Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


You are here: Home / Archives

Universal Health Care and the Kingdom of God

6 Comments

This post is based on the Grace Commentary for Luke 1:5-7.

Obama gave his health care speech tonight. So here’s a question: Do you think that following Jesus should influence one’s viewpoint on the health care debate? Why or why not?

Interestingly, about 2000 years ago, a high-ranking public official named Theophilus was asking similar questions about the political plans of Caesar. Luke writes to Theophilus about Jesus to help answer these questions.

Foremost in the mind of Theophilus was almost certainly this question: “If I follow King Jesus, declaring that He is my Lord, how will that affect my current position in the Roman Empire and my statement of allegiance to Caesar as Lord?”

Luke addresses this question in an indirect way throughout his Gospel. He begins to do this in the section before us, Luke 1:5-7, by writing about Herod instead of Caesar. This approach is repeated throughout the Gospel. Luke constantly pits Jesus and the Kingdom of God, not against Caesar, but against Herod the Great (and his son, King Herod Antipas; cf. 1:5-7; 2:1-2; 3:1-22; 7:18-33; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:8-11). In the Gospel of Luke, there seems to be an ongoing contest between King Herod and King Jesus. Ultimately, King Herod (the son of Herod the Great) seems to “win,” for under his reign, Jesus is put to death.

So the Gospel of Luke presents a dual message about what kind of Kingdom Jesus brought: The Kingdom of God is both a direct challenge to the Roman Empire, and at the same time, absolutely no threat at all.

Those who belong to the Kingdom of God challenge governments and rulers, not by threats of rebellion and insurrection, but simply by the way we live. We seek to do the things and accomplish the programs which governments and rulers promise, but which they can never fulfil. Most of the things that governments and rulers promise can only be accomplished through the church. So in this way, we are no threat at all. They can imprison us, or kill us, but we seek only to be a blessing on our community and nation (24:47).

Certainly, Theophilus didn’t understand all this after reading Luke 1:5-7. And maybe it’s a new and challenging idea for you too. Maybe you are thinking about all the promises and prophecies in Scripture that Jesus will destroy all the wicked nations and wayward rulers and rule the world, and wondering how that fits in with the idea that the Kingdom of God is no threat to the kingdoms of men. Maybe Theophilus had such questions as well. Maybe as a public official within the Roman Empire, he was a little bit nervous. He didn’t want to be on the “losing side” when Jesus destroyed the Empire. What should he do?

I feel these questions personally, for I am a “government employee” as well. But even if I wasn’t, all of us who live in Twenty-first Century Western Civilization are part of “The Empire.” Like the Roman Empire, we have the best military. We consume the vast majority of the world resources. We think that it is our responsibility to bring Pax Americana to the rest of the world. We think other cultures need to adopt Western culture, Western ways, and Western ideals.

But really, is “The West” really the best? If it is, should we be fighting for it? If it isn’t, should we be fighting against it? Either way, is fighting really the answer?

Maybe there is a different Kingdom, with a different King, which is calling for our time, energy, and attention. And maybe that Kingdom can function in any society, any culture, any government, because it is not of this world. Maybe that Kingdom, when it expands, doesn’t overthrow Kings and rulers and governments through power and might, but redeems them through service, sacrifice, generosity, kindness, justice, forgiveness, mercy, and most of all, love.

Hopefully, Luke will help us with some of this. But at this point, all we have are questions. Theophilus has heard rumors of another Kingdom, and he wants to find out more. I hope that by the time we get to Luke 24, we understand what Luke was telling Theophilus to do.

Luke 1:1-4

5 Comments

This post is based on the Grace New Testament Commentary for Luke 1:1-4.

Science Cannot Prove History
In the movie Religulous (which I recently reviewed), Bill Maher challenged Francis Collins (the leading geneticist of the Human Genome Project) to scientifically prove that Jesus really lived, died, and rose again. This is not really an area of expertise for Francis, but he did a decent job of stating something about how the Four Gospels are historically reliable. Maher scoffed at this of course, but then moved on to some other topic.

