Rosaria Butterfield After Wheaton: Three Unbiblical Positions on Christianity and Homosexuality

Rosaria Butterfield—a lesbian English professor who hated Christianity and later became a Reformed pastor’s wife and told of the story in her book, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith—is fresh off of her return from Wheaton College, where 100 students protested her invitation to speak as implying that her testimony should be seen as normative. (You can read President Phil Ryken’s response here. You can also read an interview with Dr. Butterfield about her interactions with the students.)

As I write and speak today, 14 years have elapsed since my queer activist days. I’m a new creature in Christ, and my testimony is still like iodine on starch. I’m sensitive to three unbiblical points of view Christian communities harbor when they address the issue of Christianity and homosexuality. Everywhere I go, I confront all three.

1. The Freudian position. This position states same-sex attraction is a morally neutral and fixed part of the personal makeup and identity of some, that some are “gay Christians” and others are not. It’s true that temptation isn’t sin (though what you do with it may be); but that doesn’t give us biblical license to create an identity out of a temptation pattern. To do so is a recipe for disaster. This position comes directly from Sigmund Freud, who effectually replaced the soul with sexual identity as the singular defining characteristic of humanity. God wants our whole identities, not partitioned ones.

2. The revisionist heresy. This position declares that the Bible’s witness against homosexuality, replete throughout the Old and New Testaments, results from misreadings, mistranslations, and misapplications, and that Scripture doesn’t prohibit monogamous homosexual sexual relations, thereby embracing antinomianism and affirming gay marriage.

3. The reparative therapy heresy. This position contends a primary goal of Christianity is to resolve homosexuality through heterosexuality, thus failing to see that repentance and victory over sin are God’s gifts and failing to remember that sons and daughters of the King can be full members of Christ’s body and still struggle with sexual temptation. This heresy is a modern version of the prosperity gospel. Name it. Claim it. Pray the gay away.

Indeed, if you only read modern (post 19th-century) texts, it would rightly seem these are three viable options, not heresies. But I beg to differ.

Worldview matters. And if we don’t reach back before the 19th century, back to the Bible itself, the Westminster divines, and the Puritans, we will limp along, defeated. Yes, the Holy Spirit gives you a heart of flesh and the mind to understand and love the Lord and his Word. But without good reading practices even this redeemed heart grows flabby, weak, shaky, and ill. You cannot lose your salvation, but you can lose everything else.

Enter John Owen. Thomas Watson. Richard Baxter. Thomas Brooks. Jeremiah Burroughs. William Gurnall. The Puritans. They didn’t live in a world more pure than ours, but they helped create one that valued biblical literacy. Owen’s work on indwelling sin is the most liberating balm to someone who feels owned by sexual sin. You are what (and how) you read. J. C. Ryle said it takes the whole Bible to make a whole Christian. Why does sin lurk in the minds of believers as a law, demanding to be obeyed? How do we have victory if sin’s tentacles go so deep, if Satan knows our names and addresses? We stand on the ordinary means of grace: Scripture reading, prayer, worship, and the sacraments. We embrace the covenant of church membership for real accountability and community, knowing that left to our own devices we’ll either be led astray or become a danger to those we love most. We read our Bibles daily and in great chunks. We surround ourselves with a great cloud of witnesses who don’t fall prey to the same worldview snares we and our post-19th century cohorts do.

Three Tips for Better Bible Reading

You probably don’t need to hear reasons that it’s important to read the Bible. You know it is.

But you might need some motivation. One way to get excited about reading the Bible is to rethink your Bible-reading strategy. Here are three tips for better Bible reading:

Tip #1. Listen to audio-Bibles.

When you listen to an audio-Bible, you’ll be surprised how quickly the time goes by and how much of the Bible you “read.”

Sometimes I listen while doing other tasks such as driving or cleaning or running, but I’ve found it to be incredibly profitable to listen while following along in a different English translation (or in the original languages). Listening to a different version than you are reading helps keep you engaged as you inquisitively consider various renderings. The pace is so fast that you miss all sorts of nuances, but you gain a valuable macro-perspective.

Audio-Bibles work well for the Bible’s many styles of literature, though they work best for stories as opposed to proverbs or letters. This is evident when listening to dramatized audio-Bibles (such as my family’s favorite: The Bible Experience). But it’s worth remembering that the congregations whom Paul addressed in his letters typically listened to Paul’s letters and did not own personal copies of them.

You might want to get started by downloading some free audio-Bibles from “Faith Comes by Hearing.”

Tip #2. Read books of the Bible in one sitting.

There is value in Bible-reading plans that divvy up the readings so that you read one chapter from four different books of the Bible. But if that’s the only way you read the Bible, it will be difficult to understand key literary features and the theological message of whole books of the Bible.

