June 2005 Archives
If it has been a while since you have read any articles by Tim Keller or Jerry Bridges, it may be time for you to give them another careful read. God has graciously grown these two men in their understand of the gospel and its implications. So we would do well to read what they have written fairly often. My personal goal is to read each of their articles at least three times a year. Why? I am so quick to functionally forget the objective truth of the gospel and its penetrating implications.
Over the next 2 weeks I will be posting the links to particular articles they have written. Please receive these posts as encouragements to give your mind to the gospel afresh. Today's post:
Tim Keller: The Centrality of the Gospel (pdf)
A birthday is a wonderful thing especially when the added year is accompanied by growth in the gospel (or should I say "growth that is caused by the gospel"). Well, June 30th is one such birthday. Not only does my youngest brother turn 32 tomorrow (a definite cause for celebration!), but he also gives me cause to rejoice because I have observed growth in his life this past year that is the fruit of the gospel's work in his life (a much greater cause for celebration!!). So happy birthday, David!
Your present is on the way!
I’ve been tagged for this book meme by Mick Porter of Unveiled Face! So here it goes:
Total number of books I've ever owned: I would guess a few thousand. I’m really not sure though. I’ve been heard saying that I would rather buy a book and read it then purchase food or clothing. I don’t read as much as I would like too though (time and brain constraints).
Last book I bought: The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story by Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen. It has been a good read thus far.
Last book I read: River Town: Two Years on the Yangtze by Peter Hessler. It is a book about the author's experience in the city where we are going to serve in an orphanage, namely, Fuling, China.
Five books that mean a lot to me:
1. The Bible: There are many books that I would like to master. There is something ennobling about thinking the thoughts of great men. But the Bible is the one book that I want to master me.
2. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture by Graeme Goldsworthy: This book was recommended to me when I was seeking to understand how to interpret/preach the Bible from a gospel-centered perspective. This is a must multiple-read for all Christians (not just for all pastors).
3. The Pleasures of God by John Piper. I consider this book to be Piper’s best. It has been a few years since I’ve read it. So I think it’s about time to pick it up again to drink deep.
4. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons by Thomas F. Torrance. As far as I’m concerned, this book is without peer in its presentation of the beauty of our God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
5. The Mediation of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance. If I had to pick the one book that I think is helping me understand and apply the gospel more than any other book I’ve ever read, it would be this one.
Occasionally I will alert you to what I think are some very helpful (i.e. edifying) gospel-centered posts by other bloggers. Today I would like to recommend three excellent posts by David Bish (thebluefish blogger of the UK). They provided rich gospel food for me this past week (seeing that I struggle with the very same things). So let me encourage you to take a trip across the pond to read David’s gospel-centered posts.
Aircon for My Soul
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
"Leadership in the Home: Morals-Driven or Gospel-Driven?" has finally been published. It is my first published magazine article. I was a little disappointed that no pictures of bobble heads were added, but then I remembered that we do not live in a perfect world. Take a look:
Eucatastrophe has received a significant amount of first time visitors the past few days. If you are curious as to why, it's not because of any articles I've written lately. It's not because people want to read my article about the Hypostatic Union and gospel-centered preaching. Nope. So what has generated such an increased interest in my blog? Answer: a bobble head. It’s not just any bobble head though…it is the Phil Johnson Bobble Head and it has become quite the rage. I know you will want to purchase one right away but hold off on that for a few more days. Why hold off? Because I’m hoping to get all eucatastrophe blog readers a discount since the bobble head idea originated here (note comment #10). So do your very best to hold off on purchasing one for a few more days.
Consider Paul David Tripp's commentary on Hebrews 3:12-13 ("Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.").
"Since each of us still has sin remaining in us, we will have pockets of spiritual blindness. . . Our most important vision system is nor our physical eyes. We can be physically blind and live quite well. But when we are spiritually blind, we cannot live as God intended . . . Physically blind people are always aware of their deficit and spend much of their lives learning to live with its limitations. But the Bible says that we can be spiritually blind and yet think we see quite well. . . The reality of spiritual blindness has important implications for the Christian community. The Hebrews passage clearly teaches that personal insight is the product of community. I need you in order to really see and know myself. Otherwise, I will listen to my own arguments, believe my own lies, and buy into my own delusions. My self-perception is as accurate as a carnival mirror. If I am going to see myself clearly, I need you to hold the mirror of God’s Word in front of me" (Paul David Tripp, Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands, pp. 53-54).
