not challenged, cults abound, darkness rules, demons don’t tremble, the culture is not confronted, tongue speaking abounds everything begins to wither and die when the Word is not handled accurately. The church no longer is salty but tasteless. Inaccuracy allows for any and every kind of aberration of teaching to pervade and people are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. This is the poison in the cool-aid.

But when it is handled accurately the meaning is transmitted, and when the meaning is understood than the power of Gods word takes flight and becomes effective to its hearers. Only then are hearts convicted, only then are stony hearts plowed up, only then will man fall on his knees and cry for mercy, only then will people be transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Light, only than will Jesus be displayed as the Great and Glorious King of kings and Lord of lords. When Gods word is “cut straight” people have an accurate understanding of not only who God and Christ are, but of the Gospel message.

The Gospel was eclipsed because of the magesterium for hundreds of years until an Augustinian monk came along and unveiled it because he had accurately interpreted the doctrine of justification by faith. When Gods word is unleashed it can drop like an Atomic bomb in all its power and force. This is what Reformers do- recaptures truth that has been mishandled, but this is what God has called his people, his church, to do since the beginning. This is our mandate, our sacred trust, for this is the only means by which anyone is saved, this is the means by which God is glorified on the earth.

The Necessity & Aim of Hermeneutics

Max Strange
3/17/2010

The hope for anyone who comes to the Word of God is to know the God of the Word (Phil. 3:10). This, I hope, is the immense drive for any and all who scan the pages of Scripture and applies hermeneutic principles. The great Apostle to the Gentiles had this same ambition to know Christ. Paul said, “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings…” For Christians today, we have this same Spirit-propelled ambition and struggle. The struggles are many that keep us from seeing the Word of God rightly and because of this, we must understand the great necessity for hermeneutics and have its goals in mind. 

First, we have the necessity of hermeneutic. God is a communicator and by nature a revealer. Within His own Trinitarian perfection, long before the world ever existed, God communicated. All things were planned within the Godhead to speak, create, send Christ, redeem a people, etc. In a most basic sense, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are by nature communicators.

From this same and only God comes man. God designed man to utilize language, to understand, to apply truth, and to ultimate communicate back with God. Man was designed to be a receiver and proclaimer of a Christ-centered revelation. When God spoke to Adam to “Be fruitful and multiply,” Adam automatically interpreted rightly what God had said and he was to proclaim it to Eve and to future generations. Adam was made to receive, interpret, and communicate God’s Word. He had a perfect hermeneutic of God and he perfectly understood God’s speech-acts. Adam was meant to find his meaning, destiny, existence, and purpose in the communication of God and in his perfect God-given interpretation of that communication. He was meant to interpret his entire world in the way God the Communicator communicated it to him. Unfortunately, man fell into sin and lost his way.

Adam rebelled against God and his perfect hermeneutical grid was thrashed. The way Adam could understand God was shattered like a pair of glasses thrown from a high office building. His framework was not distorted but pulverized into a million bits of confusion, creating an “epistemological disaster” (the science of knowing God). This shattering presupposes the greatest urgency for hermeneutics. However, hermeneutical skills alone cannot undo the fallen sinner’s condition to understand God’s meaning and significance.

In order to understand God, one must have the Spirit of God living at home in the heart. The new creation must take place with the Spirit dwelling and imparting the mind of Christ in the soul to begin a reverse of the curse. Noetic salvation takes places, a sort of redemption of the mind commences (1 Cor. 2:16). The mind goes through a transformation process to know and love the God he was alienated from (Romans 12:1-2). Everything attached to the curse grows dim and everything concerning Christ grows big and beautiful as the Christian’s interpretive framework realigns with God’s Word. Yet, our remaining sinfulness and confusion “conspire to lead us always away towards a Christless interpretation.” Many inside and outside the Church twist God’s Word and do damage to the Word of God by unnecessary allegorization and spiritualization of the text. They banish the Biblical authors, who stood in the presence of God, from their meaning, and fail to see the big storyline in favor of nearsighted personal application. Many do their best to unsupernaturalize the Bible and deem that the most significant process of interpretation is the readers' own meaning. Most often, we simply approach the Bible with all of our presuppositions that confuse the interpretation. Therefore, after all this, the necessity for hermeneutics should be plain to see.

Second of all we see the goal and function of hermeneutics. The initial goal of hermeneutic method is to find the author’s intent. The hope is to close the gap between the text and its world and the reader with his present world. History, culture, grammar, syntax, accumulated theological context, are all ways in which to understand the meaning that the author intended for his audience and the application the audience would have walked away with. However, the process does not end there. The author’s mind is not the goal but the Christ who author’s all Scripture. The interpreter creates a theology of many parts to see how it fits the whole and therefore ought not to leave out the redemptive-historical significance, the overarching theme; the meta-narrative of God’s story.  One who does walks up to the edge of the Grand Canyon and simply stairs at his feet. 

Hermeneutical principles also establish authority. It shows us that God’s Word isn’t a jar of clay that one uses to mold into some subjective ash tray. Hermeneutic principles, one’s that we naturally had before sin, reveal to us that there is an objective standard of authority above and beyond our own taste, feelings, opinions, likes, dislikes, and intuitions. It shows us that there is an art and a science to God’s Word and that it stands in authority over us and not some toy-thing to played with or trifled with.

Finally, hermeneutics functions as a saint unifier. Hermeneutics is a good tool for the entire Christian community (Acts 17:11). The church meets and understands God’s Word together creating a dynamic understanding of God. This unifies the people in truth and in spirit and cultivates a camaraderie of love, not merely in emotion but all according to the truth of God’s Word.

An Unbreakable & Irreversible Union: Indicative & Imperative

By Max Strange
8/21/2009

We are deathly wired to perform, achieve, moralize, and manipulate. However, in Christ we can see, though through a mirror dimly lit, how we are to live by grace. Born anew, we now have the mind of Christ, and transformation is essential to alter wrong thinking (Rom.12:1-2). From the start, Christians must think rightly upon the indicative and the imperative because Christian living builds upon the indicative (what God has done) and then on the imperative (what you should do). The way the Christian understands these will greatly influence his Christian growth for better or for worse.

The Scriptures are chiefly concerned with who God is and what God has done; that is to say, it is an indicative proclamation from God about God. The Bible also includes, with no less force, how we should respond to who God is and what God has done in the imperative. Both are spoken of with such equal consistency that they cannot be separated, isolated, or broken apart. The one is normally seen with the other, like a set of dedicated twins.

The relationship between who God is and what He has done (indicative) and the Christian’s response to it all (imperative) is immediately clear because there is a cause and effect relationship. In the structure found in each case in Scripture, the imperative follows the indicative with transitions: “thus,” “so that,” “in order to,” “for,” or “therefore.” This relationship can also be seen in Philippians 2:12-13 as well when Paul said by the Spirit, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (imperative), for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure (indicative).” We cannot disconnect, invert, split, or even balance them (50/50). Ridderbos says that the “imperative rests on the indicative and this order is not reversible.” The Christian who does reverse this order will eventually be shipwrecked by his duty-driven rudder.

In other Scriptures, we see this pair of paradoxical twin-ness between the indicative and the imperative. “You are really unleavened” (indicative), therefore “Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump” (imperative) [1 Cor. 5:6, 7]; “You are not under law but under grace…you have been brought from death to life” (indicative), “therefore, do not let sin therefore reign in your mortal body...”(imperative) [Rom. 12-14]; “…having been set free from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness” (indicative)“…so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification” (imperative) [Rom. 6:18-19]; “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (indicative), therefore, “walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh” (imperative) [Gal. 5:16, 24]; “If then you have been raised with Christ (indicative), seek the things that are above” (imperative) [Col. 3:1].

