BOOK REVIEW - "CHRIST, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS: PAUL'S THEOLOGY OF JUSTIFICATION" BY MARK A. SEIFRID

 

This is a great book looking at Paul's teaching on Christ, and of Him being our righteousness. It starts off giving an overview of Paul's life in Acts before moving to justification by faith, first through Romans, then looking at Paul's other letters, and finally analyzing how the other NT authors dealt with the subject.

One thought really moved me: That God not only justifies the ungodly, but that He ONLY justifies the ungodly. None of us can justify ourselves.

Another reviewer was disappointed that Seifrid didn't deal much with the New Perspectives of Paul (NPP). I also picked up that he focused more on the letters that all considered were by Paul and less space on those some don't believe were written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles, and Philemon). Unlike the above mentioned reviewer, I had no problem with those issues not being dealt with: The focus was what Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote in his letters about Christ being our righteousness.

I thoroughly enjoy the New Studies in Biblical Theology series that this book is a part of. It also is uplifting to read about justification. I recommend both this book and the series.

MATTHIAS - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 4 OF 6)

St. Mathias by Peter Paul Rubens from his Twelve Apostles series at the Museo del Prado, Madrid, c. 1611

Sometimes, a person gets criticized because of someone else's actions. Matthias is in this point. The sole criticism of Matthias was not anything he did or said, but just that he wasn't God's choice as Judas' replacement. Nor was the other man on the ballot. Obviously, Paul was God's choice. At least, that's what they say, criticizing Peter for rushing ahead before the Holy Spirit came down.

Sigh. What is the real root of that theory? Simple. Paul is a prominent figure in Acts and the New Testament, and Matthias isn't. They add that there are references to the twelve apostles like "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28) and "Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Revelation 21:14). So doesn't mean there are only twelve apostles?

Let me deal with these issues.

• Matthias is not an apostle because he's not mentioned as much as Paul? Let's see - give me all the references in Acts to Thomas and Andrew and Simon the Zealot. Matthias fits in the mix with them. Never mind that the view that prominence shows God's blessing is of the flesh; God saves by few as by many.
• What is the significance of twelve? Well, duh, it relates to the 12 Tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28 talks about the Apostles judging the 12 tribes. Revelation 21:14 follows 21:12, which talks about the 12 tribes. Could the 12 Apostles be a signal of a rebirth of Israel, starting the day of Pentecost? Then why wasn't Paul there?
• Let's look at instances when Post-Judas the disciples are referred to as "The Twelve." First, Luke mentions them in Acts 6:2. Second, there is the reference of Jesus appearing to the twelve after the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:5. We know who 11 of the 12 are, and we know Judas wasn't there. Who was the 12th in both cases? Paul? No, not converted yet. Could the 12th be Matthias? Of course, it could. By the way, Paul considered Matthias to be one of the twelve; he did not consider himself one of the twelve.
• Again, the ministry of the 12 was to the 12 tribes. Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles. There is no indication that he ever was a part of the 11 in his ministry. 
• Of course, we're not saying that Paul's not an apostle. But is it possible that the references of the 12 apostles were connected to Israel, meaning apostles to the Gentiles could be apostles but not of the 12, like Paul?
• Also, who said Peter was jumping the gun? Jesus spent 40 days with the Apostles. There was no record that He spoke about replacing Judas... and no record that He didn't. He told them to wait in Jerusalem, but He didn't tell them what to do or not to do while in Jerusalem waiting. One friend made fun of casting lots - hey, God commanded lots be used in calling out Achan's sin and His choice of King Saul, as well as using that means in other instances. The qualifications? For a person to be a witness of Christ's life and resurrection? Not commanded. Not. Condemned.

Yes, this is an issue for me. After all, the text nowhere suggests Peter was jumping the gun or that they were to wait for Paul to be saved. Again, it's looking down on Matthias because of a lack of prominence. But all the references that say he wasn't God's choice are located either preceding Genesis or following Revelation.

 

ARCHIPPUS - BIBLICAL PEOPLE I'M CURIOUS ABOUT (PART 6 OF 6), PLUS A PREVIEW OF MY NEXT 6 WEEK SERIES.