FYI: John Piper preached at the PCA General Assembly this past Thursday night, June 16th. You can find a summary of his sermon notes at Jollyblogger.
I've added a new link category to my sidebar. It lists eucatastrophe articles that specifically unpack some of the various facets of gospel-centeredness. For those of you who are relatively new to eucatastrophe, here is the primary object of this blog: to explore the beauty and implications of the gospel of Christ for all of life. So with that objective in mind, I added "B 2: eucatastrophe articles" to our link categories.
If you’ve visited my blog several times, you have probably observed a strong emphasis upon the gospel. The primary objective for my blog is to focus weekly on the centrality of the gospel in all of life. Behind almost every post of mine is this conviction, as Tim Keller puts it, the gospel is not just the A-B-C’s of the Christian life but the A to Z of the Christian life. If I were asked to choose what I believed was the text behind this conviction, I would choose Galatians 2:11-16. So what I wish to do is unpack this text’s teaching concerning the centrality of the gospel for all of life (I am profoundly indebted to Tim Keller’s exposition of this text in his article entitled, “The Centrality of the Gospel.” You can find it in the article section of the far right column of my blog.)
The Confrontation
At the center of this gospel-centered text is a confrontation where the apostle Peter is confronted by the apostle Paul. Some might see two “heavy weight” Christians squaring off in this text, a battle of egos. But what we do not have in this confrontation is play for power. Rather, what is put on display here is a Christian’s passion for the gospel and gospel-centered living. Paul was keenly aware that the gospel and gospel-centered living was at stake here, primarily because of choices Peter had made.
Gospel Identity
Have you ever wondered how it was that Paul, a relative newcomer to the rank of Apostle, found the courage to confront Peter who was the most eminent Jerusalem apostle? After all, Paul was still persecuting the church when Peter was preaching powerful gospel-centered sermons. How was it that Paul was able to locate the necessary courage to do what he believed was the right thing to do, namely, confront a man who had been so powerfully used of God in the building of the church?
I think we can find an answer to that question if we thoughtfully consider the first several verses of chapter 2. Paul makes a curious statement four times in verses 2-9. In verse 2, Paul says that he went to Jerusalem to set the gospel before “those who seemed influential.” Who were these seemingly influential men? They were at least Peter, James, and John (verse 9). Again, in verse 6, Paul refers to “those who seemed to be influential” adding, “what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality.” Verse 6 then ends with these words, “Those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.” Finally, in verse 9, Paul refers specifically to Peter, James, and John as those “who seemed to be pillars.”
Why does Paul repeatedly refer to Jerusalem apostles as “those who seemed influential”? We find the answer in verse 6.
“And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6).
What point is Paul making when he says, “what they were makes no different to me; God shows no partiality”? Paul realized that God does not choose or accept anybody on the basis of external advantages such as apostleship. As great of an honor being an apostle was, it was not the basis for the reception of God’s favor. Paul knew that with regard to favor God shows no partiality to those of “superior” reputation. Paul’s sense of identity was not threatened by potentially being positioned against those of great reputation. Paul was a man whose sense of identity was not dependent upon any man or religious institution. His sense of identity was not derailed or disturbed because he did not fear being thought poorly of by “those who seem to be influential.” When Paul went to Jerusalem there was the potential that “those who seemed to be influential” in the church would not take his side. This would have meant that “those who seemed to be pillars” disapproved of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. But Paul’s sense of identity was unflappable in the face of this potentiality.
It is important to note that Paul’s main concern in his Jerusalem visit was not so much his personal identity as it was the ongoing fruitfulness of the Gospel. Consider verses 4 and 5.
“Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— [5] to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you” (Galatians 2:4-5).