The indicative is the spring from which the imperative flows. All of what God has done in His great acts of redemption gives fuel to do the good work. God has worked so that we can work. He loved us first so that we can love Him. Jesus did the ultimate work so that we can now walk in His steps. We can walk in good deeds because they have been predestined by God, and we can finish because God has already promised our completion (Eph. 2:10; Phil 1:6). In Colossians 1:29 we read, “For this I toil” (imperative), “struggling with all His energy that He powerfully works within me” (indicative). This shows us that, though we toil with all our energies to do God’s works, in the final analysis it is God’s mighty power working in us to enable us to do what we do. This is a wonderful paradox, for it tells us that we are not alone in our strivings to become what God has called us to become. By our vigilant, aggressive, and sober faith, God works in us the new life that actualizes the indicatives.

It is good to comment at this point that the believer does not simply see what God has done and then respond in his own strength and determination. This would create a moralist who also views the Spirit of God as one who makes change possible but not necessarily actual. In truth, the believer is moved by the preaching and hearing of the Word’s indicatives so that, by the work of the Spirit, his will is energized. All this working of God brings about “the obedience of faith” and “grows” the believer into full development (Phil. 2:13; Rom. 16:26).

This has huge implications as redemptive history unfolds. A Christian is not merely becoming a “Jesus replica” by his own efforts. He is being created by the power of God, after the image of God, for the new creation of the Kingdom of God, by the divine intrusion of His Son (Lk. 17:20-21).

Therefore, the uni-directional preaching of the kingdom and the redemptive work of God in Christ by the Gospel (Kerygma) and the bi-directional teaching of the Kerygma’s content (didache) must primarily be about who God is, what He has accomplished, and what He is bringing to pass. Many cry out for a more practical and handy instruction on Christian living. This, however, is an anti-Biblical plea that reduces preaching and teaching to mere practical advice. This is not the character of the Bible; the Bible’s main thrust declares the greatness of God in the face of Jesus Christ. It is the heralding of “…a new and decisive event, the coming of the Kingdom of God, the dawn of the great time of salvation that God had promised...” (51). It definitely does not leave out how we are to respond. Preaching includes the command to obey, but it is only in response to Gospel facts. How we are to respond (imperatives) is not the foundation for Christianity. Religious instruction must surge forth from the declaration of Gospel fact, or else Christians will fade away into a social club of do-gooders with no distinction from the rest of moralizing and self-justifying religionists.

The indicative and imperative are unbreakable and irreversible. They must follow the Biblical order in our Preaching and Teaching and be fixed on the Gospel facts of God and His Son. We are neither moralists nor mere law keepers. However, we are responders to the great truths of God’s character and nature, His Gospel, His plan of redemption, and the age to come. Until then, let us be amazed with whom God is and what He has done and then respond with joyful gratitude, praise, and good deeds.

The Apostolic Axis in Clearcreek Chapel's Statement of Faith

By Max Strange
7/5/2009

Clearcreek Chapel has a bedrock doctrinal statement of faith* built upon Christ and sturdy apostolic doctrine. There appears to be no blatant cultural accommodation since the Word of God is written across every page. Though it is laden with Scripture references, this does not qualify it to be apostolic no more than the Jehovah Witness Bible is full of Scripture and yet a false record. The following confirm that Clearcreek Chapel’s doctrinal statement is indeed apostolic and strong at its very core.

First, it is written. Clearcreek Chapel’s Treasured Truths are open to the public for study, examination, and for scrutiny. It is a document meant to be compared against and tested by the Scripture. It is written so that it can transcend its current audience and be passed down and reproducible for future generations (1 Cor. 10:11; Rom. 15:4). It also creates a standard and promotes unity. The local Church can gather believers around these treasured truths and have these truths as a rally point when the Church is bombarded against enemy assault on the outside or from within (Rom. 6:17). It submits to God’s people a standard of doctrine that must be believed and understood. It commits itself to the people for a unified front against opposing views, divisions, and encourages a “one mindedness” in fellowship as seen in 1 Cor. 1:10. It also appears to have a cross-cultural nature. By its numerous passages, it has Biblical muscle, enabling it to flex across culture and time. It is also historical. The truths listed are those that have been emphasized by the Church over the past 2,000 years. The doctrines of God, Scripture, depravity, Salvation, election, faith, etc…are core tenets of the Christian faith. The treasured truths follow after the timeless and historical Creeds embedded within Christian history. So then we see not a list of isolated beliefs apart from Christians throughout history. It follows a historical precedent. Moreover, the T.W.T contains a mountain of indicatives. The ‘Truths We Treasure’ is not an imperative document. It does not invite a moralistic Christianity or an ethical approach to a historical Jesus. It simply requires belief, reflection, and study. One will find absent an imperative grocery list or a Didache manual on behavior. Furthermore, it is Theocentric and Christocentric. Every point is about God’s work, His actions, His will, His creation, His redemption, His Son, His electing work, His Church, His restoration, His people, His incarnation, etc. It sees God as the focal point of all that a Church ought to believe in and Christ as the center of the Universe in which all doctrines revolve. It is also objective. These are not mere opinions based upon human wisdom, philosophy, or traditions of men. These truths are found in the Scripture. We can say even with Jesus in John 7:16-17 that this teaching is not our own but from God. Its source is from heaven downward and rests not on the wisdom of the world or a cultured concoction of the time. It is the objective standard, outside of human intelligence and fabrication. Lastly, it raises questions and invites critique. Good doctrine statement ought to raise questions. The Pharisees questioned Jesus’ standard of teaching. A list of doctrines that a Church teaches is just one inch of the ocean’s surface, a portal for inquiry; a foundation for further learning. The Truths will be comprehensible and at the same time cause questions and critique because of the depth at which God unsearchable wisdom runs (Jn. 18:19).

The Truths Treasured may lack a few things. Perhaps a heading entitled General Warnings that instruct believers to be careful, watch out, and beware of those who teach false doctrine as noted in multiple passages of Scripture (Rom. 16:17; Heb 13:9; 2 John 1:9-10). The only cultural influence to the T.W.T. is perhaps the statements about a literal and historical six day creation. Since macro evolution has permeated the culture, the Church abroad has seen the foundational attack on Genesis, and has responded rightly by adding clarity in its doctrinal statement about the Genesis record.

*Below is a link to see a detailed summary of the teachings of Clearcreek Chapel:
http://www.clearcreekchapel.org/Philosophy/Articles%20of%20Faith.htm

Didache Danger- A Grease Slide to Moralism

By Max Strange
8/19/2009

Galatians 3:3

“Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”

One day while in a doctor’s waiting room Jerry noticed a painting of a man being sculpted. The sculpture was complete from the head down to the thigh and what remained in stone were the man’s knees down to his feet. The finished piece revealed a very robust and muscular man with a top class physique. The most striking feature about the picture, however, was that the artist had put the hammer and chisel in the hands of the man being sculpted.* Once the chisel and hammer is placed in the hands of Christians, the dangers to the individual, ministries, and Church will lead to a catastrophic event that will end in disaster and even be opposed to Scripture and God’s design for sanctification.

In 1883, a historical document was found called ‘The Didache.’ It has been heralded wrongly as the greatest document find for the Church in the past 100 years, for obvious reason. It is a church manual that for historical purposes has some value, but overall it is a document that is non-canonical, called spurious by Eusebius, and reveals the church’s inclination towards moralism. Many erroneously think the document accurately reflects the practice of the Church. Those in Christian circles suggest that Christians ought to adopt a similar Didache guidebook, one that contains all the commands of the New Testament to define the life and practice of all in the Church. Why are some so motivated to push a command manual for the Churches?

