A unique inheritance

In the ancient world, obtaining an inheritance was crucial to maintaining wealth and prosperity. This was not a time like ours where individuals were encouraged to go out and strike their own fortunes. Thus we see, for example, the utter heinousness of the prodigal son's request to his father in Christ's parable. Taking this common social custom as a very apt metaphor, Biblical writers often mention the inheritance which God has promised to give to his people. The apostle Paul, for example, continues his litany of Spiritual blessings available only through union with Christ in Ephesians 1:11 by saying, "In him we have obtained an inheritance..." The word he uses here is the passive verb form of the same word used in verse 14. Taken generally, it could just mean that we were simply "chosen" by God as the NIV seems to suggest, but since Paul has already discussed individual election in verse 4, and the fact that he continues to discuss the issue of inheritance in verse 14, I think the idea of inheritance should be brought out. But then another translational option presents itself when we consider the fact that the verb is indeed, passive. So rather than saying "we have obtained an inheritance," I think it also can be rendered, "we have been chosen as an inheritance." If this is the case, then the one getting an inheritance here, is not us as the people of God, but God choosing us, his people, as his inheritance. This falls in line with a rich OT motif where God chooses Israel as his own special possession (Exo 15:16; 19:5; Deut 7:6; Ps 33:12; cf. I Pet 2:9). So we see in vivid detail a reciprocal promise summarized by the covenantal formula: "I will be your God, and you will be my people."

But then in verse 12, Paul says something that (for us Gentiles anyway) may throw a whole wrench in this interpretation. He says, "So that we who were first to hope in Christ..." What Paul does here, is distinguish between himself and his present company, and those to whom he is writing. When he designates himself and others as "those who first hoped in Christ," he no doubt is referring to Jewish believers who received the gospel first as opposed to the Gentile believers who were told about it later. The question to ask at this point is: is the "we" in verse 12 the same as the "we" in verse 11? In other words, are only Jewish believers God's special possession and inheritance? There are some who suggest this. The facts, however, emphatically state the opposite.

In verse 13 Paul goes on to speak specifically of the Gentile converts by saying that after they heard the gospel, they believed it, and believing, they were sealed by the Holy Spirit. A seal in the ancient world (as in our day) was a mark of ownership. Whether it was a brand mark on cattle or slaves, or whether it was an insignia imprinted on a piece of wax or clay, they were a clear way of letting others know that something belonged to you. When Paul told his audience that the Holy Spirit seals them, he was stating in a vivid and emphatic manner, that they belonged to God. Further, the way in which Paul writes these two verbs: "believing " and "sealing," suggests that they happen simultaneously, that is, the moment one believes in Christ is also the same moment that they are sealed by the Spirit, there is no time delay.

Paul further elaborates on the role of the Spirit in the believers life by calling the Spirit the "guarantee" of our inheritance. The word used here (arrabon) was commonly used in commerce when someone wanted to purchase something but didn't have enough money to pay for it all at once. What he would do is leave an arrabon which would serve as a type of down payment or earnest money to show that he was serious about coming back with the full sum to purchase the item. In most cases, this deposit was non-refundable, so if the person changed his mind, he wasn't getting any of the arrabon back. Here Paul tells us that God has given us his Spirit to show how serious he is about redeeming us, and he's never going to take that away!

Finally, to further ensure his readers that all the benefits of inheritance were theirs, Paul designates the inheritance in verse 14 as "ours." Did you notice what the apostle did? First he distinguishes between himself and fellow Jewish believers (v.11-12) and his audience of predominantly Gentile believers (v.13). Then he unites them all together in verse 14 by saying "our" inheritance. The distinction is not an ethnic one, between national Israel and the church, rather it's chronological or Redemptive Historical. That is to say, in the past, God worked with Israel, but now the covenant community has broadened to include all types of people. There is but one people of God (Eph 2:11-22).

Was it really necessary?

The atonement of Christ is rightly viewed as a central aspect of the Christian religion. Its true significance and even its necessity, however, has been debated throughout church history and it still continues to this day. Here are some of the traditional views that have been held throughout the history of the church:

Christus victor - this view, held by many of the early church fathers, saw fallen humanity in bondage to Satan. In order to redeem us, Christ agreed to give his life as a ransom by dying on the cross. Satan took the bait, as it were, and agreed to the trade. However, in so doing, he sealed his defeat, because the power of Christ’s death and subsequent resurrection actually destroyed the powers of darkness. Readers of C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe may find this depiction familiar in his story of Aslan giving his life for Edmund and in so doing, defeating the White Witch.