Lighthouse Baptist Church, Indianapolis

 I was in a men's Bible study that went through Romans, and I volunteered to take the final chapter. Yep, the one with all the names of people Paul was greeting as well as some who were with Paul and sending greetings to the Romans. What I did was went through Strong's to look at the meanings of each of the name. I smiled as I dealt with Urbanus and Stachys (Rom. 16:9); the former, not surprisingly meant "of the city," while the other meant "head of grain." In other words, you could paraphrase that verse, "Greet City Boy, our fellow servant in Christ, and Country Boy, my beloved."

My favorite in these lists of unknowns is Archippus. He is mentioned in Colossians 4:17 and Philemon 2. We don't know anything else about him; some have speculated he was the pastor of the church at Philemon's house, and others that he was Philemon's son. Some consider he was martyred with Philemon, Apphia, and Onesimus, though there's no proof - one author mentioned there was a pastor named Onesimus that Ignatius of Antioch had contact with.

I'll take that back. We do know one thing about Archippus. That is that God called him to the ministry. Paul writes in Colossians 4:17: "And say to Archippus, 'Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it.'" I can picture the Colossian Church, after hearing these words, turned to the blushing young (I assume) man, and repeat Paul's words in unison with a smile on their face. By the way, Paul calls Archippus his fellow soldier. Yep, that sounds like someone in the ministry.

But hasn't every Christian received a ministry from the Lord that they are to be encouraged to fulfill it? And does that include you? Do you see any indicators this is relevant only to the first century? I don't.

Unfortunately, not all do. A person mentioned in the same chapters Archippus is, giving greetings to Philemon and the Colossian church, is an individual named Demas. That's a recognizable name - in 2 Timothy, Paul tells Timothy Demas forsook him, having loved the present world (2 Tim. 4:10). We have a choice to fulfill our ministry as Archippus is admonished to do or to depart loving the world like Demas.

Can I take a little rabbit trail and deal with a pet peeve? (The pet here is the rabbit who left the trail.) I heard at least one sermon on Demas, following his spiritual life from being a fellow laborer (Philemon 24) to just being "Demas" (Colossians 4:14) to "having loved the present world." Good point that there's a pattern, but the text does not support it. You notice in Colossians 4:7-9 that the Colossian letter was brought by Tychius and Onesimus? Most consider Colossians and Philemon to be written and sent at the same time, so the lack of a description in Colossians doesn't mean anything really. Yes, it's a pet peeve when Christians seem to need to add something negative at something that is just narration. And you'll hear more about that pet peeve in my next 6 part series, starting next week.

But were you blessed by this series? Did any of these obscure people encourage or motivate or challenge you?

SUNDAY PSALMS PART 14 OF 48 (EASTER EDITION): PSALM 47

1   Oh, clap your hands, all you peoples!
    Shout to God with the voice of triumph!
2  For the LORD Most High is awesome;
    He is a great King over all the earth.
3  He will subdue the peoples under us,
    And the nations under our feet.
4  He will choose our inheritance for us,
    The excellence of Jacob whom He loves.
                                        Selah

5  God has gone up with a shout,
    The LORD with the sound of a trumpet.
6  Sing praises to God, sing praises!
    Sing praises to our King, sing praises!
7  For God is the King of all the earth;
    Sing praises with understanding.
8  God reigns over the nations;
    God sits on His holy throne.
9  The princes of the people have gathered together,
    The people of the God of Abraham.
    For the shields of the earth belong to God;
    He is greatly exalted.

                    Psalm 47:1-9, New King James Version

 

Normally, the Psalm that one would associate with Jesus' resurrection would be Psalm 16:10. Both Peter and Paul quoted from it in dealing with Christ being raised (Acts 2:25-38 and 13:35). However, in doing this series, I chose 48 Psalms I wanted to deal with and then choosing which one of those I wanted to do on Easter.

I chose Psalm 47, because I see a comparison of the LORD Yahweh being the King of the earth, and the resurrected Christ being the ruler of all, having conquered death.