Paul’s primary concern was that the truth of the gospel might be preserved among the Gentiles. He understood that if the apostles in Jerusalem did not grant full acceptance to an uncircumcised Gentile, the entire church and even the subsequent history of the Christian church would be brought into slavery. Humanly speaking Paul knew that there was the possibility that the church would be condemned to bondage and barrenness if the Jerusalem apostles caved in to the Judaizers. So Paul demonstrated enormous courage here.
How was Paul able to demonstrate so much courage before those seemed influential? I believe the answer is found in verse 5. Note the italicized words.
“To them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you” (Galatians 2:5).
Only one thing really mattered to Paul, namely, “the truth of the gospel.” He knew that nothing was as important as the Gospel. It alone was “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). It was the only way of life and blessing and peace! Paul knew that without it there was not only no freedom but no church. So what is the truth of the gospel that Paul fought to preserve at the risk of his own reputation? In short, it was the truth that God fully accepts all, whether Jew or Gentile, through faith in Christ alone. Paul was able to lay everything on the line, to risk his acceptance among men because of the truth of the gospel. He knew that he already enjoyed the full acceptance of the Father. He was able to face those who seemed influential because he was convinced that nothing would or could put his acceptance before God in jeopardy. Paul was a man who found his identity not in the opinions of men but in the full acceptance of God alone through faith alone. So at the very center of Paul’s confrontation of Peter was the gospel. It was both the reason he confronted and the power of his confrontation.
Gospel Proof
Galatians 2:11-16 gives us clear evidence that Paul did not derive his sense of identity from those who seemed influential. In verse 11, Paul says, “When [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” One significant piece of evidence that testified to the fact that Paul did not derive his sense of identity from men was that he confronted a very important and powerful man. Confrontation is a really tough test! I don’t think there is anything quite like having to confront someone else especially when they are influential that reveals from where we really derive our sense of identity. Paul definitely passed the test here. His sense of identity was not shaken even in a most difficult circumstance.
Confrontation is a great revealer of where a person locates his identity. If you are an individual who finds your identity in the opinions of others, you will find it difficult to confront especially when it involves a person of influence. I wonder if one main reason so little Christian confrontation takes place in the church is that so many believers locate their identity functionally in man rather than in Christ. Galatians 2 should give us hope that it is possible to functionally derive our sense of identity from Christ rather than in man.
The Problem
What was the occasion for Paul’s confrontation of Peter? We find out in verse 12. Notice first, what it was Peter stopped doing; and second, why it was that Peter stopped doing it.
“[Because] before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party” (Galatians 2:12).
First, what did Peter stop doing? He stopped enjoying table fellowship with the Gentiles. Second, why did he stop this? Because he feared the circumcision party. Now, what exactly was Peter’s struggle here? Before we answer that question, let’s look at why it was that Peter originally began eating with the Gentiles in the first place. In Acts 11, we read:
“Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, ‘You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.’ But Peter began and explained it to them in order: ‘I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' But I said, 'By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' But the voice answered a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven” (Acts 11:1-11).
Peter’s struggle at that time was that his conscience was still bound to the ceremonial law, that is, to a series of extensive regulations that God’s people had to follow in order to be found acceptable in the worship. It was God’s way of teaching His people that sinful people cannot go into the presence of God without cleansing. Thus, God was seeking to reeducate Peter’s conscience. “Peter, what God has made clean, do not call common.” This reeducating of Peter’s conscience is what freed him to eat with the Gentiles. Later on in Acts he shares the content of the theological education he received from God back in Joppa.
“And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed [i.e. made clean] their hearts by faith’” (Acts 15:7-9).
What Peter came to realize was that it is through Christ alone that all believers are “made clean” and acceptable to God, because now it is Christ who makes us “holy and blameless and above reproach before him” (Colossians 1:22) and “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that [we] might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:27). So why did Peter draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles? Paul says that it was because Peter feared the circumcision party (Galatians 2:12). He drew back out of fear. He did not draw back out of a firmly held conviction but out of fear. Peter fell into the trap of trying to derive his sense of identity from those who seemed influential. His “need” for a sense of identity from those who were seemed influential beat out what he knew concerning the truth of the gospel. What was worse was that he took others with him. Verse 13 states that “the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with [Peter], so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”
One of the things we learn here is that whenever believers make a decision based upon the fear of man they are being hypocritical because they are betraying “the truth of the gospel.” Paul says that Peter’s “conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:14). We believers are hypocritical whenever our conduct is not in step with the truth of the gospel. Whenever we make a decision based upon the fear of man we are not walking in line with the doctrine of justification by faith alone which is “the truth of the gospel.”