Have you ever read the Gospel according the Matthew straight through in one sitting? Or Romans? Or Job? Or Revelation? If not, you’re missing out. That’s the way they’re meant to be read. A book like Nehemiah would generally take about one hour. Ephesians would take 20 minutes. Here’s a full list of the approximate times it would take to read each book in our English Bible.

I understand the objection: “There’s no way I could possibly find time to do this.” But aren’t there other activities you do in life for prolonged periods of time? Do you read other books for a few hours at a time? Do you ever spend an hour watching a TV show or two hours watching a movie or three hours watching a football game? Why not prioritize lengthy, undistracted time in the life-giving word?

Tip #3. Read without any chapter or verse references.

I am not a fan of chapter and verse references in the Bible. Bible “verses” didn’t even exist until about 1550, and “chapters” go back only to the 1200s. They can obscure the text and create artificial and sometimes inaccurate divisions.

Yes, chapter and verse references help us locate specific sentences and phrases quickly. But sometimes they do more harm than good. They lead many people to think of the Bible as a reference book that collects bullet-pointed verse-nuggets — not as the literature that it really is.

So how do you read the Bible without any chapter or verse references? There are at least three options:

Get a Bible without them. For example, Biblica has one called The Books of the Bible, and Crossway is planning to release the ESV Reader’s Bible in May.Use a Bible software program like Logos to export a book or passage of Scripture to your favorite word processor without the chapter or verse numbers.Manually delete the chapter and verse references in a word document on your computer. This is time-consuming, but you could copy-and-paste text from a site like Bible Gateway and then delete all the numbering. That’s more feasible for shorter books. Even better, Bible Gateway has an option to hide verse numbers (click on “Page Options”).

Take up and read (and listen) a lot.

Paul, the Law and Eschatological Justification: Three Views of Romans 2:13

One of the most important and most hotly debated exegetical and biblical-theological issues in our day is that concerning the words of Paul in Romans 2:13, “The doers of the Law shall be justified” (?? p???ta? ??µ?? d??a????s??ta?). What does the Apostle Paul mean by this statement? Is it a perfect obedience that Paul has in view? Is he merely taking up the Jewish mindset concerning the Law and a supposed standing before God on the basis of having that Law? Does this verse teach that a man or woman will be shown (evidenced) to have been justified in accord with their life of good works on Judgment Day? Or, is it a statement about a general obedience that forms the basis of our standing before God on Judgment Day? A survey of the differing views will help us navigate through these questions. There are essentially three positions on the meaning of this verse: (1) The hypothetical view; (2) the eschatological justification (in accord with our works) view; and (3) the eschatological justification (on the basis of our works) view. If we misinterpret this verse we may, in the words of Richard Gaffin, “undermine or eclipse, whether or not intentionally, the full graciousness of justification according to Paul.”

The Hypothetical View

The view adopted by the majority of older Reformed theologians and commentators is that which has been commonly called “the hypothetical view.” This interpretation is supported by a contextual consideration of the argument of Romans 1:18-3:20. Seeing the flow of these chapters as one coherent argument from plight to solution, proponents of “the hypothetical view” suggest that Paul is arguing from the logical implication of his opponents’ position. That Paul is addressing unbelieving Jews (and it is widely debated who exactly the apostle is addressing in 2:1ff) is the underlying conclusion of proponents of “the hypothetical view.” Accordingly, the Jews of Paul’s day presumed that they are accepted by God on the basis of their possession of the Law and their supposed doing the deeds required by the Law. The problem was, as the apostle explains in both ch. 2 and ch. 3, that no one (i.e. Jew or Gentile) has done the Law. This is the very reason why another source of righteousness (i.e. the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith alone) must be provided (Rom. 3:20-30).

In Romans 1:18-5:21, the apostle moves from a general statement of the extreme depravity of all men to a specific address to unbelieving Jews about their own depravity (2:1-3:9) to the solution provided in the imputed righteousness of Christ (3:20-5:21). The crux of Paul’s argument rests on the fact that the unbelieving Jews, who had the Law of God, thought that having the Law of God somehow put them in a right relationship with God. They were then looking at the Gentiles with judgmental distain. When Paul comes to his statement in 2:13, he insist that if righteousness–and, therefore, a right standing with God–came through the Law, it would not be the hearers of the law that would arrive at such a right standing, but the doers of the Law who would obtain it. Underlying Paul’s statement about doers of the law being justified is Paul’s theology of the demands of the Law. In the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism, “The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto…” (LC 93) and “the law is perfect, and binds everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin” (LC. 99). (1)