One item I found interesting, besides the urging to sing in verses 6 and 7 is the reference to "the people of the God of Abraham" in verse 9. It isn't "The God of Israel" or "The God of Jacob." When you compare this with the New Testament, I see a hint that God's people is not restricted to Israel but is broader than that.

Hallelujah! He is risen! And the answer to "He is Risen!" is... 

CANONICAL FALSE GOSPELS?

Semper Reformanda - Always Reforming. Courtesy of James Lawson.

AUTHOR'S NOTE - I wrote this a few years ago as a Facebook note. I've decided to make this my Reformation Day post for the year. So, Happy Reformation Day!

 Just when you think you've heard everything.

In an internet group, someone was claiming the Letter of James was a false gospel and that the half-brother of Jesus was the organizer of the Judaizers Paul condemned when writing to the Galatians. The person making that claim was asked if he was implying that James' letter shouldn't be included in Scripture.

No, he insisted James belonged in the Canon of Scripture so we'd know what his false teaching looked like.

If he stopped at James being a Judaizer and his Epistle being a false gospel, I would think he's wrong and outside the mainstream, but he's not the first to have problems with James and the apparent conflict with Paul's grace theology. The church leaders deciding on the canon dealt with the same question. Martin Luther called that book "An epistle of straw" (though he later changed his mind). Les Feldick believes Christian theology should be based on Paul, and that James and the other general epistles were written for Jews, not the Church. Calling James a false gospel is a step further, but I would consider that an error.

The idea that a false gospel could be canonical, however, is what I consider a very dangerous idea that must be defeated. Allow me to give three reasons why.

1. It leads to confusion.

If God wanted James in there as a false gospel so we'd see the error, have we missed others? The Jesus Seminar suggested we should add the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas - maybe that should be to show the error of Gnosticism. Many consider Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Prosperity Gospel to be false teaching - should they be included as well so we can see what the error looks like?

Let's go a step further. Protestants and Jews do not accept the deutero-canonical books (aka the Catholic apocrypha) because they don't feel they pass the test of being canonical. If we allow false gospels in, what right do we have to exclude these writings?

Now, there are false statements in Scripture. For example, the false prophecy of Hananiah in Jeremiah's day, or the errant theology of Job's friends. But in both cases, these errors are in context with the error being refuted. Let me add another refuted false teaching - that of the Judaizers, which Paul deals with in his letter to the Galatians. (Which calls to question the need for a book of Judazing teaching, as James is proposed of being, since the heresy is dealt with already in Scripture.)

This leads to why this view is dangerous. If a book that is strictly false teaching is included in Scripture without refutation, someone might assume its inclusion is an endorsement, and that false gospel is treated as God's truth. And if the person calling James a false gospel is correct, this has happened, because a near-unaminous majority of believers are convinced James is just as much the true word of God as the rest of the Biblical authors.

Furthermore, who decides which books are God's Word and which are false Gospels? My friend seems to consider himself that sort of authority, since most people don't agree with him. But someone else might differ. I had one friend who didn't think Esther needed to be in Scripture, and another who thought there were missing books that needed to be added to the Bible's 66 but when his Bible came out, he left out Song of Solomon.

2. It undermines the authority of Scripture.

A common myth is that the Catholic Church picked the books that fit its political view and omitted other equally worthy books. Not so. The process of Canonization determined on a basis of certain qualifications which books were included and which weren't. There were books that missed one of the qualificatons that were discussed before being included. For example, the question about who wrote Hebrews. Or Esther not mentioning the name of God. Or Jude including quotes from apocryphal books.

By the way, where did the word "canon" come from? One view is that it is taken from the Hebrew word qaneh, which means a cane or measuring stick. Thus, Scripture is a guide if something is consistent with God's Wrod or if it isn't. This was one of the tests - does a book contradict with other Scripture? Case in point is whether James' "Faith Without Works Is Dead" is countering Paul's emphasis on justification by faith. With careful study, though, there is no contradiction between James and Paul.

Furthermore, Scripture talks about itself as being true and having come directly from God, such as Psalm 12:6, Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 8:20, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 1:21. Including a false gospel as Canon would invalidate these verses, and if we take the next step, we'll see the biggest danger of canonical false gospels.