Galatians 2 teaches us that the gospel sends out lines into all of life—justification-by-faith lines—and it is the responsibility of believers both to know how those lines manifest themselves and walk them. When Peter and the other Jews drew back from the Gentiles they were not walking in line the doctrine of justification by faith. So Paul confronts him to the face because he stood guilty of not believing the gospel functionally. Peter was not guilty of not believing the gospel theologically. He would have been quick to affirm the doctrine of justification by faith theologically. His problem was that in that situation he failed to believe it functionally, that is, he failed to walk in line with the truth of the gospel.
Peter’s failure manifested itself in two ways. First, it manifested itself by his withdrawal from table fellowship with the Gentiles. How was it manifested in this way? Because his behavior indicated that faith in Christ is not enough for Christian fellowship. Peter’s behavior essentially said that if Christian fellowship is to be extended, it is to be extended not just on the basis of faith in Christ but also on the basis of some other external religious marker. In other words, Peter’s actions said that in order for Gentiles to be accepted by the Jews into fellowship they had to believe in Christ and be circumcised. His withdrawal from fellowship with Gentiles was essentially a denial of the doctrine of justification by faith. Peter would not have denied justification by faith theologically, but his behavior showed that he denied it functionally.
Lest we think that the church today does not functionally deny the gospel consider this brief example. Many churches today that are conservative musically will refuse to fellowship with churches that utilize drums and electric guitars. Is not this a failure to believe the gospel functionally? Probably all of these conservative churches would affirm the doctrine of justification by faith theologically. But Galatians 2 teaches that it is not enough to affirm the truth of the gospel doctrinally. We must also affirm it functionally. Could we not conclude that the failure of conservative churches to do so is hypocritical due to the failure to walk in line with the truth of the gospel?
Second, Peter’s failure manifested itself by caring too much about man’s opinion. Paul says that Peter withdrew from the Gentiles because he feared the circumcision party. The doctrine of justification by faith means that the believer’s identity is found in Christ and not anything else. But when a believer “forgets” that reality, that is, when the reality of being accepted by God through faith in Christ alone ceases to be central to his thinking and believing, he will try to locate his identity in something or someone else. This is what happened to Peter. In his spiritual forgetfulness, he began locating his identity in the acceptance of those who seemed influential. It seems to me that the fear of man is essentially a justification by faith issue. Could the reason the fear of man is such a problem for us today be because the doctrine of justification by faith is not central to our consciousness? Could the reason the fear of man is such a stumbling block for Christians today be because we do not begin each day standing strong on the reality that we are fully accepted by God in Christ? Galatians 2 teaches that whenever we fall to the fear of man we are not walking in line with the truth of the gospel.
So, what did Paul do when he saw Peter’s failure? He confronted him with the gospel and this is what we must do with ourselves everyday. If we are not daily confronting ourselves and being confronted with the truth of the gospel, we will quickly fall out of line with the gospel.
The Solution
The content of Paul’s verbal confrontation is found in Galatians 2:15-16. Paul said to Peter:
“We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:15-16).
Interpretation Issue
If we are to properly understand these verses we must understand what Paul means by “Gentile sinners.” Paul, speaking to Peter says, “We ourselves (you and me, Peter) are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners.” Is Paul saying that as Jews Peter and he are not sinners? No, Paul is not using the term “sinners” in this way. Paul makes it clear elsewhere that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners.
“What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (Romans 3:9).