John Calvin, in his commentary on Romans, explained what is commonly called “the hypothetical view” when he wrote:

For the hearers of the law, etc. This anticipates an objection which the Jews might have adduced. As they had heard that the law was the rule of righteousness, (Deuteronomy 4:1) they gloried in the mere knowledge of it: to obviate this mistake, he declares that the hearing of the law or any knowledge of it is of no such consequence, that any one should on that account lay claim to righteousness, but that works must be produced, according to this saying, “He who will do these shall live in them. The import then of this verse is the following, ‘That if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works.’ They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a sophistry: for the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law,  ”That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them.” Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law. (2)

John Murray, in his commentary on Romans, also defended “the hypothetical view” in his explanation of the words of Romans 2:13:

This verse is directly connected with the two clauses immediately preceding and supports or confirms the proposition that the law will be the instrument of the condemnation pronounced upon those who have sinned under it. The emphasis in verse 13 falls upon the difference between “hearers of the law” and “doers of the law.” The mere possession of the law does not insure favorable judgment on God’s part. The law is the standard of judgment but it is the law as demanding conformity. The apostle is undoubtedly guarding against that perversion so characteristic of the Jew that the possession of God’s special revelation and of the corresponding privileges would afford immunity from the rigour of the judgment applied to others not thus favored. He speaks of “the hearers of the law” because it was by hearing the Scriptures read that the mass of the people of Israel became acquainted with them and in that sense could be said to have the law (cf. Luke 4:16; John 12:34; Acts 15:21; 2 Cor. 3:14; James 1:22). It is quite unnecessary to find in this verse any doctrine of justification by works in conflict with the teaching of this epistle in later chapters. Whether any will be actually justified by works either in this life or at the final judgment is beside the apostle’s interest and design at this juncture. The burden of this verse is that not the hearers or mere possessors of the law will be justified before God but that in terms of the law the criterion is doing, not hearing. The apostle’s appeal to this principle serves that purpose truly and effectively, and there is no need to import questions that are not relevant to the universe of discourse.

This is the first occasion that the word “justify” is used in this epistle. Although it is not used here with reference to the justification which is the grand theme of the epistle, the forensic meaning of the term is evident even in this case. “Shall be justified” is synonymous with “just before God” and the latter refers to standing or status in the sight of God. To justify, therefore, would be the action whereby men would be recognized as just before God or the action whereby men are given the status of being just in God’s sight. (3)

Because of the density of his language, Murray has sometimes been misunderstood to have denied “the hypothetical view.” For instance, Richard Gaffin makes the following statement on the basis of his reading of Murray:

The hypothetical reading of verses 5-13, or at least 5-11, is beset with a substantial difficulty. The future judgment in view here, including the principle role of works involved, is no different from the descriptions or allusions that we find in a number of places elsewhere in Scripture…If Romans 2:5ff are not interpreted hypothetically, then the perceived problem of conflict of biblical teaching on justification by faith simply defaults to these and other like passages and they will also have to be interpreted hypothetically on their positive side. But consideration of them will show, as John Murray put it bluntly, “the impossibility of such a procedure.” The broader biblical outcome suggests that the positive outcome in view in Romans 2:5 ff., at least in verses 5-11, if not verses12-13 as well, is best seen as describing what will be true of Christians at the final judgment. (4)

This is both interesting and important given the fact that Murray, in his comments on Rom. 2:13, supplied a footnote that seems to reflect that he adopted “the hypothetical view;” and, that he disavowed an interpretation that supports some form of eschatological justification (at least, on the basis of  “faith and its fruit”). He wrote:

Philippi’s statement is worthy of quotation: “Whether or not there are such perfect p???ta? t?? ??µ?? the apostle does not say in this passage, but only opposes the true standard to the false standard of the Jews, that ????ata? t?? ??µ?? are just before God. The entire reasoning of the Roman epistle tends to this conclusion, that no man is by nature such a p???t?? t?? ??µ??, or can be” (ad loc.). cf. also Godet, ad loc. although one cannot subscribe to his view of two justifications, “the one initial, founded exclusively on faith, the other final, founded on faith and its fruits.” (5)

Related to this view of Rom. 2:13 is the theology of Romans 4 and the relationship between Abraham and justification. When Paul goes to defend the doctrine of justification by faith alone, he sets Abraham out as the model (Rom. 4:1ff). Interestingly, he contrasts two instruments of justification: faith and works. It has not frequently been pointed out how the relationship between Abraham and the Law factors into this discussion. If Abraham is the model of a justified believer, and if there is such a thing as an eschatological justification that is related to doing the Law, then why wasn’t the Law given until 400 years after Abraham. Sinclair Ferguson unpacks this wonderful point–and it’s relationship to the theological meaning of Paul’s use of the phrase, “the works of the Law”–in his 2005 lecture on the New Perspective.