Satisfaction theory – in the eleventh century, a bishop by the name of Anselm wrote a book entitled, Cur Deus homo? (lit. “Why the God man?”). In this work, Anselm spoke of the necessity of the incarnation of Christ as well as the purpose and intent of the atonement. He spoke of humanity’s estrangement and hostility with God being the result of having offended his honor. Instead of a ransom being paid to Satan, Christ was to offer his life to an offended God; his death was a payment for humanity’s debt in order to restore the honor due his name. This view has been criticized in contemporary discussions due to its heavy reliance upon Anselm’s own social assumptions of the feudal system.

Moral influence theory – Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm, did not view God as needing any sort of appeasement in order to reconcile humanity to him, but rather placed the blame upon human hostility that they have towards God and each other. Thus, he spoke of the atonement as God’s ultimate demonstration of love towards his creatures. The purpose of the atonement, therefore, is to serve as an example of selfless love, which then changes people’s hearts to no longer want hostility, but reconciliation. This view, unlike the others, is purely subjective, that is, the atonement does not accomplish anything outside of people’s lives (e.g. satisfying God’s justice or defeating the powers of darkness), but only has effect in the hearts of people. Also, the atonement is not strictly necessary, since it was merely a demonstration of God’s love and a free act of his will.

Feminist theory – in contemporary discussions of the atonement, perhaps the most radical and blunt theory is that which says the atonement is nothing more than a case of divine child abuse. For God the Father to have his Son die on the cross is cruel and unusual, they say. Further, they suggest that the doctrine of the atonement has been used to exploit people (women especially), by suggesting that humble submission in the face of suffering has redemptive value. Despite all of this theory’s obvious faults, I do not think that we should so easily dismiss it. If a view does not see the atonement as absolutely necessary in order to satisfy God’s justice, then I believe that it is subject to the feminist critique.

Reformed view - the atonement, according to this view, is of “consequent absolute necessity,” that is, since God has determined to redeem fallen humanity, the cross of Christ was the only way. It is not a case of divine child abuse since, according to the pactum salutus (“covenant of peace”), the Son voluntarily agrees to give his life for the people whom the Father has chosen. Like Anselm’s theory, this was done in order to make satisfaction towards God (cf. Heidelberg Catechism #12-17), but unlike his view, this was to meet his justice, not some other arbitrary standard. Christ also defeated the powers of darkness on the cross and though his Spirit, he applies the benefits of his death and resurrection towards all of the elect.

Direction concerning election

Election is perhaps one of the most difficult and contentious doctrines in Christianity. To be told that, in the final analysis, we did not choose Christ, but that he chose us (John 15:16) is insulting to our self-determinative, individualistic mentalities. In our society we are lead to believe that it is our power to choose that makes us who we are (typically this is by marketing campaigns that want us to "choose" their product). Human autonomy does not like to have things out of its control. Despite all this, however, as Christians we must have a doctrine of election because it is so clearly taught in Scripture. Furthermore, I would argue that a proper understanding of election affords the Christian with unspeakable comfort as well as gratitude for godly living.

Contrary to those who think that election is a doctrine we should believe but not talk about all that much, the apostle Paul opens up his famous "blessing" (berakah) in Ephesians 1 extolling our heavenly Father first and foremost for the blessing of election. Neither does he stop talking about God's eternal purposes throughout the book (cf. 1:11; 2:10; 3:11). Clearly, this is something that we should not shrink from proclaiming, even if its not that popular. At this point, I'd like to answer some questions that will help us better understand the doctrine of election.

Who chose whom? Surely the credit for the decision making in election goes to God and God alone. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that Christians are "elect" because of decisions that they made. In all of our endeavors to protect the free will of mankind, we must be careful not to deprive God of his free will. This is, I suggest, what the vast majority of Evangelicals do when they seek to explain how it is that God chose the elect and speak as if God "looked down the corridors of time, and saw who would believe in him, and then, chose those people." In this very rational scenario, who is it that is making the crucial decision? Who chooses the deciding factor? Is not God's choice relegated to a mere confirmation of a "good decision"?