For years now in Christian circles, the proposal for the Church to adopt some kind of command (didache) guide to tell them how to live, a fanciful list of rules and regulations, has grown in popularity. Many would declare, due to Evangelicalism’s sluggishness, “We are not impacting the culture as we ought! Christians are no longer distinct in the world…they need to know what to do and how to be unique…so, let’s tell them what to do and how to live.” They then want to proceed with a Jeffersonian- bible-type-dissection. They want to extract all the commands of the New Testament, place them before the believer, and encourage them to perform. A large group of so-called Christians see Christianity as a moral and ethical force in culture. They view Christianity as a cultural change machine. So, they reason wrongly, and ask how Christians can dynamically change the culture. The Church focus isn’t cultural changes but Gospel heralding proclamation and transformation. Cultural changes will occur simply by one soul saved at a time. Gospel change ripples out to the culture but as a by-product of Gospel message saturation and the Spirit’s work in transformation. To take the didache of the Bible and isolate all the commands is a line of reasoning that leads to a very dangerous biopsy of the Scripture.

The Scripture does not disconnect the commands from the indicative facts of the Gospel, as these proponents would like to do. This takes the Scripture as isolated ethics. Every command in the Scripture grows out from the glorious truths of who God is, what God has done, and who we are in relation to him. It speaks of our identity in Jesus Christ and sets our minds on things above where Christ is seated. It tells us who God is in all His glory and then how we should respond to this glory in obedience. God opens the windows of heavens, gives us a fraction of His majesty, and allows us to respond with joyful and glad-hearted submission. This is an attempt to flip-flop the foundation. The foundation is Christ and the Gospel facts, and from that spring flow all the commands for Christian living (Rom. 6:2, 12-13; Rom. 7:4; 8:2, 9-13; 2 Cor. 5:15; Rom. 13:14; Gal 3:27-28; Eph. 4:21; Col. 3:3-5). If we place the hammer and chisel in the hands of Christians, by a command driven methodology, it will distort everything in the Church.

To start new believers with a list of rules and give ethical instruction a prominent place, it will lead the next generation of the Church and all its ministries down the slippery slope of moralism. It will create religious moralist whose focus will shift from grace momentum (by the work of the Spirit) to a works-oriented self-help society (Gal. 3:3). The people will no longer be God dependent but self-determined, self-motivated, self-centered, and develop a system that has no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. Christians will become carnally minded, deceived, thinking that they are growing upward in the faith, but in reality small toadstools, weak, infantile, and self-reliant. Evangelism would eventually diminish once people tank out after all their energies and resources have been spent. Quarreling, bickering, and unhappiness will escalate. Preaching will have to cater towards a motivational style, a kind of pump-up-the-crowd method to get them motivated for more energetic efforts to “do better.” The Spirit’s role will shrink since He isn’t directly causing faith or good desire for the good deed. God’s sovereignty will be an old cob web in the halls of faith. God will become puny as He will be depicted as a mere bystander in His Children’s lives, instead of the conquering King who moves us to will and to do for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). It is a balloon that will grow and pop. Some kind of Twenty-First Century Didache Manual would dangerously create the self-made man or woman, dependent not on Spirit and grace, who hammers out his own spiritual development and progress. Why is this so attractive?

We must know this one thing. There is within each person a moralistic tendency. This tendency can be easily stoked. There is a desire for a person to call the shots, to carve out his own destiny, to grab the gusto, or to ‘Just do it.” There is a great Pharisaical propensity to stand by oneself, with head high and proudly proclaim, “I fast twice a week; and give a tenth of all that I get,” a parable that Jesus told to those “who trusted in themselves” (Luke 18: 9-14). For the Christian, who has been ripped from trusting in themselves, ought not fan that sinful tendency back into a consuming inferno. The Christian must live by faith through grace in Christ. The Scripture tells us how to think about this.

Galatians 3:3 is a rebuke against the line of reasoning that would have Christians, young and old, advancing in the Christians life by “human effort,” personal achievement, or from some list of rules. The Gospel of grace must rule the heart and move that very same heart away from its moralistic tendencies. Many Christians already fight at the wrong level of “don’t do that!” “Don’t go there!” “Don’t smoke that” “Don’t drink this!” “Can’t wear that!” In Colossians 2:20-23 it says, “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— [21] "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" [22] ( referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? [23] These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

Christians must focus on Gospel motivated obedience. They cannot add fuel to the flames of inward desire to live by human striving alone. It must be accompanied by and fueled by faith in the triumph and accomplishments of Jesus. The gospel of Jesus Christ tells us that it is by grace alone that one can be saved, apart from human striving (John 1:13). Once saved, the believer must continue on in that fashion, clinging to Jesus, working-yes, doing good deeds-yes, striving to be like Christ-yes, obeying commands-yes (Philippians 2:12). Nevertheless, all that is done must be served on the plates of grace (Gospel, Christ, and indicative facts). There is a buffet of man-motivated obedience that will get the Church sick and messy when it eats like the rest of false religious institutions. God has given gold plates of grace from which He serves obedience on, and brings them to the proper table, for us to eat, digest, and grow up in all things of Christ Jesus (Romans 1:5; Ephesians 4:15; Philippians 2:13). We must keep the foundation of Scripture right, defend against moralistic inclinations, trust Scripture, and maintain the health of the Church. The Christian life isn’t about ‘A-Manual,’ but all about Emmanuel. The hammer and chisel must stay in the hand of God.
* Taken from The Discipline of Grace by Jerry Bridges, Navpress, 2006, pp. 11

Critique of George Hunter’s Apostolic View

By Max Strange
2//12/2010

Mr. George Hunter’s view of the apostolic age and the apostolic churches are driven by the paradigm of the CGM (Church Growth Movement) coupled with his angst for cultural change. He sees the apostolic churches as one of innovation. To him it was cross-cultural church having new methods and new approaches. It was premeditated, earnest in prayer, gospel centered, user friendly, Wesleyan, adapting to culture, Bible program saturated, resembling a Wesleyan form of theology, with a Great Commission intentionality and outreach at the fore of its affections. In chapter one of his book, Church for the Unchurched, Hunter makes the case that the new sprouting apostolic churches are the way to release people to truly reach the unchurched and pre-Christian peoples of the world. Accordingly to Hunter, these kind of churches most resemble the early church of the 1st century and are far superior to the existing small, traditional, dogmatic, doctrinal, judgmental, and moralistic, churches with their dusty approaches to outreach.

Mr. Hunter makes several good points as he looks around at the secularization of society in Europe and North America. He acknowledges rightly that coming out of the Enlightenment’s bogus views of anthropology and reason, many people have been left with a void that science, therapy, medicine, drugs, self-help book, seminar, education, consensus morality, and modernity can not fill. He rightly asserts that “More and more people need, and seek for, a satisfying worldview and spiritual fulfillment” (pp. 23). This vacuum has always existed in the human soul and what sadly fills this chasm is a “pick and choose” religious system where only the five senses count for anything real (materialists). He does provide an accurate assessments of Western society in the 21st century.

Nonetheless, Mr. Hunter has several unhelpful assertions. First, he believes that the church’s main goal is propagating the gospel. This is an essential but he fails to mention an equal objective of the church and that is to train and build the body of Christ into a mature people (Eph. 4:11-13). He also thinks that new approaches and fresh methodologies are the key to reaching the culture and never thinks for a moment that the church has lost the true message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Mr. Hunter presupposes that the temperature of the culture is a reflection of the success or lack of success of the church. This assumes that the church is to be a cultural-change machine. This is just not the case. The culture will be affected, and at times the culture will show signs of spiritual renewal and at other times be dead as a door nail. Yet, poor Mr. Hunter, coming out of the religious atmosphere of the 40-60’s in America, has wrongly made the connection that if the culture is bad then the church isn’t working. He also wants to reproduce the irreproducible apostolic era and imagines the apostolic churches to be a perfect heyday to “get-back-to.” The churches had their problems as well (see Corinth, 6 churches in Revelation, false teachers in Galatia, moralism, false prophets in Thessalonica, Ananias and Saphira dead at the church’s doorstep, Alexander the coppersmith, Simon the Sorcerer, etc). Lastly, Mr. Hunter imagines that the legitimacy of the church is by its numerical breadth disregarding any notion of spiritual depth. Mr. Hunter appears to be against tradition, small churches with small congregations, and doctrine. Because he believes in numerical growth over and against spiritual depth within a church, he has wholeheartedly sided with the mega church movement. Sorry to say, many of these churches has named as new-apostolic have failed in their program-driven church growth agenda. The churches like Willow Creek are now filled with unsatisfied customers, since the writing of his book (pp 26).