Proponents of “the hypothetical view” have a strong exegetical defense of their position due to the fact that everywhere else the word ??µ?? or its variant forms is used in relationship to d??a??? in the epistle it is always to suggest that no one is justified by doing the Law because no one has done the law.

The Eschatological Justification (in accord with works) View

In recent years, it has become commonplace to find theologians speaking of an “eschatological justification” when discussing Romans 2:13. This phrase–by itself–carries with it a world of baggage due to the ambiguous way in which it has often been used. The view is founded on a biblical-theological construct that positions the soteriological blessings of Christ in the already/not-yet framework of the two comings of Christ and the relationship of Rom. 2:13 within the context of 2:3-11. Accordingly, proponents suggests that just as there is an already and a not-yet to the saving blessings of regeneration, adoption and sanctification, so too is there an already and a not-yet to the saving blessing of justification. Because Romans 2:6-7 seem to clearly teach that the good works of believers, and the evil works of unbelievers, will stand as evidence on judgment day, some have sought to import the same meaning into the words of Rom. 2:13. (6)

As has already been noted above,  Richard Gaffin is an outspoken proponent of the eschatological justification according to works view. He explains what he means by according to works when he writes:

For Christians, future judgment according to works does not operate according to a different principle than their already having been justified by faith. The difference is that the final judgment will be the open manifestation of that present justification, their being “openly acquitted” as we have seen. And, in that future judgment, their obedience, their works are not the ground or basis. Nor are they co-instrumental, a coordinate instrument for appropriating divine approbation as they supplement faith. Rather, they are the essential and manifest criterion of that faith, the integral “fruits and evidences of a lively faith.” Appropriating the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 16:2. It is not for nothing, I take it, and not to be dismissed as an overly fine exegesis to observe, that in Romans 2:6 Paul writes “according (?ata) to works,” not “on account of, because of (d?a),” expressing the ground, nor “by (e?) works,” expressing the instrument. (7)

To be fair, Gaffin seems to back away from Romans 2:13 in the bulk of his discussion and focuses, rather, on Rom. 2:3-10 in his explanation of eschatological justification according to works. However, after an extensive explanation of judgment according to works, Gaffin writes:

The perennial question at issue in verses 5-11, or if verses 12-13 are included, is whether on their positive side they have in view a scenario that is actual or one that is unrealized and true only in principle. That is, on the one side, is Paul describing Christians and the actual outcome of the final judgment for them or, alternatively, is he speaking hypothetically? The former reading, it seems to me, is almost certainly right. (8)

Gaffin draws a sharp distinction between a judgment according to works and on the basis of works. In fact, he goes to great length to explain the significance of the difference. He writes:

Within the larger context of Paul’s teaching as a whole, then, the question is unavoidable. How are we to relate this future judgment according to works, as spelled out in this passage and others, to his clear and emphatic teaching elsewhere that justification, as already pronounced eschatological judgment, is a present reality, received by faith alone and on the sole basis of the imputed righteousness of God revealed in Christ?

With an eye to a long and somewhat complicated discussion that we are not able to survey here in any detail, the answer to this relational question does not lie in the direction of distinguishing two different justifications. This view has variant forms: one present, by faith and one future, by works, the former based on Christ’s work, the latter based on our obedience, even if seen as Spirit-empowered; or, yet again, present justification based on faith in anticipation of future justification on the basis of a life time of faithfulness. All such views undermine or eclipse, whether or not intentionally, the full graciousness of justification according to Paul. (9)

Here, Gaffin is taking on a yet another interpretation of Romans 2:13–namely, a future justification on the basis of works. According to the footnote he supplies in the paragraph above, He specifically has N.T. Wright in view. Note the warning he raises at the end of the second paragraph above.

The Eschatological Justification (on the basis of works) View

Readers of this post who are familiar with the language of eschatological justification will know that a sharp distinction is drawn between eschatological justification in accord with our works and on the basis of our works. It is, in a reductionistic sense, the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. While biblical-theological nuances seem to distance an adoption of the latter view in such writings as E.P. Sander, James Dunn and N.T. Wright, it lands proponents of the New Perspective(s) on Paul in the same functional place as Rome.  