This is why Reformed theology seeks to understand Scripture by saying that election is "unconditional," that is, there were no conditions found in the elect (e.g. making a decision) that caused or even influenced God's choice. Surely this is Paul's intent when he tells us in Eph 1:4 that God's choice took place "before the foundation of the world." I don't know about you, but I certainly wasn't around at that time.

Why did God choose? This is a very important question to ask because if God did not choose us because we were the brightest and the best or because we possessed good decision-making capabilities, then why on earth would he elect us, filthy, rotten sinners that we are? I don't think we will ever even begin to comprehend ultimately why God chose us because it is due to the unfathomable riches of his grace, but we can see what God's attitude was towards his decision to do so. First of all, Paul tells us in Eph 1:4-5 that God chose us because he loved us. Contrary to the notion that God's election was completely arbitrary and capricious, we find here the notion that election was based upon a personal and affective choice of individuals that God loves. This is the true meaning of the Biblical notion of "foreknowledge." In the Old Testament, to "know" someone, was to have a personal and intimate relationship with someone. In the New Testament, we are told that God "knew" us even before we were born (Rom 8:29)! Another thing that Paul says concerning election is that it was according to "the good pleasure of his will" (Eph 1:5; NKJV). The Greek word used here is eudokia, which means, "that which pleases someone." In other words, God decided to choose us because it was pleasing to him; it made him happy to do it!

How did God choose? When discussing the blessing of election (as well as all the other Spiritual blessings) in Eph 1, Paul never ceases to tell us that it comes to us "in Christ." This term, which is so prevalent in Paul's writings, speaks of the union that a believer has with Christ as his or her covenantal head. So, in a real sense, Christ is the location in which we receive all the blessings of God, election being one of them. Paul tells us that we have been blessed "in the Beloved" (Eph 1:6). The only way that we can obtain the status of being elect and beloved, is because of the Elect and Beloved one, Jesus Christ. This notion should not lead us to deny individual election in favor of an indeterminate, corporate election (a nameless, faceless mass of people termed: "elect"), but rather, is the source and bedrock for every elect individual. Because we are in Christ by faith, we share in all of his blessings; as Christ, so the church.

Did Paul write Ephesians?

Many of us, I would assume, have never doubted whether we should believe that the writers to our beloved New Testament epistles are who they claim to be. The very fact that Paul begins all of his letters with his name [along with the names of his occasional co-authors] is good enough for us. We take it as an article of faith. However, as is often the case in the world of higher-critical scholarship, disputes concerning Paul's actual authorship abound. None more so than Ephesians.

The first reason why many have doubted that Paul really wrote Ephesians is that the letter is so different from the rest of his other letters. There is, for example, unique vocabulary and phrases that Paul doesn't employ elsewhere. Not only that, there is a perceived emphasis in theology that many scholars say is different, even contradictory to the theological issues that are taught in the rest of Paul's known corpus. The author to the Ephesians seems too focused upon the institutional church, in their opinion, to really be the apostle Paul, who was more focused upon an individual's personal religious experience and the free association of like-minded believers.

Aside from a faulty theology of the church, this position assumes that the apostle Paul was incapable of having a wide-ranging vocabulary and that He would never use different (yet similar) words or phrases to convey the same concepts. Likewise, this position also entails that Paul's theology was one-dimensional, and that he could not apply different theological points to different issues that confronted the various churches whom he was writing. Do these men forget Paul's vast education and intellect?

The second reason why many doubt Pauline authorship of Ephesians is that the book is too much like Paul. You may be asking at this point: "How can Ephesians be not like Paul and too much like Paul at the same time?" Well, as you may already have guessed, the book of Ephesians is remarkably similar to the book of Colossians; they are traditionally known as "sister epistles." Rather than explain their similarity by assuming that they are from the same author, many scholars suggest that one is a copy of another. Typically, therefore, Ephesians is explained away as a product of a pseudonymous author who is borrowing from another one of Paul's works.

What we find in Ephesians, however, is not a cut-and-paste product that reeks of pure plagarism, but a brilliant treatise that teaches similar ideas, while applying them in different ways. Certainly, this is Paul's prerogative and to suggest somehow that Paul would not or could not do this is the height of arrogance in my opinion. To conclude, I appreciate this quote taken from Carson, Moo, and Morris' Introduction to the New Testament: “Which is more likely – that an imitator of Paul in the 1^st century composed a writing 90 to 95% in accordance with Paul’s style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging 5 to 10% from his usual style?”