But guess what? Maher is somewhat right. It is impossible to scientifically prove that the events of the Gospels are true. This is not because Jesus did not live, or the events recorded in the gospels did not happen, but because it is impossible to scientifically prove any historical event. By definition, historical events cannot be scientifically proven. You cannot scientifically prove that George Washington was the First President of the United States, that Michael Jackson recently died, or even what you had for breakfast this morning. Why not? Because to prove something scientifically, it needs to be observable and repeatable. Historical events, while observable by the people who happen to see it, are not repeatable.

History Can Still Be Learned
But this doesn’t mean we can’t know anything about history. We learn about and study history all the time, and for the most part, believe that what we read really happened. Generally, we come to learn about history through the accounts of the eyewitness. They saw something happen, and then they tell stories or write about it. Then others listen to what they say, or read what they wrote, and write history.

Are the Gospels Reliable History?
When we come to the Gospel of Luke, this is what he says he is doing.  He is not an eyewitness to the events he writes about, but he has carefully investigated these events, and records what he has learned.

Of course, who is to say Luke is a reliable historian? For that matter, how do we know any historian is reliable? Well, to help in this area, historians have come up with various tests to help determine the accuracy of an account. I don’t have space to get into them here.

But various historians, many of them “secular”, have stated that based on the various tests for historic reliability, the Gospels are some of the most historically reliable documents of that time period. The Gospel writers can be shown to be more reliable than such historians as Josephus, Herodotus, Plutarch, Thucidydes, and Julius Caesar. World renowned archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, after setting out to prove that the Gospels were full of errors, concluded that “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.” Similar quotes from other historians and scientists could be multiplied.

But let’s be honest. Just because Ramsay and numerous other scholars say the Gospels are reliable, doesn’t mean they really are. I’m sure Gospel critics could stack up numerous quotes from many famous archaeologists, historians, and scientists who say the Gospels are full of errors. And I’m sure they have their own research and documentation to prove it.

So…Are the Gospels Reliable or Not?
So where does that leave us? Are the Gospels accounts historically reliable or not? Personally, I think they are reliable. I think that the events recorded in the Gospels actually happened. But you want to know what else? I think that the entire question is the wrong question. Debates and argues about the historical reliability of the Gospels would have surprised the Gospel writers. They would have listened to such arguments, scratched their heads, and said, “What are you doing? That’s not why I wrote at all!” The purpose of the Gospels is not to provide a historical reliable account of the life of Jesus. I think this is a by-product; but it is not their purpose.

The Purpose of the Gospels
So what is the purpose of the Gospels? If it was not to give us a historically reliable account of the life of Jesus (though I think they do provide us this), why were they written? Simply this: life change.

Take Luke, for example (since that’s the book under discussion). He is writing specifically to Theophilus. As I mentioned in the commentary, most believe that his title indicates he was a high ranking public official. As we study through the Gospel of Luke, we are going to see that it is a very political book. Luke constantly takes things that Caesar promised the people, and shows how these things can only be provided and accomplished through Jesus. For a high ranking public official in the Roman Empire, these ideas are treasonous. Imagine how the mind and heart of Theophilus must have raced as he read this volatile book by Luke! Luke was challenge the Lordship of Caesar! He was challenging the Pax Romana, the peace of Rome! As Theophilus read this book, he was faced with a choice – to accept or deny the message, to live as he had up until then, or to change and live in light of what Luke wrote.

And the challenge is the same for us today. We may not be high-ranking public officials, but the challenge of Jesus remains. You cannot read about Him and come away unscathed. Just as watching any movie or reading any book changes a person, so also, studying and reading about Jesus will change you.

So Let’s Read!
So frankly, if someone tells me they believe the Bible is full of errors, and they don’t believe in the historical accuracy of the Gospels, my typical response is, “OK.” I don’t argue. Then I say, “You want to read it anyway? We could discuss it together if you want.”