3. It attacks the character of God.

I will state that I sincerely doubt the person claiming James is a canonical false gospel would imagine he's doing this, but this argument unknowingly does so. Let me explain why I feel so strongly.

As stated before, the Bible is God's Word, spoken by God. Scripture also says God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). A false gospel is a lie. If a false gospel is canonical, then God is inspiring the author to write a lie. Thus, there are only three conclusions:

1) James is a false gospel and also canonical, which means God isnpired a lie and the Bible, which states He cannot lie, is worthless and not to be trusted;

2) James is a false gospel, and since God cannot lie, it cannot be canonical, or

3) James is canonical, and since God cannot lie, it cannot be a false gospel.

What is the reason for this theory of canonical false gospels? I consider it similar to those who say the Bible is corrupted, who claim the Bible is not sufficient, or that passages that have a clear literal meaning don't really mean what they say. The reason is that the person has a belief that is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.

Let's look at those who think the Bible is corrupted. None ever produce proof of an uncorrupted Bible (at least until they show up to revive the uncorrupted Scripture, they claim). New Agers claim it's corrupted because the original Bible (they claim) agrees with them on reincarnation. Muslims say the uncorrupted Scripture contains prophecies of Mohammed. The House of Yahweh claims Catholics corrupted Scripture by adding in verses about the Trinity and Sunday Worship. In other words, it's always subjective. Of course, those making the claim cannot be wrong, and they don't have the guts to say the Bible's wrong, so they all blame those evil Catholics - even though they don't agree with each other's reasons for the Bible being corrupted.

The bottom line is we need to trust the Bible to be right 100% of the time, to trust the Word of God and not of men. There is no false gospel in the Canon.

BOOK REVIEW - THANKSGIVING: AN INVESTIGATION OF A PAULINE THEME BY DAVID W. PAO

 

Have you noticed how often the Apostle Paul refers to thanksgiving in his epistles? How does this frequent theme reflect on his theology? How is Paul's thought influenced by the Old Testament, Jewish tradition, and Greco-Roman culture?

This is the 4th book I've read in the New Studies in Biblical Theology, and thus far it's my favorite. There are 57 books in this series, written by different authors.

The other three I've read usually take a chronological look at Scripture developing the book's theme, and in the final chapter the author offers practical applications. This book takes a different approach. It breaks the theme into the past, the present, and the future, and in each section looks at the foundation in the Old Testament before examining the subject in Paul's writing.

The author assumes that the Scripture gives the application. Instead of closing the book with how to carry the ideas out, he has a chapter on the positive, upbuilding topic of ingratitude, and has an appendix comparing Paul's theology to the Greco-Roman patronage model.

I did find this book uplifting, and my hunch is that this will be the first book of the series I'll reread.

MATTHIAS - MAN'S CHOICE TO REPLACE JUDAS? OR GOD'S?

 

St. Matthias, by Peter Paul Ruben

 

This Pentecost Sunday, I thought I'd look at one of the Apostles who took part of the first Pentecost. Or was he really an apostle and not counted among the Twelve solely due to the rashness of Peter, occupying a spot that God had designated for Paul?

Let's look at what Scripture says about the choice of Matthias and the circumstances. Namely, we need to turn to Acts 1. Here's a brief outline of that chapter:

1. Luke addresses this book to Theophilus. (1:1)
   
2. Jesus, after the resurrection, instructed His apostles, telling them to remain in Jerusalem until they receive the Spirit, and commissioning them as witnesses. (1:2-8)
3. Jesus ascended, and the angels tell the apostles He will return in the same manner (1:9-11)
4. They returned to Jerusalem, and were in prayer and supplication with the women, Mary, Jesus' brothers, and the rest of the disciples (total about 120). (1:12-16)
5. Peter addressed the need for someone to fill Judas Isacariot's place, gave qualifications, nominated Justus and Matthias, prayed, cast lots, and selected Matthias. (1:17-26)

When I read this, I just see a historical account. It tells what happened. There was no voice from heaven confirming they did the right thing, nor was there a rebuke either from God or in the writing of Luke.