Mr. Hunter’s ideal church does not compare to a Biblically-based church that gives more attention to Gospel proclamation. The way to reach secular society is not an archaic method or some new method. It is to proclaim and herald the great message of life for the dead sinner through Christ alone. Of course this is not popular and goes against the grain of pop-culture, but it is true to God’s methodology which is not a man-made manufactured method. The Gospel must be accurate and right or else no change will occur inside the church and if changes do not occur inside the church it will not spill outward into the community in evangelism and love for the lost.

This Gospel proclaiming society must be led by good, godly, qualified, winsome men of God. Clearcreek Chapel exemplifies this kind of servant leadership. They stand out to lead. They do not shy from declaring the whole council of God in order that all may be built up into “a mature manhood” who in turn go public with truth and light and salt. If the Word is proclaimed and taught with accuracy, zeal, and love, this will be a very inviting and convicting atmosphere much unlike the world, which offers a cozy cushion to sit on and 1 hour of concert entertainment.

Unfortunately, with all due respect, Mr. Hunter’s has not assessed the right course of action for the church. He is a good surveyor of society but a poor evaluator of the church from a Gospel standpoint.

Paul’s Intent for Church Multiplication and its Extent to the Nations

By Max Strange
Leaders & The Early Church
10/10/2009

Many have examined the past 2,000 years of history as their main hermeneutic to determine the intent and role of the church without first consulting the Scriptures as their primary source. Surely one would not admit it, but when pressed, the historical hermeneutic comes to the forefront. Many examine the records of the early church Fathers and church history thereafter to establish a view of church mission. Some have looked down these corridors and have concluded that the church’s mission is for a select few, “the gifted ones,” and not some church-wide concern to expand and multiply itself (Bowers), while others (Winters) hold strong to the idea that para-churches (Sodality) are the sole independent outreach-arms of the organized church (Modality). It is not bad to examine history to see how God has worked in and through the church. Yet, it is faulty when Christians examine history and use poor examples of reckless and Scriptureless ideologies of so-called “mission work” and present them as proofs of God’s intention. Surely, God’s Word is the final authority to understand whether or not God wants His church to multiply itself and initiate new churches or if He desires an organization, alongside the church, to do multiplication labor. Does God not give us in His Word a steel thread that runs upon the heights of this dilemma that may be held tight, and give us steady guidance for whether or not the church should multiply itself, how it ought to conduct mission, and who should do the work? The Old Testament and the apostle Paul present us with the intent for the churches. We will see that the concept of church multiplication did not suddenly appear, like the rabbit from the magicians trick hat, but has shown to be a steady and growing anticipation throughout the entire Old Testament.

God told Adam, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over fish…birds…every living thing that moves on the earth…” (Genesis 1:28-30). God designed Adam and Eve to carry out His intentions for planet Earth. They were to image forth God and rule it, bring order to it, be caretakers of it, and fill the Earth with lovers and worshippers of God on this theocentric planet. This shows us God’s earliest intention for His people to multiple themselves.

To Noah, God reiterates His promise after the great and terrible flood to “be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it.” The faithful eight were to multiply on the Earth, men and women who would give glory to God. This multiplication is seen next when Abraham arrives into God’s Story.

He gave to Abraham the great and special promise, “Go from your country…I will make you a great nation…and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:1-3). God tells Abraham to “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them…so shall your offspring be…I will multiple you greatly…you shall be a father of nations…I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you…I will be God to you and to your offspring after you…for an everlasting covenant.” (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:5-6; 17:1-8). The promises are rich clues for the church to come, one that multiples into a vast number of godly people that fill the earth. This shows us again God’s intention for His people to multiple themselves.

We read through the Psalms that God says, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession” (Psalm 2:8) and “All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you” (Psalm 22:27). It goes on to say that God’s praise and dominion will reach to the ends of the earth in Psalm 48:10 and 72:8. We see in Isaiah that God will raise a signal for nations afar off and whistle for them from the ends of the earth and declares, “Turn to me and be saved all the ends of the earth!” (Is. 5:26; 45:22). God’s plan has always been to whistle for them from the ends of the earth and call out to all the nations before the final trumpet call! The Old Testament gives clues that the mission of the church to come is one that will extend and move out to the nations. The New Testament continues this movement.

Now, with great power and authority, Paul comes, riding on the back of the Great Commission to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” and finds himself caught up in Jesus’ apostolic promise “I will build My Church” in Matthew 16:18 and Acts 1:8 “…you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (Matt. 28:18-20, Acts 1:8). Acts begins where Luke ends and it unfolds the beginning of the Great Commission. Acts provides a depiction of the Gospel speeding ahead from Jew to Gentile lands and the work of the Holy Spirit advancing Jesus’ kingdom through His people. Pentecost arrives, and “devout men from every nation under heaven” are assembled, exposing further God’s intention for a world encompassing church. Arabians, Cretans, Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Jews, proselytes, and the whole gang, all begin to declare the mighty works of God (Acts 2:5-13) from every nation! The ripple effects of Pentecost are evident all throughout Acts. Marker after marker demonstrates that God’s mission for the Church is one that multiplies itself. It added to their number daily (2:47), expansion occurred from temple to temple and from house to house, (5:14; 42), the Word increased and the disciples multiplied greatly (6:7), Persecution drove Christians outward (8:1), The Gospel headed South to Gaza by Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch (8:26), The Church was built up and multiplied (9:31), Peter’s vision and his explanation to Cornelius made it public that God shows no partiality and accepts men from every nation (10:1-44), many people were added to the Lord (11:24), the Word increased and multiplied (12:25), Paul says, “We are turning to the Gentiles” and the Word spread throughout the whole region and increase mightily (13:46-49; 19:20), God opened a door of faith to the Gentiles (14:27), and finally Paul desired to go to Rome and eventually Spain (23:11). Acts is left open-ended with Paul’s great statement, “let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (Acts 28:18).

In addition, Paul frequently admonishes the churches to join in to imitate him and the other apostles in their example, their way of life, and their faith. We cannot help but imitate his life patterned after Christ, by reaching the lost, multiply believing communities, and establish them (2 Thes. 3:7,9; Heb. 13:7; Phil. 3:7). It is therefore evident that both the Old and New Testaments demonstrate a growing, expansive character of God’s intention to reach the nations. This plan of God did not cease with the beginning of the church. Yet, we notice some recent authors who attempt to counter this redemptive historical character of God to reach the nations by Christian churches and create an unnecessary division between church and mission.

Ralph Winter’s article on The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission does well to point out that the Christian church borrowed the synagogue and evangelistic pattern from the Jews and reveals the church’s Old Testament roots. On the other hand, Winter’s division of the church into two categories is unwarranted. church mission has always been tied to the local church. Though it may seem that several missionary ventures in Acts were “semi-autonomous,” Paul continued to trail back to Antioch and find his home base of recuperation and support there. God works through the authority of His church and any work that goes on as a side work, must come under the authority of a godly band of elders connected to the local church(1 Peter 5:5). Though this may sound like a clanging cymbal to many that have an individualistic mindsets, it is nonetheless Biblical. Division within the corporate body of believers, as seen with mission boards, seminaries, Christian publishing houses, para-church organizations, music ministries…etc, must be under the sanctifying authority of the preached Word and submitted to godly men who are sound in the faith and who shepherd the flock in their care. Avoiding this creates splinter groups who are accountable to no one and are in danger of heresy, disunity, false teaching, pride, and leading to power and control, hunger and Satanic bombardment.