In his commentary on Romans, Wright comes out and plainly insists that Romans 2:13 teaches that “Justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance.” (10) In What Saint Paul Really Said, Wright states that he believes that “present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future justification will affirm publicly… on the basis of the entire life.” (11) In recent discussions, Wright has been challenged as to his use of the phrase on the basis of. At times he seems to make the phrases in accord with and on the basis of synonymous–though they clearly are not in their historic, linguistic and philosophical usages. (12) Certain defenders of Wright have even insisted that he is simply saying what Gaffin and Ridderbos have said about an eschatological justification in accord with works. However, as Douglas Moo has recently pointed out, Wright continues to use the specific language of “on the basis of” in his latest book, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 

Most surprisingly, G.K. Beale, in his massive New Testament Biblical Theology, supports a doctrine of eschatological justification on the basis of works–taught in Romans 2:13–when he writes:

These verses [i.e. Romans 2:3-10] focus not only on the time of final judgment but also on the time of reward for those who “do good” (vv. 7, 10). Verse 6 (“who will render to each person according to his deeds”) seems best interpreted in this context to mean that there will be a judicial evaluation of the works of all people; some will be found wanting and be judged, others will be found to have works and not be judged but will receive life. Accordingly, with this preceding context in mind, it seems best to understand Paul’s statement in verse 13 , “the doers of the Law will be justified,” to refer to the final judgment when those who have faith in Christ and possess good works, though not perfect, will be “justified” or “vindicated” on the basis of those works. This idea of judgment by works, though without the language of “justification/vindication,” is also reflected later in Rom. 14:10, 12. (13)

Concluding Thoughts

Of course, a litany of other pertinent exegetical and biblical-theological considerations factor into this discussion (e.g. a fuller treatment of Romans 2:6-7, the already/not-yet structure of Paul’s theology, a consideration of those passages that do teach that there will be a judgment according to works, the doctrine of rewards, etc.). While we do not have time to consider them, or the more nuanced sub-categories of these three overarching positions (14), this post is merely meant to serve as a basic introduction to the three main interpretive approaches to this verse. So what are we to make of these three attempts to interpret Romans 2:13?

While it has lost traction in recent years, “the hypothetical view” offers, in my opinion, the strongest defense of the overall context of Romans 1:18-3:20. It would seem a contradiction of seismic proportion for Paul to say in 2:13, “doers of the Law will be justified,” and in 3:20, “Now, apart from the Law the righteousness of God is revealed…,” unless he is explaining in 2:13 what it would take for a man to be justified if that justification were through the Law. This view fits most naturally in the flow of Paul’s argument, which, it seems to me, is why the Reformers and Puritans–almost unanimously–opted for it.

“The eschatological judgment according to works view,” while certainly taught in other places in the New Testament (see Gaffin’s treatment of this in his chapter “Eschatology and Justification” in Justified in Christ) nevertheless fails to do justice to the issue of the Law in the central argument of Paul (Rom. 1:18-5:21). If the wider pericope is taken as the guiding theological parameter of Paul’s argumentation then it does not make any sense why Paul would speak of a justification by law when his entire premise is that there is a justification apart from the Law in Christ. This is not to say that those who hold to “an eschatological justification according to works” are out of accord with historic Reformed Protestantism. The Westminster Confession of Faith clearly speaks of an “open vindication” of believers on judgment day. Gaffin’s defense of a “judgment according to works” is substantiated by other passages, as he so ably argues. Gaffin is clear when he says that good works are merely “the essential and manifest criterion of that faith, the integral ‘fruits and evidences of a lively faith.’” I would also suggest that Gaffin et al are correct in their reading of Romans 2:6-7, but that they are mistaken by opting for an “either/or” approach to reading 2:13. Why not rather conclude that Paul is speaking of a future judgment according to good works in 2:6-7 and that he is picking back up on his opposition of the Jewish argument for justification by the Law in 2:13? The context is certainly dynamic enough to include both ideas.

“The eschatological justification on the basis of works view” is the most far removed from the totality of biblical teaching. It is essentially the Roman Catholic cooperationist view of justification packaged in a highly academic, biblical-theological structure. In fact, if we suggest that there is a future justification on the basis of works then we destroy any and all hope of the subjective assurance of believers. At best,  proponents may point someone to the sacraments for some supposed objective assurance while leaving the question of whether I will have enough good works to form the basis of my final justification. This is the exactly the same problem as we find with Rome. It puts men and women in the “never enough quagmire.” In fact, Rome’s cooperationist approach to justification led Cardinal Bellarmine (Pope Clement VIII’s personal theologian of the Counter-Reformation) to declare that “the greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance.” If we say that we are “justified on the basis of works” then we take away from the perfect and sufficient work of Jesus in His life, death, burial and resurrection. This interpretation makes Jesus a Savior who doesn’t make us acceptable to God entirely on the basis of who He is and what He has done. Instead, this view make Jesus a half savior who enables us to cooperate with Him (even if suggested that it is by His Spirit) to gain a right standing with God. In the end, this view would leave room for human boasting on judgment Day. Paul’s argument in Romans 4 proves to be an appropriate critique of this view, even as it was of the immediate error he was opposing in the epistle.