I don’t know where you stand in your view of Scripture and the reliability of the Gospels, but regardless of your view, I invite you to join with me in learning about Jesus. It’s where the only true “CHANGE” is found.

New Directions for the TILL HE COMES Blog

16 Comments

This is my 300th Post! And with it, I have some changes to announce.

Recently, I haven’t been posting much. I used to post once a day, but now I’m lucky to post once a month. Part of this is because of some things going on in my life right now, but most of it is that I’m dissatisfied with what I write. I have 70 drafts sitting in my queue, just waiting for me to hit the “publish” button, but I just can’t do it.

In pondering why I have trouble publishing what I’ve written, I decided it is because what I’ve written in most of those 70 posts is not really worth saying. At first I thought it was because I had already said it, or somebody else said it better than me. Then I realized that the real reason was that most of my posts were for pride issues; I was trying to sound smart, edgy, and creative. The truth is that I’m none of those things. Yes, I read and think a lot, and work hard at learning, but I’m not what you would call a “wave maker.” I’m more of a “wave rider.” I ride along the waves that others create.

For a long time, I wanted to be a wave maker. As a child and teenager, I wanted to be an inventor. As a pastor, I wanted to lead the church in new directions, teach new ideas, attempt new things. But I eventually discovered that most of what I thought and taught was not original with me; I had picked it up from somewhere else. Sure, maybe I synthesized it, summarized it, or said it in a way that was new or creative, but wasn’t actually making or teaching anything revolutionary. But that’s okay, because people seemed to learn from my teaching, and I enjoyed it.

But I thought it wasn’t enough, so I set out to try to be a wave maker. Part of that attempt was this blog. Now I’ve come to realize that I am not a wave maker. I am a rider. And I’m good at it. Well, maybe I’m not so good, but I enjoy it. I love learning about the currants, and watching the wind play across the ripples of the sea. I get thrills out of trying some new approach on my board, and feeling it harness the power of the wave beneath my feet. I love the feel of the wind in my hair and the spray on my face as I hurtle toward shore.

This is me. This is who I am. This is what I love. I must embrace it.

By the way, I’ve never surfed in my life. So I am not talking about moving to California to become a “rider.”‘ Instead, I want to be a writer. Specifically, I want to study, teach, and write about Scripture. As I look over the last couple decades of my life, it is when I am studying, teaching, and writing about Scripture that I feel most content, most fulfilled, most at home, most connected with God and with who He made me to be. Remember in the movie “Chariots of Fire” when Eric Liddell said, “When I run I feel His pleasure”? Well, I feel His pleasure when I study.

So how does this effect this blog? I have decided to give up trying to write creative and witty blog posts, and just go back to what I enjoy doing – studying Scripture and writing about it. I am going to do this in two ways:

1. I am going to focus more time and energy on writing commentary. I am doing this at www.gracecommentary.com This is a free, online, interactive commentary. I am currently working on Luke. Though I try to write the text with simplicity and clarity, without getting bogged down too much in the details, it is still a commentary. As such, I am not doing much in the way of application. But I enjoy the research, the writing, and (hopefully) the interaction that is part of the site.

2. As a teacher, I feel it is never enough to just give facts and explanations. I also want to teach for life change.  Sicne a commentary doesn’t frequently contain much application, I am going to use the blog here for that purpose.

I cannot predict how frequently I will post, since, as I mentioned, there is a lot going on in my life right now, and I don’t really have too much time for writing. Also, from time to time, I may post a random entry about whatever tickles my fancy. But generally, I am going to try to stick with Scripture.

Religulous

7 Comments

I watched Bill Maher’s documentary Religulous over the weekend. I don’t recommend it…but not for the reasons you might guess.