Finally, many scholars doubt Paul's authorship of Ephesians because the book is not friendly enough. What I mean is that there are relatively few personal greetings at the end (or anywhere else, for that matter) of the letter. We know that Paul spent a significant amount of time living in Ephesus, over two years, in fact (Acts 19:10). One would expect therefore, a lengthy list of personal greetings like those found elsewhere in his writings (cf. Romans 16, and keep in mind that Paul hadn't even been to Rome!). Is this not a sign of forgery?

I would first respond to this by saying that no one can be completely sure why Paul wrote the way he did, but to automatically assume that it can't be him is a big mental leap for me. What we do know is that Paul was sending the letter to the Ephesians by a man named Tychicus, who was to report on all of Paul's exploits and, we would assume, to also give personal greetings. Perhaps Paul wanted to save space on the parchment he was writing on, who knows? Another explanation that is given is that Ephesians was meant to be a circular letter, that is one that was not intended for any particular city, but rather, was to be copied and sent around from church to church in Asia Minor. Certainly, if this was the case, we would not expect to see any personal greetings. To bolster this argument, there is some textual evidence that we have that proponents point to. In some of our really good manuscripts, the words "in Ephesus" in 1:1 are not there. Perhaps these are copies of this apparent circular letter that did not originate from the Ephesian's copy of the letter. While this theory may or may not be true, one thing is sure, Paul was certainly not rude to his audience and his tone of writing was certainly appropriate to the occasion.

How to read a letter... continued.

[For the first part of this entry, see below]

3. Letters must be read literarily.

I think it is a very common notion that when Paul sat down to write to the Romans or the Ephesians, for example, that he just grabbed a pen and paper and jotted down a few thoughts the same way you and I write an email or other casual correspondence. But the fact of the matter is that the New Testament epistles are all literary works in their own right, often full of many complex and intriguing elements. Passages like Philippians 2 or Colossians are thought to be actual "hymns" or poems that were no doubt sung by the early Christians. We must give care to study not only what the apostles taught, but also how they said it.

4. Letters must be read theologically.

New Testament epistles are theological to be sure, but not always in the way that we assume. When we think of theological works, I bet many of us think of some thick tome or even multiple volumes with thin pages and tiny font where one can look up just about any theological topic and read all that one would ever want to know about it. This is known as "systematic theology." New Testament epistles are not systematic theology. When one seeks to understand what specific authors are saying in specific literary works, he or she is engaging in "Biblical theology." Paul, nor any of the other apostles, never wrote an exhaustive treatment on a particular theological subject. He wrote what he felt was necessary to address the particular needs of his readers. It is the job of the systematic theologian to look at the whole of Scripture and see what all of the relevant passages teach on specific theological topics. The two methods are not opposed to each other, rather they are complimentary.

5. Letters must be read authoritatively.

When reading these letters in the New Testament, we must always remember that we are not reading merely the words of men (they are certainly that), but we must always remember that they are also the very words of God. The doctrine of inspiration teaches that God the Holy Spirit worked with a particular author's knowledge, education, experience, temperament, feelings, desires, fears, hopes, etc. to produce the word of God. This is true of the whole of Scripture ("plenary"), down to the very words ("verbal"). That Paul was acutely aware of the fact that he was writing with such authority is clear in all of his letters, especially at the opening when he almost always mentions the fact that he was an apostle. An apostle was an emissary or an ambassador that spoke on behalf of the Lord with equal authority (it is for this reason that there are no apostles today).

May you have fruitful reading!

How to read a letter...

As 21st century Americans, we have an historically unprecedented amount of access to the Word of God. Whether it's an old copy on your shelf, a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room, or even an audio MP3, it seems that the Scriptures are ubiquitous in our society. But even though personal Bible-reading is at an all-time high, it does not necessarily mean that everyone is profiting from it.  In other words, not all Bible-reading is created equal. Part of the problem is that people do not recognize the fact that the Scriptures contain various genres that were composed by numerous people throughout a significant amount of time. In order to fully understand the various books of Scripture, they will have to be read in subtle, yet different ways. 