______________________________________________

1. For a further exegetical consideration of Paul’s theology of the demands of the Law, see Tom Schreiner’s two outstanding articles, “Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E.P. Sanders” and “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible? A Reexamination of Galatians 3:10.” See also Guy Prentiss Waters’ “Romans 10:5 and the Covenant of Works“

2. John Calvin Commentary on Romans 

3. John Murray Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1958) vol. 1 on Logos, from his comments on verse 13.

4. Richard Gaffin By Faith, Not By Sight (Paternoster Press, 2006) pp. 96-97; a similar statement is made in Gaffin’s article, “Eschatology and Justification,” in K. Scott Clark ed. Justified in Christ (Ross-Shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2007) p.

5. Murray Romans n.21 on his comments on 2:13

6. Gaffin has an exceedingly helpful breakdown of this idea in his chapter “Eschatology and Justification” in both By Faith, Not By Sight and in  Justified in Christ.

7. Gaffin By Faith, Not By Sight pp. 98-99

8. Gaffin Justified in Christ p. 16.

9. Ibid., p. 19.

10 N.T. Wright, Romans, NIB 10 (Nashville: Abington, 2003), 440.

11. N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 129.

12. In fact, in a debate last year between N.T. Wright and James White, Wright downplayed the importance of the distinction. You can find that debate here.

13. G.K. Beale A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011) p. 518 . I am grateful to my friend Adam Parker for finding this and passing it along.

14. Ibid., p. 517

George Whitefield in Three Sentences

J. I. Packer likes to say of himself “Packer by name, Packer by nature.” By this he means that he can pack a lot into one sentence. We all know this is true theologically, but it is less recognized in his biographical summaries. (See, for example, his punchy descriptions of Francis Schaeffer and Martyn Lloyd-Jones.)

Here is his summary of George Whitefield, whose 299th birthday is today:

The ‘Grand Itinerant’, as his contemporaries called him, was, more than anyone else, the trail-blazing pioneer and personal embodiment of the eighteenth-century revival of vital Christianity in the West, the revival that shaped English-speaking society on both sides of the Atlantic for over a hundred years and that fathered the evangelical missionary movement which for the past two centuries has been taking the gospel literally round the world. . . .

First to preach the transforming message of the new birth, first to take it into the open air and declare the world his parish, first to publish journals celebrating God’s work in and through him, and first to set up societies for the nurturing of those who came to faith under his ministry, Whitefield proclaimed Christ tirelessly throughout Britain and colonial America, drawing huge crowds, winning thousands of souls, impacting myriads more, and gaining celebrity status. . .

Wesley’s influence as a renewer of popular religion is sometimes credited with saving England from an upheaval like the French revolution; if there is substance in such reasoning, Whitefield should receive greater credit, for his ministry ranged wider and his pulpit power was greater.

(This quote is from Packer’s introduction to Henry Scougal’s The Life of God in the Soul of Man.)

Keep your eye out next year for Thomas Kidd’s biography of Whitefield, to be published by Yale University Press in time for the 300th anniversary of his birth. I expect it to be the definitive treatment of the man and his time.

Copyright © 2013 by the author listed above. Used by permission.

Three Prayers for Facing Monday (Or Any Tomorrow)

This is one of those really deep, common truths — one which Jonathan Edwards expounds with the intellectual horsepower of a genius, and to which our most common experience testifies:

Essential to our present joy is the anticipation of greater joy to come.

This is why, for example, the best part of going on vacation is often the day before we start it. The glad anticipation of what will be compounds in the present and gives us a good feeling. But the closer we get to the last day of vacation, the more the joy diminishes. Sound familiar?

In American culture, the weekend can be a miniature version of this experience. After five days of work, many of us look forward to two days off on Saturday and Sunday. The height of anticipation comes Friday — TGIF! — but by Sunday evening the cheer is gone. Tomorrow we face Monday, with all its certain trials and trying uncertainties.

So how will you face it? How can we make the most of Sunday to prepare for the less-than-enthusiastic tomorrow?

