In Horsley’s analogy he puts his finger on the significance Jesus’ actions would have had on first century Galileans.

“Hearing (on the radio or TV) even a brief sound bite of Martin Luther King’s voice saying, in his inimitable preaching style, “I have a dream,” evokes memories of the whole civil rights era for Americans who lived through the 1960s. For those who were deeply involved in the struggle for civil rights, hearing King’s voice may even evoke profound feelings, vivid memories of particularly tense confrontations, and a recommitment to the values represented by the freedom movement…

“The key to how the text resonates with the hearers by referencing the cultural tradition is that a part stands for the whole, metonymically, “I have a dream” evokes the whole African American struggle for civil rights. When the Gospel of Mark tells of Jesus making sea crossings and performing feedings in the wilderness when no food was available it evokes in those hearers the whole Israelite tradition of Moses leading the exodus and the arduous journey of Israel through the wilderness toward their land… the portrayal of Jesus making sea crossings and wilderness feedings, by referencing the hearers’ shared Israelite cultural tradition, evokes in the audience the confidence or trust/faith that Jesus was another prophet like Moses who was carrying out a new deliverance of Israel from foreign oppression…

“This suggests that the key for modern readers’ understanding of Gospel materials is to become as familiar as possible with Israelite tradition (as well as the context) out of which the historical audience (implied in the text) heard the text.”[1]

We should guard against any reading of the text that jumps right to the cross and treats Jesus’ ministry actions as merely subtext. Or that sticks to the words of Jesus but pays little attention to his actions. In doing so we risk distorting even the message of the cross which is tantamount to distorting the Gospel.

There is some latitude (in my view) in what it means to have a “Wesleyan” perspective. No one is likely to follow Wesley in everything he said. I’m quite willing to settle for a rather open & relaxed characterization of Wesleyan theology: it is a theology that takes its cues from the teaching and ministry of John Wesley.

And, in light of this, I ask the following.

Is there something distinctive about Wesleyan teaching that can give Christians guidance as we think about human sexuality? I think there is.

Because the Wesleyan approach to the Christian life speaks of the possibility of a the life of perfect love, I believe that a Wesleyan approach to the issue yields some important insights. Human nature is not inherently sinful just for being human. It is the power of love (devotion to God’s will and devotion to the best interests of others) that frees us from our sinfulness. This alone, and not legalisms or ascetic efforts, can set the heart free from its (otherwise) sinful intentions. It is a supernatural love: inspired in our hearts by God’s Holy Spirit through faith in Christ.

Specifically, let me begin with this excerpt from Wesley’s Sermon “On Perfection.” He poses the following question:

“‘But surely we cannot be saved from sin, while we dwell in a sinful body.”

And, answers it in these words:

“A sinful body? I pray observe, how deeply ambiguous; how equivocal, this expression is! But, there is no authority for it in Scripture: the word, sinful body, is never found there. And as it is totally unscriptural, so it is palpably absurd. For no body, or matter of any kind, can be sinful; spirits alone are capable of sin. Pray in what part of the body should sin lodge? It cannot lodge in the skin, nor in the muscles, or nerves, or veins, or arteries; it cannot be in the bones any more than in the hair or nails. Only the soul can be the seat of sin.”

— Sermons on Several Occasions, Vol. 2: “On Perfection.”

I feel this quote is especially significant, because it identifies human sinfulness as a spiritual, rather than a purely physical issue. This (I think) puts Wesleyans on a different path than much of the Augustinian tradition, which is more inclined to see the human sexual drive as itself a component of Original Sin. It also sets us on a different path than the NIV translators, who identify our human drives and tendencies (that is, what Paul calls our “flesh”) as being our “sinful nature.”

It becomes possible to give a positive account of human nature. It becomes possible to agree with God in pronouncing the human creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Yes, human drives need to be disciplined. There are times (many times, really!) when we are called upon to say “no” to some human capacity for enjoyment. But, the ability to enjoy the things of life is not evil. It is good.

Most of our temptations arise from human appetites and drives of various sorts. We have the capacity to enjoy certain things. As long as we have that capacity we will be tempted to gratify these capacities and appetites in ways that are destructive to ourselves and others — and to our walk with God. As long as you love the taste of chocolate you will be tempted to indulge your love for chocolate in ways that are destructive to yourself: to your body, your teeth, etc. But, what a horrible thing it would be to lose the ability to enjoy chocolate! It would make life less enjoyable.