One of the major genres which we encounter in the New Testament is that of the "epistle" or "letter."  Whether it's the 13 letters written by the apostle Paul, or the "general epistles" of James, Peter, John, and Jude, what we have in our possession are real correspondence from real individuals to real congregations in the first century world. In order to fully appreciate this part of Scripture, here are a few guidelines for profitable reading:

1. Letters must be read as a whole. 

How often do you get a letter from a friend and instead of reading from beginning to end in one sitting, you read a few paragraphs, then stop, a few days later you read the end, and then you sporadically read random sections over the next few weeks. Certainly this is NOT the proper way to read a letter. In the first century church the New Testament canon was still being composed, and when a church got a letter from one of the apostles (like Peter or Paul), they would assemble together (typically on the Lord's Day) and have it read out-loud in one sitting. This way, they were able to know the context of what the apostle was saying to them. One of the biggest reasons why particular Bible verses are misunderstood today is due to the fact that they were taken out of their context. The best way to insure that you are properly understanding what is being said in New Testament letters, is to read them in their immediate and broader context. 

2. Letters must be read historically.

Part of knowing a letter's broader context is to have, as best we can, an understanding of the historical situation in which particular letters were composed. As I mentioned above, these are real letters, written by real people to real churches. Gaining a knowledge of what was going on in certain situations helps immensely. This always involves a bit a guess work, but the evidence that one looks for is classified as "internal" and "external." Internal evidence are those things which we read within the text itself. External evidence are clues that we gain from other extant documents (the Book of Acts is key), as well as the tradition that we have from the Early Church. Some of the letters in the New Testament are known as "occasional" letters. This does not mean that they were written every once in a while, but that their writing was precipitated by a certain occasion. Sometimes they preceded a visit or served as a follow up letter after one. Other churches were in the midst of controversy or under the sway of various heresies. Those letters where the occasion[s] seems to be the overriding interest of the author are a bit like hearing a one-sided phone conversation; you only hear the person your with, but you still can piece together what's being said. This is the same way we can figure out what heresies Paul confronted or what issues plagued the early church. 

coming soon... 3 more ways in which letter ought to be read.

"If you have seen me..."

Scripture is emphatically clear that no man has ever seen God (Exo 33:20; John 1:18; I John 4:12). This is the reasoning behind the second commandment which is against making a graven image. In Deuteronomy 4:15-19, Moses warns the Israelites to make sure that they keep this command by reminding them that when the Lord spoke to them out of the midst of the fire in Horeb, they saw no "form" of God. Therefore, they should not try to replicate or represent God in any way. 

In the upper room on the night before Christ's death, he told his disciples that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one can come to the Father except through him (John 14:6). One of his disciples must have been a bit confused, because he responded by saying to Christ, "Show us the Father, and it will be enough." After expressing a bit of frustration at the fact that even his closest friends still didn't get, Jesus responds, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (v.9). In other words, what God didn't do on Mount Horeb with the Israelites so many years prior, he did do in the incarnation of his only begotten Son.  Jesus Christ is the revelation of God for all the world to see. 

Having this understanding, we can now ask the practical question: "Are images of Jesus Christ permissible?" This question is further complicated when we consider the fact that we have no idea what Jesus looked like. There is no authentic portrait or description of him that we have, nor did he or the gospel writers see the need to provide us with one. When people attempt to portray Jesus, they usually produce a stereotypical "Jesus" (i.e. a white man with a beard and long hair). If I, as a married man, carried a picture of another woman in my wallet and showed it to people when they asked to see my wife, you would think I was insane!  If people really wanted to know who my wife is, an accurate picture, and not just of some random girl, must be used. Likewise, when Jesus says, "If you have seen me..." it must really be Jesus that we see. 

When Peter writes, some 30 years after the Ascension of Jesus, to Christians living in Asia Minor he says concerning their Lord, "Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory" (1 Peter 1:8). You see, Peter has no problem with Christians not having ever seen Jesus or even knowing what he looks like; they still can have a relationship with him. But that is not all there is, because Peter also speaks of a "blessed hope," which includes nothing less than seeing the risen Lord upon his return in glory. As John reminds us in his first epistle "We know that when he appears we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). Having a desire to see Jesus is not wrong, on the contrary, it is to be commended. However, now is not the time, but we must eagerly await the day.  

For more on this issue see: "Iconoclasm, Incarnation, and Eschatology: Toward a Catholic Understanding of the Reformed Doctrine of the 'Second' Commandment," David VanDrunen, International Journal of Systematic Theology, vol. 6 number 2 (April 2004).

For a discussion of how God has provided visible means of grace for us, you can read a new book written by my pastor, Daniel R. Hyde, entitled In living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace, Reformed Fellowship Inc. (Grandville, MI: 2009).