In complement to corporate worship, here are three prayers for facing Monday:

1. Give me a brazen trust in your greatness and your goodness.

Whatever circumstances may come our way tomorrow, the most foundational truth we need to know is that God is in control, and that he is good. Many of us can recite the dinnertime prayer “God is great, God is good…” — but we need more than a good memory for this fact to take effect. We need faith. We need a brazen trust — an indomitable confidence — that our God rules the kingdom of men, that no purpose of his can be hindered, that all he pleases to do he does (Daniel 4:17; Job 42:2; Psalm 115:3). And that he abounds in steadfast love, that he is compassionate and merciful, that his nearness is our good (Exodus 34:6; James 5:11; Psalm 73:28).

Saying it is one thing; believing it is another. So we ask God for this faith.

2. Give me a humble heart towards the people I will encounter.

Most circumstances we face involve faces. Real people. People with their own stories. People with eternal souls. This means oftentimes how we face situations is really about how we relate to others. And what we need is humility. We need a deep, sincere sense that we are creatures. If the first prayer is to know the greatness and goodness of God, this second prayer is to know that greatness and goodness are original to him, not us. We are not that great. We are not that good.

Admitting this doesn’t come natural. So we ask God for this heart.

3. Give me the deep joy that because of Jesus, the best is always yet to come.

This is no cliché. No too-good-to-be-true platitude. For the Christian, the best is always, always, yet to come. The first two prayers come together in this one: a great God will judge all evil, a good God will show mercy, and Jesus vividly showed both for the helpless.

On the cross, Jesus simultaneously absorbed God’s wrath for sinners and demonstrated God’s love for sinners (Romans 3:25; 5:8). And because he did this, because we are united to him by faith, no circumstance in this life is worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed to us. The best is always yet to come. Even in eternity, as Edwards explains, we will never stop saying this.

And that is reason for unwavering celebration. So we ask for this deep joy.

Preaching with Authority: Three Characteristics of Expository Preaching

Authentic expository preaching is marked by three distinct characteristics: authority, reverence, and centrality. Expository preaching is authoritative because it stands upon the very authority of the Bible as the word of God. Such preaching requires and reinforces a sense of reverent expectation on the part of God’s people. Finally, expository preaching demands the central place in Christian worship and is respected as the event through which the living God speaks to his people.

A keen analysis of our contemporary age comes from sociologist Richard Sennett of New York University. Sennett notes that in times past a major anxiety of most persons was loss of governing authority. Now, the tables have been turned, and modern persons are anxious about any authority over them: “We have come to fear the influence of authority as a threat to our liberties, in the family and in society at large.” If previous generations feared the absence of authority, today we see “a fear of authority when it exists.”

Some homileticians suggest that preachers should simply embrace this new worldview and surrender any claim to an authoritative message. Those who have lost confidence in the authority of the Bible as the word of God are left with little to say and no authority for their message. Fred Craddock, among the most influential figures in recent homiletic thought, famously describes today’s preacher “as one without authority.” His portrait of the preacher’s predicament is haunting: “The old thunderbolts rust in the attic while the minister tries to lead his people through the morass of relativities and proximate possibilities.” “No longer can the preacher presuppose the general recognition of his authority as a clergyman, or the authority of his institution, or the authority of Scripture,” Craddock argues. Summarizing the predicament of the postmodern preacher, he relates that the preacher “seriously asks himself whether he should continue to serve up monologue in a dialogical world.”

The obvious question to pose to Craddock’s analysis is this: If we have no authoritative message, why preach? Without authority, the preacher and the congregation are involved in a massive waste of precious time. The very idea that preaching can be transformed into a dialogue between the pulpit and the pew indicates the confusion of our era.

Contrasted to this is the note of authority found in all true expository preaching. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones notes:

Any study of church history, and particularly any study of the great periods of revival or reawakening, demonstrates above everything else just this one fact: that the Christian Church during all such periods has spoken with authority. The great characteristic of all revivals has been the authority of the preacher. There seemed to be something new, extra, and irresistible in what he declared on behalf of God.

The preacher dares to speak on behalf of God. He stands in the pulpit as a steward “of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1) and declares the truth of God’s word, proclaims the power of that word, and applies the word to life. This is an admittedly audacious act. No one should even contemplate such an endeavor without absolute confidence in a divine call to preach and in the unblemished authority of the Scriptures.

In the final analysis, the ultimate authority for preaching is the authority of the Bible as the word of God. Without this authority, the preacher stands naked and silent before the congregation and the watching world. If the Bible is not the word of God, the preacher is involved in an act of self-delusion or professional pretension.

Standing on the authority of Scripture, the preacher declares a truth received, not a message invented. The teaching office is not an advisory role based on religious expertise, but a prophetic function whereby God speaks to his people.

Authentic expository preaching is also marked by reverence. The congregation that gathered before Ezra and the other preachers demonstrated a love and reverence for the word of God (Neh 8). When the book was read, the people stood up. This act of standing reveals the heart of the people and their sense of expectation as the word was read and preached.