Most temptations are simply proof that we’re still alive and well and healthy, with the capacity to enjoy the good things of life.

And, how does insight this help us to give a theological account of human sexuality?

What I’m suggesting is a view of human sexuality which sees it as a capacity for perceiving wonder and beauty in human beings. As such, it is a good and wonderful thing.

My ability to perceive this is limited — by my sexual attractions and tastes (which are often a mystery even to myself) — but what I perceive in this way is true.

People really are beautiful. And, what I see only very selectively must be what God sees always and more generally. This sexual capacity is, at bottom, a pro-creative urge — and it is good that there is a relationship between affection, admiration (both physical & personal) and sexual attraction. This relationship exists (I think) to benefit the human race over-all.

But, the capacity to see wonder & beauty in human beings (legitimately recognized) does not authorize any particular actions on my part. No one was ever put on this earth to meet my needs or desires, and my desires must be subservient to what I believe is the higher good — as it relates to all people and all life.

“Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness.” (Romans 6:12, 13 NRSV).

Detailed support for the above affirmation follows.

1. THE OLIVET DISCOURSE. (Mark 13, Matthew 24 & 25, Luke 21.) Jesus is giving instruction to his disciples here about the coming crisis in Jerusalem and about the end of time. Nowhere in this passage does he in any way hint of a “pre-trib rapture.” Quite the contrary! Rather than giving them assurance that they will be exempted from any tribulations that lie ahead, he is giving them warning about tribulations and seductions they will have to endure in the times to come. For example, notice this:

“Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now — and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect — if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.” (Mark 13:18-23 NIV).

The expectation here is that Christ’s followers will endure tribulation. Jesus tells them: “…[the one] who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mark 13:13 NIV). If exemption from the tribulations of the last days were the expectation (as it is among Christians in our day) this would have been a great place for Jesus to say so.

He says the opposite.

It appears from the Olivet Discourse that the time when Jesus will gather his followers to himself will also be the time of judgement upon the world.

“At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” (Matthew 24:30-31 NIV).

It appears from this passage that the time of judgement upon the world will be the same as the time of the gathering the elect. In fact the Judgement aspect of Jesus coming (“all the nations of the earth will mourn”) is mentioned first. If the so-called Rapture and the time of Judgement were two different things, again, this would be a great place to say so. Again, it says the opposite. There is nothing here that teaches, implies, or even hints at a silent, secret Rapture of the Saints.

2. THE THESSALONIAN LETTERS. (1 & 2 Thessalonians)

The passage generally cited for a “pre-trib rapture” is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:

“Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 NIV).

This might seem to accord with the Dispensational view, but upon closer examination it doesn’t. Notice the very next sentences:

“Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.” (1 Thessalonians 5:1-4 NIV).

So, Paul’s teaching here is similar in structure to Jesus’ teaching. The time of being caught up together with the Lord is the same as the time of Judgement upon the world. Jesus return is spoken of as being like a “Thief in the Night” not because it is silent or secret, but because it is unexpected.

The same phenomenon can be noticed in 2 Thessalonians. The time when Christ is going to come for his people is spoken of as being the same when Judgement comes upon the world:

“All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.” (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 NIV).

Then notice this a little way further:

“Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for [that day will not come] until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 NIV).

This passage says explicitly that “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “our being gathered to him” cannot occur until “the rebellion” (often identified with the “great tribulation” spoken of in the Synoptic Gospels) occurs first, and the “man of lawlessness” (often identified with the Antichrist spoken of in the letters of John) is revealed. This passage actually seems to disallow the possibility of a pre-trib Rapture (though I will acknowledge the great and imaginative efforts of Dispensational interpreters down through the years to make this somehow conform).

3. THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Nothing in the Book of Revelation itself necessitates the Pre-trib view. It is nowhere taught, though it has been read into some passages.

“After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” (Revelation 4:1 NIV).

This is simply a transition in John’s visions. it is an experience that happened to John. I suppose it could be a pre-trib Rapture, but there is no reason to think that it is. The doctrine is being read into the passage.