First, a summary. The documentary is entertaining, and he makes several points that will cause you to think, but overall, the documentary has one goal: to make fun of everything religious. The documentary attacks several different religions. Along with Christianity, he also makes fun of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, and Mormons.  Oh, and don’t forget “The Church of Marijuana.” Maher’s conclusion is that religion is the cause of nearly everything that is wrong with the world, and the sooner we rid the world of religion, the better off the human race will be.

Ironically, I kind of agree of him, and I speak from the viewpoint of someone “on the inside.” All day long, every day, I deal with the beliefs and practices of various religions. And while I wouldn’t say that religion is the main cause of all that is wrong with the world, I definitely put it in the top five. (The reason I stay and work in a religious setting is that I hope to  redeem it, and the people trapped in it.)

As I watched the documentary, I found myself agreeing with Maher on point after point. Many of his complaints and criticisms are my complaints and criticisms. Some of these criticisms I have written about over the past couple of years on this blog. For example, at one point, Maher voices his opinion that modern “Christianity,” with pastors wearing expensive suits and watches, driving fancy cars, and preaching in giant buildings, cannot be what Jesus wanted for His future followers. (See, for example, this post.)

So why don’t I recommend the movie? Well, for one, there is some profanity, and a mild sex scene (between the Holy Spirit and Mary???). But aside from that, the movie is too disjointed. Not only does he jump from religion to religion, he jumps from issue to issue. Yes, there are issues with religions, but Maher doesn’t seem to desire logical, coherent discussion about the issues, and instead likes to lob in one bomb after another, gleefully watching his target (the person he is interviewing) run around dodging shrapnel. He never really allows any person he is interviewing to finish a point they are making before he switches subjects and asks another loaded question. The one person who was able to make his point was a Jewish Rabbi who, every time Maher tried to change the subject, kept saying “Let me finish.” Maher finally gave up on that interview. Although, I must admit that the Rabbi was not making much sense.

If Maher really is seeking truth (which he claims to be at the beginning of the documentary), rational, respectful, logically-ordered dialogue is the best approach. Maher does none of these things. But then, what can you expect from a comedian? So it’s not truth Maher wants; it’s laughs. And I guess viewed from that perspective, the documentary is a success. It’s not a helpful contribution to the ongoing upheaval in theology and ecclesiology, but it is funny.

So, if you want to laugh at religion (and there’s lots to laugh at!), I guess I recommend the movie after all. If we can’t laugh at ourselves, we have more serious problems in our theology than any of the issues raised by Maher.

I Don't Believe That God Exists Either

30 Comments

I am certain this post will get me some worried comments about my further slide into heresy. So let me say it clearly: “I do believe God exists! I believe there is a God, as revealed to us through nature, our conscience, Jesus, and Scripture.”

Now, on with my post.

I was recently having a discussion with a friend of mine who doesn’t believe God exists. He gave me some interesting books to read, which, in the format of a novel, present “god” and “satan” as highly evolved energy-based life forms. He believes there is a “force” out there, but it is not “god.” Instead, there are only “aliens” who tweaked the evolutionary process on earth, and have been “playing” with us ever since.

So he says he doesn’t believe in “god.”

I asked him why he doesn’t believe in “god” but does believe in an advanced species of energy-based life forms.

He replied, “I just can’t believe in a god who kills innocent people, and slaughterers the Canaanites, and sends prophets and preachers who condemn gay people while secretly raping little boys and stealing money. The god we read about in the Bible tells us to obey the government no matter what, and pay our taxes so our armies can go steal the oil and wealth of other countries, and imprison innocent people. I don’t believe in a god who can create humans to live forever, but then decides to create of place of pain, suffering, and torture for billions of them to live in forever. And then in light of all this, he calls himself ‘good.’ If that is god, he sounds more like the devil.”

I think he was waiting for me to defend my belief in God. But I only looked at him, nodded my head in agreement, and said, “Yes, I don’t believe that god exists either.”

I certainly believe in God, but I don’t believe in the god my friend described. I don’t believe that kind of god exists. Also, I don’t believe that the god held forth by most of modern “Christianity” exists either. I certainly believe God exists; but not that god.