What we need to keep in mind in Galatians 2:15-16 is that Paul is making a contrast between Jews and Gentiles in the context of a discussion on the ceremonial law. Gentiles were considered “sinners”, as Paul uses the term in verse 15, because as non-Jews they habitually neglected observing the ceremonial law. Jews, on the other hand, did not neglect it because it was specifically given to them by God. It is within this context that Paul says to Peter, “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not those who from birth neglect the ceremonial law, namely, the Gentiles; yet though we were not born as ceremonial law-neglecters we know that a person is not justified by observing the ceremonial law but through faith in Jesus Christ alone, so we also (like Gentile believers) have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the ceremonial law, because by works of law no one will be justified” (my paraphrase).
In confronting Peter, Paul says, “Peter, you know that we are not found acceptable to God by keeping any part of the law. You know that we are found acceptable to God through faith in Christ alone. So whether you are a law-keeping Jew by birth or a law-neglecting Gentile by birth, you are justified the same way, namely, through faith in Christ.”
Application Focus
What Paul is seeking to drive in to Peter’s consciousness is this, “Peter, if you are already justified in God’s eyes, why do you need to be justified in man’s?” You see this was Peter’s problem. When he drew back from the Gentiles, he was seeking to justify himself in the eyes of the circumcision group. Peter had “forgotten” that God loved and had fully accepted him. Peter’s justification before God was not functionally central to his thinking and believing.
Now does that mean that after hearing Paul’s’ words, Peter said, “Oh, yea! That’s right! God has fully accepted me! How in the world did I forget about that?” No, remember, Peter did not forget about God’s acceptance in that he had no recollection of it. We are not talking about the difference between having something in your head and not having something in your head. No, Peter had forgotten that we are justified through faith in Christ alone in that he was not feeling the reality of it. He knew the reality of it, but he wasn’t “feeling” it.
As I see it, there are really two reasons for Paul’s confrontation of Peter. First, the gospel was at stake. The Apostle Peter’s functional denial of the gospel led many others astray (Galatians 2:13). His failure to walk in line with the truth of the gospel was in direct opposition to the Christian mission (Matthew 28:18-20). So Paul confronted Peter to set things right.
Second, Paul was not just concerned with the advancement of the gospel in the world. He was also concerned for Peter himself. Paul confronted Peter in order that he might feel the reality of the gospel again. He essentially did Hebrews 11:24 on him.
“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.”
In the context of Hebrews 10, “to stir up” means to provoke others unto love and good works by encouraging them with the truth of the Gospel. Hebrews 10 (as well as the entire book) is jammed full of gospel truth. For example, verse 10 says that believers have been “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Verse 12 says that “when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.” Verse 14 says that “by a single offering” Christ “has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” If we started back in chapter one, we could list verse after verse of gospel truth.
What was the writer of Hebrews trying to accomplish with all of this gospel truth? He was seeking to stir them up unto love and good works. Hebrews 10:24-25 is a call for them to do that very same thing with one another. This kind of stirring up always aims at the heart where we are prone to forget the gospel, that is, where we are prone not to “feel” the reality of the gospel’s truth. It doesn’t take long for this to happen. That’s why Hebrews 3:12-13 says (note the italicized words):
“Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.”
What must we do in order to be people who walk in line with the gospel every day? First, we must think through the implications of the gospel for every area of life. How should the truth of the gospel, that we are accepted by God through faith in Christ alone, influence relationships between single men and women? What kind of individuals should you be willing to consider as marriage partner? Should you only first consider those who are externally beautiful or handsome? These are the kinds of questions Christians need to be asking. Does the truth of the gospel have implications for relationships between single men and women? Absolutely. So if we are to be a people who walk in line with the truth of the gospel, we must think out it’s implications for every area of life. Why? Because the gospel sends out lines of implication into every area of life (see diagram below).
Second, we must learn to be our own Paul’s. We must learn to preach the truth of the Gospel to ourselves everyday. Otherwise we quickly forget and not feel its truth in our hearts. So learn to be your own Paul.
Third, we must have people in our lives that are Paul’s for us. Peter needed a Paul and so do we. Find a few Paul’s and ask them to regularly (everyday if possible) preach the truth of the Gospel to you applying it to your life situation. This is one reason why we gather as the people of God (Heb. 10:25). The church gathers together to be Paul’s for each other in order that we might be stirred up unto love and good works not forgetting the gospel.