Paul Bower’s, Church and Mission in Paul, views church mission in a different but equally disturbing way. Bower’s, rightly asserts that the church must be active in church plant but goes too far in suggesting that Mission is carried out by a select few and not by a team connected to and moving out from the local church. Bowers twists several key Scriptures to fit his agenda and appeals to American individualism and anti-authority sentiments. He dislocates the church’s Missional arm from the rest of the church body. The churches were involved with their own individual growth, and yet they aided Paul and his missionary team with prayer and support. All the parts of the Body must work together and Mission arm cannot be dislocated or severed from the Church. A chicken with its head severed from its body looks alive as it runs around with vigor, but it soon dies because it has no connection and life from the head.

It has always been the character of God to spread His glory to the nations and to the ends of the Earth. Scripture after scripture points to this reality. God has commissioned the church to go and preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations, and that was Paul’s great aim. The outworking of Paul’s mission revealed that he went forward as an extension of the Antioch church (Acts 13). He went and each center that he established was meant to radiate outward and multiply itself just as God had intended long ago. Each new believer was given the missionary Spirit of Christ, just as Christ himself left His heavenly home to be on Mission. Therefore, the text implies, from Old to New Testaments, when the Church finally arrived, and Paul established Gospel outposts all over the Roman Empire, they were meant to multiply themselves in order to reach the nations as God had long ago orchestrated. That even as Christ builds His Church, Christ is accomplishing His Father’s goal to invade the earth with His glory. This is implied by the Biblical text from cover to cover. To not be mission-minded or outward focus is simply not in-line with the very heart and nature of God.

And the master said to the servant, 'Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled.

Luke 14:23 (ESV)

The Meaning of Biblical Didache: Ridderbos vs. Dodd

By Ben Zemmer
6/5/2009

It is difficult to conceive of two biblical interpretations set more radically at odds with each another. One says the core of the New Testament didache (teaching) is ethics while the other says it is the gospel.

Despite the fact that C.H. Dodd was a renowned scholar of the 1940’s, he deviates significantly from the orthodox Christian understanding of the heart of biblical teaching. Simply stated, Dodd concludes in his writings that the central aspect of teaching in the New Testament is an ethical code with the purpose of improving the morals of the broader culture (Dodd, p.23). In his own words Dodd stated that, “These members [new believers] were then instructed in the ethical principles and obligations of the Christian life. This course of instruction in morals as distinct from the proclamation of the gospel [kerygma], is covered by the term ‘teaching,’ which in Greek is didache” (Dodd, p.10) Later on, he proceeds to explain the underlying purpose for these ethics namely, that the “Christian church was…aimed at elevating the moral standards of society”(Dodd, p.22-23). In other words, the content of New Testament “teaching” is separate from the gospel and exists for the purpose of improving the standards “of the broader culture”(Dodd, p.23).

While ethics in themselves are not always bad, they certainly become bad when they usurp the position reserved only for Christ. The Apostle Paul waxed eloquent in his refutation of the Galatians’ return to the law for their confidence rather than to Christ. He had very strong words for those who abandon Christ for any form of the law. In similar fashion, Herman Ridderbos wrote opposing Dodd’s view. While he concedes that, “teaching and to teach are concerned especially with ethics”, he proceeds to say that, “teaching not only accompanies the kerygma [proclamation of the gospel] (Matt. 4:23; 11:1); from the outset it refers to the content of the kerygma (Matt. 5:2; Mark 1:27; 4:2ff.; Acts 28:31; Gal. 1:12) and in part consists of the further explanation of the nature and progress of the accomplishment of redemption (Mark 9:31; 4:2ff.; Acts 18:25)” (Ridderbos, p.70). The difference between this statement and Dodd’s statement boils down to content and purpose. Dodd says that the content of the didache is ethics and its purpose is improving the “standards of society”, while Ridderbos says that the content of the didache is the gospel and its purpose is the “edification of the church” (Dodd, p.22; Ridderbos, p.76).

For true believers this is the difference between day and night. If ones hope rests in ethics as the core of Christian living, then one has placed hope in an empty gospel.

The New Testament Use of the Word “Didache”

By Ben Zimmer
7/3/2009

The Greek word didache is a primary word often translated as teaching. Two important derivative terms also translated as teaching are didaskalia and didasko. All three words are most often references to the gospel itself (Acts 2:42, 4:2, 5:42, 15:35, 28:31, Romans 6:17, 2 John 1:9). The remaining references are used to indicate false gospels (Titus 1:11, Hebrews 13:9, Revelation 2:14-15, 20). The most shining example of teaching in reference to the gospel is the narrative in Acts chapter five where the Sanhedrin imprisoned the Apostles. They were in turn set free by an angel from God and commanded to “speak to the people all the words of this Life” (Acts 5:20). In the very next sentence the Apostles are in the temple courts “teaching” the people. The context here clearly shows that the content of this teaching is Christ Himself – the “resurrection and the life” (John 11:25, emphasis mine). When confronted by the Sanhedrin regarding the teaching, Peter boldly responds with the gospel – the resurrection and kingship of Jesus, salvation and repentance (Acts 5:29-32). Familiarity with this striking story of bravery and confidence in the gospel, leaves no surprise that teaching occurs more than once in close proximity with the Greek word kerygma translated proclamation (Acts 5:42, 15:35, 28:31). In these texts, the content clearly taught and proclaimed is the gospel – the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Thus, the act of biblical teaching is conveying the gospel, and the body of biblical teaching is the gospel itself. The only difference between the act of proclaiming and the act of teaching is the form it takes (Ridderbos, p.70).

Biblical teaching according to the New Testament is the further explaining of the gospel. While preaching can and should include teaching, teaching most often occurs outside the unidirectional form of preaching. Different from preaching, teaching is often more bi-directional and interactive in its form. While the message is unchanged, the act of teaching can shape itself to match the learning capabilities of its audience. Both teaching and proclamation arise from the great indicatives of Scripture and include the resulting imperatives. The essence of biblical teaching must not be mistaken for mere imperatives; for, in every instance of use in the positive sense, the word teaching presents imperatives as the outflow of the indicative. Thus, teaching and proclamation two forms of conveying and explaining the gospel itself.

To confuse the early church document widely known as the Didache with the usage of the Greek word “didache” in the New Testament writings is to commit a grave error. Indeed, it is akin to mistaking the metaphorical use of “big apple” in reference to Manhattan with all other occurrences of that phrase in the English language. The true biblical didache in truth is not the errant first century literary work, but rather the form and explication of the gospel itself.

A Critique of an Early Church Document, the Didache

By Ben Zimmer

Biblical leaders in the early church did not haphazardly include books into the cannon. All writings claiming to be Scripture or to possess spiritual authority, were put to the test against the Old Testament Scriptures and the apostolic “Rule of Faith” (Greenslade, 1996, p.26). If the content of the particular writing did not match up with the biblical teaching, it was considered “spurius” or non-cannonical (Powell, p.123). These writings were recognized to not possess authority over the believer and in many cases to be completely heretical (Powell, p.122-123). The early church document widely known as the Didache is one such book.