Does that keep Christians from reading between the lines? I wish. I've heard several, including some of my favorite teachers, saying that the disciples should have held off and let Jesus/God clearly reveal His choice. These propose that Paul was God's choice to fill that role. Here are some of the reasons for that thought:

• Paul had a prominent place in Acts and in Church History. Matthias didn't.
• Eschatologically, there are two references to twelve followers: Jesus' promise to His followers to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28) and the names of the twelve apostles written on the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:14). Thus there should only be twelve apostles: Both Matthias and Paul could not be apostles, and others like Barnabas and James the Lord's brother could not either.
• Peter was the one introducing the concept - no record of that idea being mentioned earlier. And we know Peter could be rash and put his foot in his mouth. So who's to say Peter wasn't exercising authority that didn't belong to him?
• Finally, they cast lots to choose Matthias, or in modern terms, throwing dice. Is that how God speaks?
  

Are any of these points irrefutable? I don't think so. Allow me to share my thoughts on why we should just leave Scripture alone and allow Matthias his place among the twelve.

• Just because Matthias was not as prominent as Paul did not mean he wasn't God's choice. True, Matthias was only mentioned by name twice in Acts (both in Acts 1). But how does he compare? Not counting Paul and assuming the Phillip in Acts 8 and 21 isn't the Apostle Phillip, then Matthias would be tied for third place among the twelve for most mentions. Peter, of course, was first, and John was second (though he got those mentions by being with Peter at the time). Matthias was tied with James the son of Zebedee with two mentions, and the second mention of James was to inform us he was killed. The lack of prominence is not proof he didn't belong.
• There are two other references to "the twelve." One is in Acts 6:2. The other is Paul mentioning who the risen Jesus appeared to in 1 Corinthians 15:5. Was Paul among the twelve in either reference? Furthermore, was Matthias? Considering he was a disciple from Jesus' baptism to the resurrection, he could be.
• Yes, Peter opened his mouth a lot. Sometimes it was rash. Sometimes, it was in faith, like when Jesus walked on water. Peter was the one who said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16). When Jesus asked the twelve if they were leaving Him as other disciples were, Peter was the one who said, "To who shall we go? You have the words of eternal life? Also we have come to believe that You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Peter took the role of spokesperson, good as well as bad.
• We may joke about casting lots, but God used it four times. He Himself ordered lots to be used to identify Achan when he sinned (Joshua 7). He also told Samuel to use lots to determine the first king - Samuel knew who it was, but the people didn't (1 Samuel 10). The third and fourth times were more suspect (Saul calling for lots to reveal who violated his rash curse in 1 Samuel 14, and Jonah's boat buddies determining who was responsible for the storm in Jonah 1), but God showed the truth by the method regardless. 
• Back to Peter. It doesn't tell us where the idea came from. Was it his own? Did Jesus mention finding a replacement for Judas to Peter either individually or with the others? Or could it be mentioned among the group and Peter addressed it? We don't know.
• Related to the above: Remember Jesus sending the 12 out in pairs? Matthew and Luke, in listing the Apostles, it gave them in 6 groups of two. Four of the six pairs were identical in the two lists; the only question is which one was paired with James the son of Alpheus and which was with Judas Iscariot. Now, just prior to the ascension, Jesus told them they'd be witnesses. They may have assumed it was the same teams. Thus, Simon the Zealot or Thaddeus went to Peter, addressing he didn't have a teammate.
  
• The objectors ignored that Acts 1:15 stated that they were praying during that time. 
  
• Les Feldick stated that the ministry of the Twelve was as a witness primarily to Israel. Paul had a unique call, primarily to the Gentiles. There is no reference of Paul ever serving as part of the twelve. 
• Related to the above, J. Gary Millar in Calling on the Name of the Lord: A Biblical Theology of Prayer stated that the believers were the new Israel, and the twelve apostles mirrored the twelve sons of Jacob, so a twelfth apostle was needed prior to Pentecost. 

No, this is not a salvation issue. True Christians can disagree. Scripturally, as I mentioned, we just have a summary of what happened without telling all the whys and giving no positive or negative commentary either in Acts 1 or elsewhere in Scripture.

So with that, have a happy Pentecost!