Which raises the question: Since I am certain that some of my beliefs about God are incorrect and inaccurate, does the God I believe in actually exist? How much of our view of God must be correct before we can say we are believing in the God who truly exists? (A similar question could be asked about Jesus. Lots of Christians accuse others of believing in the “wrong Jesus.” Some people believe in Jesus, but their views of Jesus are so warped from the real Jesus, that the Jesus they believe in doesn’t (or didn’t) actually exist. But none of us are 100% accurate in our beliefs about Jesus either, so does that mean we are believing in the wrong Jesus?)

What do you think about all this? Are these sorts of questions just a result of the effect of Platonic Dualism on our thinking (where all we know about God is some sort of dim reflection of reality) mixed with Hindu Brahmanism (where the most we can say about God is what he is not)? Also, what can you say or do to show a person who doesn’t believe in God that there is actually a God worth believing in? How can we show them that the God they don’t believe in is (most likely) not the God of the Bible?

Don't Create Community

17 Comments

It’s popular in Christian circles today to talk about creating community. It is argued that one of the greatest things lacking in most of our churches is a sense of community, that we all belong, and are headed somewhere together — and actually enjoying each other’s company as we do it!

Whole books are written about how to develop this community within your church. Church planters talk about founding communities of faith, hope, and love. Many churches will even put the word “community” in their name.

However, the more I read the Scriptures, the more I get this strange feeling that Jesus never really intended to create a community. Instead, my reading of the Gospels leads me to believe that Jesus never intended to found a new community and ask people to join it, but rather to find already-existing communities, and join with them. So he went to synagogues (the teaching centers), weddings, dinner parties, watering holes, and join in the community that had already naturally developed.

There were, of course, always problems in such communities, and Jesus frequently tried to heal the brokenness and pain that was present in the community. But this is a more natural way of developing community than by putting together a bunch of strangers and saying, “Now get along!”

So are you trying to “plant a church” or “reach out” to your community? How about rather than starting something of your own and asking them to join you, why don’t you find out what God is already doing in your community, and then see how you join them. Don’t try to found the community; just find the one that is already there.

Light in the Dark Night of the Soul

13 Comments

Have you ever experienced a “Dark Night of the Soul”? When God seems silent, the Bible seems devoid of meaning, every day seems to grow blacker, and other Christians seems like aliens from another planet? In such times, you will often experience doubts and fears about things that you never would have doubted or feared in times of blessing and being close to God.

In these times, you will often hear Christians say, “Don’t doubt in the dark what God revealed in the light.”  In other words, if God taught you something, or gave you a vision for your life in a time of blessing and being close to God, then don’t doubt these things in times of darkness, difficulty, and depression.

I’ve gone through several “Dark Nights” in my life. And while I used to believe this “Don’t doubt in the dark” slogan, I am beginning to question it’s wisdom. In the first place, who defines “dark”? Isn’t it the storms of life, and times of feeling distant from God that are able to make us cry out for Him even more, and learn to trust Him even more? Such times can, of course, drive us away from God, but (as the shirt says) “If the pain doesn’t kill you, it will only make  you stronger.” Maybe dark nights are when God is at work on us the most! Maybe dark nights of the soul are actually brilliant days of refining fire! I imagine that when we look back at our life, we will see that it was in the “dark nights” that God was most at work in our lives.

Which means that the doubts and fears we have in such times may actually be from God. Maybe, the best think you can do in a dark night is question some of the things you thought you knew from the “warm and fuzzy days of light.” Maybe it’s the truths we learn in the thunderous dark that God really wants to teach us, but we long for the emotions and feelings of a day at the beach.

Let me give you a personal example from my own life. In the light of the day, I was a pastor. I loved being a pastor. Every day, when I went to work, I couldn’t believe that I got paid to do what I was doing. And I think I was a fairly decent pastor. Not the best, but decent. They were giddy times for me. My family suffered, but I personally enjoyed it. Looking back, I think it was the time I felt the closest to God.