There are numerous places in the Book of Revelation where the people of God are spoken of as enduring the tribulations of the Last Days. The oft-repeated maxim of the NT is “[the one} who stands firm to the end will be saved."

“After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no-one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” All the angels were standing round the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshipped God, saying: ‘Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!’ Then one of the elders asked me, ‘These in white robes — who are they, and where did they come from?’ I answered, ‘Sir, you know.’ And he said, ‘These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’” (Revelation 7:9-14, NIV.)

Notice that the great multitude "from every nation, tribe, people and language" came out of "the great tribulation" — that is to say, they endured it (okay, or at least, part of it).

“He [the beast from the sea] was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.” (Revelation 13:7 NIV)

“If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.” (Revelation 13:10 NIV.)

“This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12 NIV.)

“I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.” (Revelation 17:6 NIV.)

To summarize:

1. the Bible does not generally separate the “gathering together” and “judgement” aspects of Jesus’ Return
2. the NT does not clearly promise that the “saints” or the “elect” will have any exemption from the tribulations of the last days,
3. many passages in the NT are given to prepare the followers of Christ for times of tribulation,
4. the pre-trib Rapture doctrine is an implication of the Dispensational theory of biblical interpretation (the current crop of believers must leave the earth at the next major Dispensational shift, so that God can return to working with Israel again) and has no basis in the Bible without it.

While, with great effort the relevant passages can be made to conform to the Dispensational view, they need not be read that way. In certain cases, the Dispensational view seems to run directly counter to the more natural sense of the passages in question.

Or, to put it more succinctly: The Pre-Tribulational Rapture is not a biblical doctrine.

But, the burning question for our day is: how do we recover the NT concept of Hope? How can we teach a credible doctrine of Hope for our generation?

• Chapter 1. Trinity: God Is…
• Chapter 2. Revelation: God Speaks…
• Chapter 3. Creation: God Creates…
• Chapter 4. Image: God Loves…
• Chapter 5. Fall: God Judges…
• Chapter 6. Covenant: God Pursues…
• Chapter 7. Incarnation: God Comes…
• Chapter 8. Cross: God Dies…
• Chapter 9. Resurrection: God Saves…
• Chapter 10. Church: God Sends…
• Chapter 11. Worship: God Transforms…
• Chapter 12. Stewardship: God Gives…
• Chapter 13. Kingdom: God Reigns…

Taken from the contents page of Doctrine by Driscoll and Breshears.

The Discussion Begins… NOW!

• Do you believe “Myth” negates “Reality/Fact/History”?

• How does Wright’s Beethoven Symphony illustration play into an interpretive approach to Genesis 1-3?

• Does Wright’s approach to Genesis result in a distinguished understanding of eschatology, or can his eschatology be held even if his Genesis approach were rejected? (See Surprised by Hope)

• Wright says that “we need to lighten up about these words, and maybe find some other words”. What words would you suggest to replace ones like “myth” or “history” when discussion Genesis 1-3?

• How do you read Genesis for all it’s worth?

Theology energizes and enables the church to witness in the public square, helping it to frame its compelling intellectual, moral and spiritual vision of reality. – p.14

My commentary: Theology energizes and enables believers to action! We cannot soft peddle theology – least of all a theology of the cross – in a culture which is hostle or hell bent against God – the Christian God. And every culture is.

Still, I am amazed that some bloggers holdout underdog hopes with a great deal of misguided confidence that John Piper is more then up to the task, that he would somehow be able to sweep Wright aside, that it would somehow amount to little more than a walk in the park of Piper. I have no clever response to that, I simply stand in awe that someone could reasonably think such a thing.

But I saw Wright at the Wheaton Conferences. His respectability, his humility, his willingness to engage other perspectives, to think through reasonable critiques of his work by his opponents, and sometimes to consider their suggestions for further dialogue. I think the question of “who would win” or “who would lose” in a debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright is, from Wright’s perspective and probably from the perspective of Wrightians, irrelevant.

John Piper has written against Tom Wright (The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright), and Tom has written a response (Justification: God’s Plan Paul’s Vision). I think it would have been beneficial, even crucial, for these two men to have met and to get to know each other’s personalities. Who knows, maybe an unlikely friendship is lurking right around the corner.