Expository preaching requires an attitude of reverence on the part of the congregation. Preaching is not a dialogue, but it does involve at least two parties—the preacher and the congregation. The congregation’s role in the preaching event is to hear, receive, and obey the word of God. In so doing, the church demonstrates reverence for the preaching and teaching of the Bible and understands that the sermon brings the word of Christ near to the congregation. This is true worship.

Lacking reverence for the word of God, many congregations are caught in a frantic quest for significance in worship. Christians leave worship services asking each other, “Did you get anything out of that?” Churches produce surveys to measure expectations for worship: Would you like more music? What kind? How about drama? Is our preacher sufficiently creative?

Expository preaching demands a very different set of questions. Will I obey the word of God? How must my thinking be realigned by Scripture? How must I change my behavior to be fully obedient to the word? These questions reveal submission to the authority of God and reverence for the Bible as his word.

Likewise, the preacher must demonstrate his own reverence for God’s word by dealing truthfully and responsibly with the text. He must not be flippant or casual, much less dismissive or disrespectful. Of this we can be certain, no congregation will revere the Bible more than the preacher does.

If expository preaching is authoritative, and if it demands reverence, it must also be at the center of Christian worship. Worship properly directed to the honor and glory of God will find its center in the reading and preaching of the word of God. Expository preaching cannot be assigned a supporting role in the act of worship—it must be central.

In the course of the Reformation, Luther’s driving purpose was to restore preaching to its proper place in Christian worship. Referring to the incident between Mary and Martha in Luke 10, Luther reminded his congregation and students that Jesus Christ declared that “only

 one thing is necessary,” the preaching of the word (Luke 10:42). Therefore, Luther’s central concern was to reform worship in the churches by re-establishing there the centrality of the reading and preaching of the word.
That same reformation is needed in American evangelicalism today. Expository preaching must once again be central to the life of the church and central to Christian worship. In the end, the church will not be judged by its Lord for the quality of its music but for the faithfulness of its preaching.

When today’s evangelicals speak casually of the distinction between worship and preaching (meaning that the church will enjoy an offering of music before adding on a bit of preaching), they betray their misunderstanding of both worship and the act of preaching. Worship is not something we do before we settle down for the word of God; it is the act through which the people of God direct all their attentiveness to the one true and living God who speaks to them and receives their praises. God is most beautifully praised when his people hear his word, love his word, and obey his word.

As in the Reformation, the most important corrective to our corruption of worship (and defense against the consumerist demands of the day) is to rightly return expository preaching and the public reading of God’s word to primacy and centrality in worship. Only then will the “missing jewel” be truly rediscovered.

Three Speed Transmisssion

Greg Gilbert:

Our  generation tends  to think  about  motivation in two speeds and two speeds  only—there are things  that  are of the utmost  importance, and  things  that  are of no importance. There’s  no in-between. That’s one  of the  reasons  this whole conversation about  the mission of the church is so difficult. The minute you start arguing  that  good  works are not of the utmost importance, people accuse you of saying that they are of no importance at all. The thinking seems to be that good works have to be motivated by the highest imaginable reasons—We’re building for the kingdom! We’re doing the gospel! We’re joining God in his mission! We’re spreading shalom!—or else people will think they’re not important at all.

We need  another speed. We need  a speed that’s somewhere between of the utmost importance and of no importance. Something like really, really important might  do the  trick. The  fact is, we as Christians have a lot of things on our plate. There are many things that the Lord calls us to do that are not of the utmost importance, in the  sense that  they are earth-shattering, kingdom-building, eternity-making things. And yet they are really, really important, and  we are called to be faithful  in doing  them.  If we’re honest with ourselves, we already have this speed, and we use it all the time. Think  about  our  marriages, for example. Our  marriages are not  going  to make  it into  eternity; they’re  not  of the utmost importance (Matt. 22:30). And yet they are really, really important, and  we give much  of our  lives and  our  love and  our  energy  to them. We don’t default  to saying that because they’re not of the utmost  importance, they must be of no importance at all.

So why must those  be our  only two options  when it comes to good works and social ministry and culture building and our occupations and all the rest? Why can’t we be content with saying simply that we do those things, and we do them  well, out of love for people and  obedience and  love to God? It seems to us that such an understanding, such a set of motivations, would not only be more  faithful to Scripture, but also be better at motivating good  works for the long haul because  we won’t be discouraged from doing  them  even when our cities don’t change over a decade or two. We will be sufficiently motivated by loving God, loving people, and being  ”faithfully present”  as we wait on the Lord Jesus to return. (What is the Mission of the Church?, 230-231)