The last three years of my life have been a dark night. Storms and distress. Fear and failure. Depression. Anguish. Anger. During this time, I became quite disillusioned with the “religion” of Christianity. I saw it as empty and shallow. My view of God changed. My view of “ministry” changed. Several elements of my theology changed. During this time, people kept saying, “Don’t doubt in the dark what God revealed in the day. Stay the course. Things will get better.”

But I didn’t go back.

And now, I am somewhere in the dusk (or dawn?) between the night and day. And I’m trying to decide where the true light was. Was it when I was a pastor? Or was that just “ignorance is bliss” and now I know the real truth, revealed by God in the darkness and the stormy sea? Knowing what I know now, I wouldn’t go back to the way I was, or the way I thought, for anything. It was a painful route to get here, but I would do it all over again if it was the only way to learn what I have learned.

So maybe the darkness is light after all.

The Tangible Kingdom Primer

1 Comment

I’ve never been one for prepackaged group Bible studies. Generally, I disdain them. To put it crudely, (in the words of a famous line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail) I fart in their general direction. I can’t tell you how many hundreds of hours I have spent yawning and eye-rolling through such studies.

However, I was recently sent a group study which I not only like, but thoroughly recommend! Yes, this group study is worth the money you spend on it! It’s called The Tangible Kingdom Primer and is based on a book which I recommended last year called The Tangible Kingdom by Hugh Halter and Matt Smay. The book itself is one of the best books I have read on how to live a life of evangelism and mission for church planting. The more I work on planting churches, and the more I read about the gospel and the kingdom, the more convinced I am that this book is a “must read,” not only for church planters, but for all who follow Jesus.

And now, the eight-week guide makes the ideas of the book even more accessible. This is a fantastic tool to help Christians become “missional” and “incarnational” according to the gospel. I highly recommend that groups of believers around the country go through this study while reading The Tangible Kingdom. The study contains stunning images, thought-provoking questions, and most importantly, missional insights into key biblical texts.

If you really want to follow Jesus, this little guide will show you what it is, how to do it, why we should, and (most often forgotten) where. (Did you know that it is hard to follow Jesus if all you do is “attend church”?) If you want to “reach out,” but don’t really know how, this primer is the place to start.

Maybe Everything is a Miracle

2 Comments

When you watch a movie, do you watch it just for entertainment value? Let me suggest a different way: As you watch, be asking yourself, “What does this movie say about humans and our needs, about God, about religion, about the meaning of life?” Doing so really allows you to get more out of a movie than ever before.

In the churches I am part of, one of the things I try to do on occasion, is host a movie study. I pick a movie, and open it up with some discussion questions to watch for during the movie. Then we watch it. Afterwards, we discuss the movie, and some of the questions. Here is one such study I did recently on the movie “Henry Poole is Here.” If you haven’t seen the movie, I suggest you rent it, and watch it while asking yourself some of the questions below.

Henry Poole is HereIs your life a miracle or a mistake?

Quote: “Do you ever feel like things happen for no reason? Like you’re just along for the ride?”

Quote:“All that either of us have is right now.”

Discussion Questions:

What do you think of some people’s tendency to see apparition of Jesus (or Mary) in strange places – like a lava lamp, a Cheeto, a piece of toast, or a water stain on a wall? Are these miracles, or just mistakes?
  
What do you think of healing, especially when it happens to people who believe differently than you do? Are such healings from God, from Satan, or just mere coincidence? What do you think they believe about your claims of healing? What do you think atheists believe about all such claims?

What does the movie say about people’s greatest desire, as seen through Henry, Esperanza, Patience, Millie, and Dawn? How about the film director (Mark Pellington) himself? Four years ago, he lost his wife unexpectedly to a ruptured spleen, and was left to take care of his 2 ½ year-old daughter, Isabella. He says that many times he wanted to end it all, but Isabella and others gave him the hope to go on.