In the early days of the Church, church leaders had the important task of sounding an alarm when teachings arose which were contrary to the teaching laid down by Paul and the Apostles along with the Old Testament writings. These men would examine the contents of any given teaching and compare it with the content of the Scripture. When something did not match, or even worse, contradicted the Scriptures, these leaders would hold this teaching separate from Scripture if not reject it all together (Powell, p.122). The Didache bears the very marks of a book which was rejected and laid aside by the early church fathers. Primary warning flags come from the scattered statements within the very document which contradict clear biblical teaching. Such things as drawing distinction between believers and unbelievers based on the days they fast, by stating that itinerant preachers are the new high priests for believers, or by indicating that God loosens His standard of justice as long as people try their best to measure up to His standard of perfection (Staniforth, p.193). These are flagrant signs that the Didache is not to be trusted.

Beyond these direct contradictions remains the problem that the Didache emphasizes almost purely the imperative with no mention or explanation of its connection with the gospel namely the indicatives of Scripture. This pattern is clearly contrary to the pattern laid out in the gospels and all the epistles. Statements of fact or indicatives always precede and inform the imperatives. The fact that the Didache does not follow this clear biblical pattern is the second indication that this work is at best a compilation of misguided thoughts by early church leaders and at worst out-right heresy rivaling the error of Pelagius himself.

In sum, the Didache is a document which was certainly not recognized by the early church leaders as biblically authoritative, and it clearly contradicts the Scripture in its content. Thus, the Didache may be helpful for the study of life and thought in the early church but should be held at a safe distance by any Christian who seeks to remain faithful to the gospel and the testimony of Christ. The usefulness of the Didache must be exclusively limited to this role of an informative sociological document, but must not be used for such purposes as a model for a statement of faith or as a standard for Christian life and thought. Using the Didache for such purposes would not only be injurious to the local church undertaking such task, but would also resurrect that deadly strain of seductive thought, namely Christ defaming legalism. As with any archeological or substantive discovery from the era surrounding the time of Christ, the Scriptures always stand over and against such evidence and must not be interpreted through them. The Scriptures themselves are sufficient for providing a framework for understanding the whole of the Bible. In God’s gracious providence, he has preserved His Word for the edification of His church. This is the hope and confidence of the church both now and until He returns.

Contemporary Evangelicalism and the Kerygma/Didache

By Ben Zemmer
9/7/2009

In recent years, many professing Evangelicals have forgotten what it means to contend for the biblical evangel, that is the gospel. Sadly, the word evangelical is more often likened to a political movement of the “religions right” rather than a theological one with deep life changing ramifications (Bloesch, p.9-10). In attempts to affect political change and gain ground on worthy social issues, many have diluted the gospel message to a Christian version of therapeutic moralism. “Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” has replaced the deep gospel message – salvation from God’s wrath, the imputed righteousness of Christ, biblical faith, true repentance, and the lordship of Christ. The evangel in evangelical is thus all but eclipsed by man-centered philosophies.

When the Scriptures speak of proclamation (kerygma) and teaching (didache) they refer to different forms of conveying this very gospel message – the evangel. Any departure from the biblical evangel will inevitably empty any kerygmatic or didactic communication forms from their meaning or even abandon these forms all together. A prime example of this is the modern de-emphasis on preaching the primary biblically mandated form of proclamation (kerygma). Another example is a corruption of the biblical concept of teaching (didache) into a mere set of ethical guidelines. The other extreme is outward profession that results in no true spiritual fruit and even encourages sin. Examples are those churches which call themselves evangelical and champion a semblance of biblical forbearance and humility, but at the same time, overlook and encourage homosexuality along with the doubting and subversion of God’s sufficient Word. The evangel is the core of what it means to be an Evangelical. A departure from the evangel by definition is a stepping away from the life-giving gospel and the essence of what it means o be a Christian.

The apostle John asked, “What fellowship does light have with darkness?” The implied answer is: none! Those who contend for the gospel must not fellowship as supposed brothers and sisters in Christ if one is denying the biblical evangel. This denial can come in various forms. The most obvious is the plain denial of the basic truths of the gospel. Other not quite so obvious forms include the rejection of the biblical necessity for proclamation, the reduction of biblical teaching into mere ethical codes (moralism), or the rejection of the plain biblical imperatives (anti-nomianism).

Biblical discipleship inevitably results in greater conformity to Christ. In contrast, a life of unrepentant sin denies the very truths professed. In other words, a true Evangelical is not only one who professes biblical truth but one who does not deny that gospel with a life of unrepentant sin. Thus, good doctrinal statements guide local church bodies by proclaiming the evangel not only by heralding the essential truths of the gospel and sound teaching, but also by explaining the biblical relationship between belief and desire which result in action. True belief is faith in God’s Word, which results in right desires and actions, while unbelief inevitably results in unrighteousness. Actions of obedience and God glorifying emotions are a necessary part of the Christian life because they demonstrate outwardly an inward reality of God’s work. This inward and vertical reality is the reason for and source of strength for the horizontal and outward. Thus, “the slogan ‘become what you are’…encapsulates the essence of Pauline ethics” (McGrath, p.92).

Doctrine is a necessary part of growing in the knowledge of Christ, for “the identity and significance of Jesus can only be spelled out in doctrinal terms”(McGrath, p.103). This was a point made clearly by the fundamentalist movement at the turn of the 20th century. In attempts to defend the authority of the Scriptures and foster fellowship around the gospel across denominational boundaries, godly men drafted a statement of faith which both clarified the gospel at the points at which it was attacked and called for greater unity around God’s Word. However, its weakness lies in that it was largely shaped by the issues at hand and did not treat the gospel in all of its fullness (Bloesch, p.9-10). Evangelicalism was a movement which formed out of fundamentalism and put greater emphasis on the gospel the as the very essence of Christianity (Bloesch, p.15). Thus, it is correct to say that true Evangelicalism reflects a balanced summary of the gospel and its outworking (the “first principles”). To deny the biblical Christ and the gospel is to cease being evangelical (Blosech, p.15-15).

True discipleship is the result of biblical relationships in community. Older and more mature believers encourage, admonish, and instruct the younger in the faith. The content of this instruction is the gospel and its outworking. Modern curriculums that encourage this understanding of the gospel as necessary for every part of the Christian life are truly in keeping with the Scripture while those which treat ethics in isolation from the gospel are foolish at best and spiritually dangerous at worst.

To many the modern flavor of the Evangelical movement is no longer one of a potent and powerful gospel but rather one of superficially sweet people pleasing. In contrast, the era of the Reformation was one of commitment to the essence of what it means to be Christian namely the gospel – the evangel revealed in the Scriptures. The re-discovery of the gospel and the lengthy writings and statements of faith continue to reverberate for the benefit of believers today. Though most theologically sound churches do not have statements as long as the ones of the Reformation, they are indebted in many ways to them (Koivisto, p.207).

In summary, the witness of faithful believers of the past and the Scripture itself cries out to members of the modern Evangelical movement to return to what it really means to profess for the biblical evangel – to contend for the gospel in all of its fullness. That is what it is to be Evangelical.

The Indicative and Imperative in the Unfolding of Redemptive History

By Ben Zemmer
5/15/2009

In order to understand the Bible, it is necessary to grasp the categories that rise up out of the Scripture itself (Horton, par.3). A primary example of this is the grammatical use of the Greek mood structure in the New Testament. In this structure, some statements are clearly declarations of fact or “Indicatives” while others are calls to action or “Imperatives” (Horton, par.3). In church history the word kerygma or “proclamation” has often been used to describe the indicative because God calls for His Word and definitive works to be heralded and proclaimed (Dodd, p.9). A clear example of this proclamation is the prominence of preaching in the Bible. Also, a common term in church history to describe the imperative is didache or “teaching” which connotes the practical outworking of the imperative (Dodd, p.10). The indicative and imperative structure is not only present in the Greek portions of Scripture, but can also be found interwoven all across the entire scope of redemptive history.