Alas we may never know. For reasons which are unclear to me, the ETS announced:

We had previously announced that Pastor John Piper would be one of our plenary speakers at the November meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta addressing the theme of “Justification By Faith.” Unfortunately, Pastor Piper has had to withdraw from his involvement in this meeting in conjunction with an eight-month leave of absence that he will be taking from his ministry assignments. (Here)

The last time I am aware that Piper took a leave of absence from his ministry responsibilities, it was to write a book against N.T. Wright (Future of Justification, p.10). Is it possible that he has chosen to forgo an opportunity to meet the good Bishop so that he might rather write another book against him? Nah, pure conjecture. I wish to attempt to give Piper the benefit of the doubt (however difficult that may be) and believe that he has not backed out of this engagement for fear of the humble Bishop or intimidation of the Bishops godly presence and vast knowledge.

In any case, Piper has been substituted by Thomas R. Schreiner, an expert in Pauline scholarship and (by all accounts) a better match with Tom Wright. Tom and Tom will share a discussion panel and engage each other on the subject of Justification by Faith. It is my hope that this discussion panel and lectures of Tom W and Tom S will be made available via on-line in the same way that the Wheaton Conference lectures were. The ETS meeting will be held in Atlanta GA on November 17-19, 2010. Praying for a good and fruitful engagement!

The Old Testament Problem

I confess my sweeping tendencies. I tend to read many books by evangelical scholars who in passing talk of “second Isaiah”, they take for granted that “Deuteronomy was written after the Exile”, that the “Hebrew alphabet did not existed at the time of Moses”, “the book of Chronicles and Samuel/Kings contradict each other”[1] , “Daniel was written in the second century BC” and so on. I tend to sweep these comments aside in my head only to get the authors point. Take the good, get rid of the bad.

How could the New Testament authors simply quote “the prophet Isaiah” if the text they are quoting, Isaiah did not really write [Matt 3:3]? How could Jesus quote “the prophet Daniel”, if Daniel was written by someone else [Matt 24:15]? How can the New Testament writers speak of “the book of Moses”, if Moses did not author any books [Mark 12:26]? How can the Old Testament be inspired if Chronicles and Samuel/Kings contradict each other [cf. 2 Samuel 7:16 with 1 Chronicles 17:14]?

In Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns challenges us to take these facts simply as they are. He says that traditionally evangelicals have tried to explain away these discrepancies, ignore them, or lie in wait for a future time when new evidence will render the old evidence inoperative. These are the facts, he says, and if evangelical scholarship hopes to ever be taken seriously among the broader academic world, they must approach the Bible acknowledging these facts.

But the question is raised, in what sense can we speak of the Bible being “inspired”? Enns puts forth a new paradigm:

The term I prefer is “incarnational analogy”: Christ’s incarnation is analogous to Scripture’s “incarnation.” – p.18

Just as Jesus is the “God-man” – 100% God and 100% man – so too is the written word. With this in mind, the aim of Enns book is this:

How does scriptures full humanity and full divinity affect what we should expect from the scriptures? – ibid

Working Solution to the Old Testament Problem

First we must acknowledge that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This is a non-negotiable. Following this premise, we must acknowledge that what the Bible looks like – its reliance on ANE texts, its contradictions, its lack of concern for science and so on – is exactly what it is supposed to look like (since it is inspired). “It is God’s word because it is – and this is how God did it.” [p.66.] Finally it is worthy asking, did the events and conversations recorded in the Old Testament actually (historically) happen? Enns answer is simply “I don’t know, and neither does anyone else.” [p.66]

The New Testament Problem

The first problem presented in the New Testament is the same as that presented in the Old Testament. How do evangelicals handle the fact that the New Testament writers sometimes “assumed” Second Temple non-Biblical literature into the Biblical text? Are those portions to be considered “inspired” because they are in the Bible? Does that mean their original source is also inspired?[2]

The New Testament also presents a different sort of problem, namely, how in quoting the Old, the New Testament writers seem to completely disregard standard grammatical-historical hermeneutics. We are taught that the only appropriate way to interpret the Bible (or anything else) is by paying close attention to the grammar and context of the passage in question. If this is not done then anyone can create fanciful interpretations out of anything! But that seems to be exactly what the New Testament authors (including Jesus) did. They completely disregarded the grammar and context of the Old Testament when they quoted it.[3] In short, they misquoted and misapplied the Old Testament in order to make their point.