How does water play a role in the move? (Henry’s name. Trying to wash the wall. The balloon fight: “I surrender.” The river walk.) What does it symbolize? What role does water play in the life of the believer, and what does it symbolize?

Why does Henry want to check under the bridge for what he wrote as a child? Why does he post the picture of his family on his wall, and write “Henry Pool was here” underneath?

Can people see the face of Christ in you? Are you a source of hope to those in pain? When you encounter people who are filled with depression and despair, who, or what, do you point them to? Is this a reliable source of hope?

WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW

What is it that all people want? We could say, “Money” or “fame” or “health” but really, these are pointing to something else, something hidden, that people want: HOPE. Hope for the future. Hope for something better. This life is full of disappointment and despair, but hope keeps us going.

Henry Poole needs hope. Upon moving into his home, the first person to welcome him to the neighborhood is a woman named Esperanza, which in Spanish, means “hope.” And like hope, she is unrelenting. Patience patiently works with Henry. And Dawn is the light. Upon meeting Dawn, he begins to feel hope.
    
And yet, Henry Poole is a man without hope. His situation is so desperate, his life has been so full of fear and failure, that he cannot bring himself to hope. He cannot bring himself to touch the face of Jesus on his wall. Why not? For fear it “won’t work.” For fear of another failure.

In the end, Henry discovers he is not sick. Was he healed, or was it a misdiagnosis? As with the other healings, the movie leaves such questions unanswered. But whether the physical healing occurred or not, Henry is still healed, because he now has hope.

How can you be a voice of hope to those around you? How can you be the face of Christ?

How do you view your life? As one big mistake, or one big miracle? Henry Poole has problems seeing a miracle in the stain on his wall. What he realizes by the end is that whether it is just a stain or actually a miracle, it still caused a miracle in his life. Regardless of whether he was truly healed or simply misdiagnosed, he found the miracle of love and hope for the future, he found that his life could actually be lived with significance.

I thought this was a great movie, full of insight and humor. You can get it at Amazon.

Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision

11 Comments

Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (IVP: 2009) is N.T. Wright’s attempt to explain once again his view on Paul’s use of justification. He wrote it as a summary of his view, and as a response to critics (primarily John Piper) who seem to not understand what he is saying.

The book is written with ironic humor and remarkable restraint, but the most amazing feature is the Biblical paradigm shift that Wright presents to his readers regarding justification. Though most of what Wright explains in this book he has written elsewhere, this book puts it all together in nice, orderly fashion, so that even if one does not agree with Wright, we can hope that they will now be able to critique his view with understanding.

As for myself, I am not yet fully persuaded of Wright’s view. His basic view is that justification is God’s law-court declaration that a person is in right standing (so far, so good) with God’s covenant. It’s that covenant part that raises questions, particularly since Wright’s definition of justification does away with the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Wright does not believe that through justification we receive the righteousness of Christ (p. 135).

And yet, what Wright takes away with one hand, he gives back with another. Wright argues that issues related to deliverance from the penalty and power of sin in our lives come through resurrection, not through justification (pp. 231-235). This, however, though a major doctrine, is a minor point in Wright’s book.

His main concern is to show how his view of justification makes more sense of the Pauline passages that speak of it. And with this, he is more than a conqueror. If, for example, you’ve ever struggled with what Romans 9-11 has to do with the rest of the letter, Wright’s view makes these chapters not only fit within the flow of Paul’s argument, but actually become the pinnacle and the climax of Romans. Wright’s strength in this is due to his insistence on reading the biblical text, not with twenty-first century eyes and sixteenth-century questions, but with first-century eyes and first-century questions. This, it seems to me, is the best way to read and study Scripture, and Wright does an excellent job leading the way.

If you want to understand some of the nuances to the current debate on justification, I recommend this book. If, however, you want to understand the thought flow of some of Paul’s letters (like Galatians, Ephesians, and Romans), this book must not be ignored. Take it up, and read.

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!