In fact, the greatest example of an indicative statement in Scripture is the gospel itself. The gospel is a glorious reality. Paul graphically describes the gospel as the “power of God” a phrase only used to describe Christ Himself (Romans 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:18). This should be of little surprise, because Christ is the essence and incarnation of the gospel. It is Christ’s completed work namely His life, death, resurrection, and ascension which composes the gospel. The gospel is Christ’s definitive work on behalf of His people bearing the wrath of God for their sin and imputing His complete righteousness to them. This grand exchange is a sealed and firm reality for the believer. It is the grand indicative statement of their new existence and identity in Christ.

The indicative nature of the gospel is not confined to the New Testament. Rather, from the very beginning of redemptive history, God has acted on behalf of His people in permanent and definitive ways which in turn pointed forward to the gospel. He called Abram from Ur. He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. Yet, He did not stop with that. He gave Abram a faith in and a love for God that made him willing to relinquish his most precious possession – his son. He freed Israel from slavery that they might worship Him. Intertwined with new identity and reality were imperatives. God commanded holiness of His people in the law of Moses because He is holy. These commands did not exist separate from His work on their behalf but in the midst of it. This shadow of reality in the old covenant met its fulfillment in Christ. Christ completed all the demands of the law and God’s holiness on behalf of His people who now live in an “already but not yet” state (Ridderbos, p.257). Believers are complete and holy in Christ, but they await the final consummation of that reality. In the mean time, the imperative is a necessary component in the life of the believer (Schneider, p.656).

The call for holiness in the lives of His people echoes again in the new covenant (1 Peter 1:6). When Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law, He Himself become the standard of holiness “the law of Christ” (Schneider, p.661). As Schneider said: “Christ’s self-giving sacrifice functions as the paradigm of this law.” (Schneider, p.655). All throughout the gospels and the epistles are imperatives (commands) that are expected of believers, but these imperatives do not exist on their own. They always arise from the indicative, namely the gospel. Often in his letters Paul gives a command such as, “cleanse out the old leaven” and “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”, but they are always tied back to the gospel (the indicative) for example, “as you are already unleavened” and “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (1 Cor. 5:7, Phil. 2:12-13). As Schneider said, “the imperatives are part and parcel of the gospel as long as they are woven in to the story line of the Pauline gospel and flow from the indicative of what God has accomplished in Christ”(Schneider, p.656). Both conversion and the continued progress of believers in holiness are works of God in Christ, but they are experienced by the believer as belief, decision, and work (Ridderbos, p.255). “Having once died with Christ does not render superfluous putting to death the members that are on earth, but is precisely the great urgent reason for it” (Ridderbos, p.254). The indicative and the imperative are thus inseparable and intertwined.

To frame the indicative and the imperative as separate or loosely connected categories in Scripture, as some evangelicals today are in the habit of doing, is to sever the branch from the root. Indeed, an emphasis on the ethics of the Pauline letters and the New Testament as a whole without explaining their vital and intimate connection with the gospel is to create and encourage a “new legalism”. Rather, the indicative and the imperative, “represent two ‘sides’ of the same matter, which cannot exist separated from each other” (Ridderbos, p.256). The only means by which believers can ever hope to fulfill the imperatives is the power of the Holy Spirit applying the gospel, the Word of God in the heart of the believer (Schneider, p.662). It is truly the supreme joy of the believer to partake of Christ in the new obedience by faith through Christ’s finished work on the cross.

The Pauline Example of Establishing Churches in Sound Doctrine

By Ben Zemmer

Often in the New Testament believers are exhorted to hold fast to “sound doctrine”. A cursory look may leave the average “just-do-it” American thinking this “doctrine” is a code of conduct or a means of self-improvement. The Apostle Paul would passionately beg to differ. He toiled often and long to present to his hearers and readers the full counsel of God, namely the gospel. This gospel message along with its implications is the “sound doctrine” for which the Apostle Paul contended.

In ancient times, God revealed Himself through visions and prophets, mighty acts, shadows and types, but all of these served but to point to the fuller and complete revelation of God in the person of Christ. The ageless question of how can sinful man stand before a holy God has its final, definitive answer in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. This is the hope of all true children of God. The reason and life blood from which flows the life of the believer is the very definitive and final work of Christ. The cross and resurrection is the pivot point on which the life of the believer turns. The very quickening of saving faith, the constant battle of continued belief and repentance, and the final climax of sinlessness beyond the death-line are all anchored in the cross of Christ. It is for that reason that the Paul resolved when teaching the Corinthian believers to “know nothing among [them] but Christ and Him crucified”. It is of this good news that Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God for salvation to all who believe”. Paul was so fixated by the greatness of the gospel that he carefully constructed all his reasoning, instruction, and admonition to tie back into the completed work of Christ. Though the content of “sound doctrine” is complex and profound containing both indicative and imperative statements, narrative and discourse text, it relates in every way back to the foundational truths of the gospel.

Sound doctrine consists of the once for all delivered gospel and propagates by means of teaching. When writing to Titus, Paul encourages him to, “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Earlier on in the epistle Paul highlighted that sound doctrine is the task of a faithful elder by means of instruction (Titus 1:9). Further, it is clear that the content of sound doctrine is the gospel. Paul told Timothy that every doctrine or teaching must be measured against the Words of Christ (1 Timothy 6:3). Another word which Paul uses in close conjunction with the concept of sound doctrine is the word “traditions” (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2). Although in this passage, Paul uses traditions in a positive sense to refer to the whole body of teaching that Paul “delivered” to the believers, one must exercise great caution to not mistake the word “tradition” as a largely positive term, since almost everywhere else in Scripture the term is used in a negative sense, referring to the self-righteous set of standards by which unbelievers attempt to make them selves acceptable to God (Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8). Near the end of Paul’s epistle to the Thessalonian church, Paul exhorts the believers against “idleness” which is “not in accord with the tradition that you received” (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If one were to understand “tradition” to refer to the whole content of Paul’s teaching that he cited earlier on in His epistle, it would be plausible to conclude that the content of Paul’s teaching was largely ethical. Although this is not the case, because the word Paul uses when rebuking idleness is not in the plural, but rather in the singular form (“tradition”). This indicates that ethical exhortation is only one “tradition” (3:6) amid the larger body of “traditions” (2:15). Thus, a correct understanding of tradition in this sense is very much synonymous with sound doctrine, namely the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Another key word that Paul used, though only once, is the concept of “pattern”. Paul used this term in reference to the way in which he communicated the content of sound doctrine to the believers. It is thus good to summarize that content of sound doctrine is the full bodied message of the gospel which includes both statements of fact (indicatives) and calls to action (indicatives), both of which cannot be divorced because both are rooted in the finished work of Christ. The essence of sound doctrine is Christ and Him crucified.

In his epistles Paul clearly follows a pattern of moving from proclamation of the “great redemptive works of Jesus” (indicative) to the “act and content of teaching” (imperative) (Ridderbos, pp.57,69). Just as in his epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul based his call to ethical change upon the gospel and truth he had delivered to them. One could easily, confuse Paul’s exhortations to be separated from the indicative statements that preceeded them. But clearly, the two are closely connected. As Ridderbos stated, “It is true that frequently teaching and to teach are concerned especially with ethics, but it is impossible to find…[this] distinction supported by New Testament usage. Teaching not only accompanies the kerygma [proclamation] (Matt. 4:23; 11:1); from the outset it refers to the content of the kerygma (Matt. 5:2; Mark 1:27; 4:2ff.; Acts 28:31; Gal. 1:12) and in part consists of the further explanation of the nature and progress of the accomplishment of redemption (Mark 9:31; 4:2ff.; Acts 18:25).(Ridderbos, p.70). Christ is the great indicative. Christ is the great normative. Thus the founding, shaping, and stabilizing of believers happens through the proclamation of the gospel. Paul calls faithful ministers of the gospel to preach the indicative with imperatives as natural outworking. Believers only have hope for following the imperatives, because Christ has already completed the work for them. As Paul elegantly stated, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure”(Phillipians 2:11-13). Christ is both the content and essence of sound doctrine.