The question becomes, if they can do this with the scriptures, can we also? Why or else why not? Another more pressing question is why it is they felt they could use the Old Testament the way they did.

Working Solution to the New Testament problem

The answer is found in the reality of the risen Christ. According to Enns, the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, that he was crucified (as was not expected) and then rose from the dead (showing that God vindicated him and proved his messiahship), forced the apostles to go back and read the Old Testament in light of this fact. For example, the fact that Jesus was the Messiah forced Matthew to go back and re-read Isaiah 40-55 – Jesus as the representative of Israel – which in turn led him to apply Hosea 11:1 (which originally applied to Israel of the exodus)  on to Christ as the true Israelite.

The question becomes, do we have the same liberty with the Old Testament? Can we read it in light of the risen Christ, even in places where the New Testament authors don’t? Enns argues that if we are truly to follow the apostles examples and teachings, then shouldn’t we also follow their hermeneutics[4] as well?

Final Reflections

Perhaps I am have difficulty escaping the fact that I am a child of my time, but I still feel that it is important for the Old Testament stories to be true in a modern historical sense. I also question how good Enns “Incarnation analogy” actually works. He compares it to Christ being fully man and fully God, but Enns analogy begins to crumble at the place of perfection: as Christ is the God-man, he was still without sin, error or mistake. But Enns suggests that the “man” part of the Old Testament may be riddled with mistakes, errors, contradictions and so on. So the analogy is not the same.

Turning to his explanation of the New Testaments hermeneutical approach to the Old, I appreciate the term “Christotelic” (See foot note 4), interpreting the Old Testament in light of the risen Christ. I also think that we today should do the same since we are living in light of this same reality. For example, I have no problem interpreting Zechariah 12-14 in light of Christ – the true Israelite – and in light of the Church made up of Jews and Gentiles who is also true Israel since they are “in Christ”. I don’t think this passage has much to do with national Israel in the end times. I also have no problem interpreting Jeremiah 23:7-8 as a reference to the Cross, deliverance from the “exile” of sin, death and separation from God – something which the historical exile pointed to.

On the whole, I found Inspiration and Incarnation to be challenging and enlightening. For those interested, G.K. Beale wrote a book responding to Enns titled Erosion of Inerrancy.

[2] For example, Jude 14-15 cites the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch 1.9. If Jude is inspired, is Enoch inspired also?

[3] An obvious example is Hosea 6:1 quoted in Matthew 2:15. In context Hosea is talking about the nation of Israel back at the time of the exodus. He was not talking about Jesus of Nazareth and would be surprised to find his words twisted out of context. A more pressing example is in Luke 24:44 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. Jesus and Paul speak of the death and resurrection having been spoken about in the Old Testament, but one is left wondering what proof-text they can turn to support this?

[4] He refers to their hermeneutics as “Christotelic” combining the words “Christ” with the Greek word “telos” meaning “end”. Their approach was to read the Old Testament in light of the eschatological reality of Christ.

But people are afraid of what they don’t understand and they become (sometimes) vicious when they feel like their concept of God is under attack. I have experienced this first hand.

As a result Open Theology has been bemoaned as “heresy”, I have been called nothing less than a devil worshiper for considering the strengths of this system and God is often said to be “imperfect” if Open Theology is correct.

I’d like to underscore what I said a moment ago: People are afraid of what they don’t understand. I think Open Theism is misunderstood. I have read responses to Open Theism by John Piper, John Frame, Bruce Ware, Paul Helm and many others, and none of them seem to be able to accurately explain what Open Theology teaches, and if they don’t understand it, how can they accurately respond to it? This ignorance is only perpetuated when fans of these popular authors read their books.

I want to extend this warm invitation toward you to give Open Theology a fair hearing. Greg Boyd is one of the most vocal advocates of Open Theology and in the videos below he is a guest speaker in Clark Pinnock’s class (Pinnock is a Calvinists turned Open Theist).

Your comments below will intrigue me…