The “Rule of Faith” and the Development of the Creeds

By Ben Zemmer

As the apostles faded off the scene of the first century church, they left behind a very certain witness, everything necessary for the life and growth of the church. This “apostolic” witness or “rule of faith” is the gospel in all of its continuity and agreement with the Old Testament scriptures (2 Peter 1-2). The believers of the first century had copies of the Old Testament Scriptures, and as apostolic letters circulated, they thoroughly examined these teachings in the light of the Scriptures they possessed (Acts 17:11). A teaching was deemed to not be biblical and authoritative when it did not demonstrate continuity with the Old Testament scriptures in content, nature, prophecy, confirming signs or miracles, power of truth, and observed life (Hodge, par.70). Long before the official recognition of the canon, more than two centuries after the death of the apostles, the church was experienced in the use of the “rule of faith” to recognize true from false teaching.

This faithful practice guided the church’s response to heretical challenges arising from within the church itself. Individuals and groups introduced thoughts and teachings which deeply diverged form biblical teaching. Having recognized this fact from the testimony of the scriptures, local churches and groups of churches responded in these early centuries with short statements of faith otherwise known as “creeds”. These were used as a tool to recognize false teachers or teaching from true (Gonzalez, p.63). Creeds are not a concept foreign to the scriptures, but rather are in keeping with similar tools exemplified in Paul’s writings and even the summaries of the Mosaic law namely the “shema” of Deuteronomy 6 (Horton, p.7).

In recent years scholars re-discovered a document which dates back to the time of the apostles. Due to its proximity to the apostles and evidence of common thought in the early church, this document has achieved some level of importance. Known as the “Didache” (teaching), this document synthesizes many of the imperatives of the New Testament into summary form and presents directives for churches to follow. Due to the fact that this document at several points does not agree with the “rule of faith” in the revealed scriptures, this document was rejected as scripture and authoritative (Powel, p.123). It is clear both from the fact that the document was rejected and by the fact that the content of the document does not match with the scriptures, that it should not be used as an authoritative example for Christian life and practice.

The “rule of faith” is not only the criteria used by the early church for the recognition of false teaching from true, it is an example of the means God has given His church for the interpretation of the scripture. Christ Himself embodies the gospel and it is He who stands over and above any teaching claiming any sort of authority. To Him be glory both now and forever more.

How Today’s Church Should Interpret the Principles and Patterns in Acts

Ben Zemmer

2/22/2010

Acts is a unique and important book in the New Testament canon. In it are accounts and narratives of the early days of the Church. The large amounts of narrative often frustrate interpreters who would like to draw direct lines from the New Testament books to the present. While making those connections is both possible and necessary, it is first essential to approach the text biblically giving great care to let the text speak for itself.

On the road to biblically exegeting Acts, many have fallen by the wayside thinking that Acts is primarily about historical events while some think the apologetics and leading personalities are the main focus, while still others see the intent of Acts as inspirational literature (Fee and Stuart 1982, p.88). These points may all be true to some extent, but true justice to the text consists in using biblical tools to examine Luke’s intent guiding the narrative at hand. Those who proceed without caution here often end up with inconsistent interpretations of the text and sometimes even extreme misapplications of it. The authorial intent of Luke is largely evident in the principal thrust or meaning of given narratives often indicated by emphasis and repetition in the text (Fee and Stuart, p.96).

The book of Acts when closely examined yields a pattern of six large sections bookended by Luke’s short summaries of the progression and outward movement of the Word through the church by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:41, 4:4, 5:14, 6:7, 8:12, 9:31, 11:24, 12:24, 13:49, 14:21, 16:5, 19:20, 28:31). For some it may be problematic that Acts ends in such an apparently abrupt manner without recounting what happened to Paul in Rome or any of the rest of the Disciples for that matter. When looking at the book of Acts from the perspective of these six divisions it becomes clear that Luke’s cohesive theme in Acts is the outward movement of the Gospel – the Word in the hearts of the redeemed by the working of the Holy Spirit.

With this larger picture in mind, tackling the smaller narrative portions is not quite as difficult. In most cases, Luke frames narrative as illustrative of the greater principal and pattern of God’s work in the Church. Hence, nearly all but the principals and patterns are normative, unless that same illustrative form is confirmed by other biblical texts as being binding on the believer (Fee and Stuart, p.97). “Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (Fee and Stuart, p.97). Another way to look at it would be to delineate the function and the form in the narratives. The function is the indicative that undergirds actions and methods while form is the imperatives – the applications of functions (Getz 1984, p.38). Functions are clearly evident in the text. “It is not possible to absolutize something that is not described; that is always incomplete; and that is always changing from one setting to another” (Getz 1984, p.38). This method of weighing the Scripture against itself is exceedingly rich and helps prevent incorrect presuppositions to cloud what Luke is saying in the book.

The road to faithfully interpreting Acts is not an easy one, but it is possible. One of the best policies to follow, if one does not understand a given text, is to keep reading. The Word is living and active. The Holy Spirit will complete the task for which he sends out the Word into our hearts.

The Authority of the Local Church in Commending Ministers of the Gospel

By Ben Zemmer
2/10/2010

The human eye is of no use if it is separated from the body and the ear is of no use if it is by itself. This is essentially what Paul said when he wrote to the believers in Corinth about the importance of unity and functions within the Church (1 Cor. 12:12-31). All believers have need of each other. Community and unity in Truth compose a large part of what the Church is. This is no less the case with the mission of the Church. No part of the body can truly and ultimately operate independent of the rest of the body. So often in American evangelicalism today individual believers “feel a sense of calling” for gospel ministry at home or abroad, and they rush to join a para-church organization they feel fits their ministry focus. Yet, they often fail to see the need for the commendation and sending of the local church preceding and guiding their desire for ministry (Griffiths, p.12). Portrayed in the book of Acts is not an image of a mindless mad-dash for the front lines of ministry, but rather a careful, calculated work of the local church selecting believers from within their midst to be sent out, supported by, and accountable to the local church (Griffiths, p.13).

Two prominent examples recorded in the book of Acts are Barnabas and Paul. Durring the early stages of the church in Antioch, the church in Jerusalem sent out Barnabas to minister in Antioch (Acts 11:22). While the work was underway and many people were coming to Christ, Barnabas went to Tarsus to seek out Paul to help him teach and disciple the people (Acts 11:25-26). Later on these very two who played such a pivotal role in the growth of the church in Antioch were set apart and sent out by the church for the work of the gospel in other areas (Acts 13:1-3). In no part of the book of Acts can one find individuals who on their own accord and apart from the local church went out for the work of the gospel. The repetition of this pattern of the church selecting sending out its members for the work of the ministry by itself is evidence enough of its normative nature. Yet, this example is supported by other portions of Scripture as well. Timothy was encouraged to hold fast in the work of the gospel remembering that he had been commended by the church and commissioned by Paul for the ministry (2 Timothy 1:6, Acts 16:1-5). Also, Paul gave instructions to Titus to appoint elders from the midst of the churches in Crete (Titus 1:5). That is, the leaders within the Certain churches were not self-appointed or distinct from the local church.

It is clear from Scripture where the primary authority lies: in the local church, not in the individual. This is important in understanding not only the relationship between individuals interested in gospel ministry and the local church, but also between the church and para-church organizations. The point is clear from the Scriptures mentioned above that the weight and emphasis must rest on the local church and not on para-church organizations. This does not preclude the existence of para-church institutions or proclaim their very existence as unbiblical, but it does mean that whatever role they play, it must be a subservient one to the local church. It was not of para-church institutions of which Jesus spoke, but his chosen bride the Church when he said, “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). The local church is both the primary authority and the primary emphasis of the Scriptures especially as it relates to the ministry of the gospel.