Today is my middle brother's birthday. He knows his present is in the mail and is probably fairly certain that it is a book or a dvd of some epic movie (actually he's getting two excellent books from me this time). I hope you enjoy your birthday and the books. Your birthday will be over today but the books can be your friends for life (especially these two books :-))! I love you, bro! Thank you for our fellowship in the gospel. It is great to have brothers with whom one can have rich fellowship in the gospel of Christ.
Love,
Dan
P.S. In case you are wondering, "HB to SC!" is shorthand for "Happy Birthday to Stephen Cruver!"
If you've never read anything by T.F. Torrance, you need to pick up one of his books. I would recommend starting with The Mediation of Christ. He is not easy to read but who cares about easy when you can find hundreds of paragraphs like the following:
“This does not mean that all our knowledge of God can be reduced to Christology, but that, as there is only one Mediator between God and man, who is himself both God and Man, and only one revelation of God in which he himself is its actual content, all authentic knowledge of God is derived and understood in accordance with the incarnate reality of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, and is formulated in doctrinal coherence with Christology. That is to say, doctrinal statements about God are possible and true only when Christologically grounded” (T.F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, p. 17).
If you are not familiar with the Warnie Award, it is an award given by Adrian Warnock to a blog that he considers destined for blogdom "prominence" :-). The recipient of the latest Warnia Award? PyroManiac, the blog of Phil Johnson. Do I believe Phil is destined for blogdom "supremacy"? :-) Absolutely. My first introduction to Phil Johnson in blogdom (I’ve been aware of Phil’s Bookmarks for some 6-8 years) was on Sharper Iron where he received no small amount of attention. So take a look at his blog. He will not bore you.
Recently I’ve wondered if there is a correlation between a superficial understanding of worldliness and an incomplete understanding of the significance and applicability of the gospel. In other words, I have wondered if the view that thinks of worldliness primarily in external terms (i.e. where you go; what you do; etc) is due, in some measure, to a failure to understand the breadth and depth of the gospel. It seems to me that there is a very strong correlation between the two, but before we consider the precise nature of it let’s briefly consider the biblical presentation of worldliness.
Key Text: “[15] Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. [16] For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. [17] And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:15-17).
Key Question: Does John think of worldliness primarily in terms of that which is external?
First Things First: Identifying the Logical Connection between 1 John 2:15-17 and 1 John 5:21
John deals with three major themes in his first epistle: (1) walking in the light (holiness); (2) walking in love; and (3) walking in the truth. After clearly articulating what walking in holiness, love, and truth looks like, John closes his epistle with these words: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). This final statement is the first time that John specifically refers to idolatry. So either the exhortation to avoid idols is just one among the many others in 1 John tacked on the end because of its perceived importance, or it somehow functions as the umbrella command over every other command in the epistle. I’m convinced that it functions as the one command under which every other command in 1 John is to be understood and obeyed.
So what is the logical connection between 1 John 2:15-17 with 1 John 5:21? Notice, first, that in 1 John 2 John describes worldliness in terms of love and desire not in terms of that which is external. “Love not the world…for all that is in the world—the desires…the desires…and the world is passing away along with its desires.” His description of worldliness is not in terms of where we go or what we do, but in terms of what we love and desire. Is there an external dimension to worldliness? Yes, of course there is. But the external dimension is merely the outgrowth of love and desire. At the heart of worldliness is loving and desiring what is in the world above God. Consider Tim Keller’s insightful commentary on 1 John 2:15-17.
"Worldliness" is apparent whenever we take the good things of God and use them in ways he never intended them to be used. It is this misuse that John has in mind when he speaks of the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes, and the boasting of what he has and does. The problem of worldliness occurs when we don’t receive God’s gifts with thanksgiving and enjoy them in the context he intended. If the gift of wine is used for drunkenness, the gift of material objects becomes extravagance, the gift of sexuality used for adultery, the gift of work used to gain power, then we have misused good things to sinful ends. Worldliness does not just take place in Times Square, but in our hearts. In fact, both James and Jesus indict their hearers for the worldliness seen in their prayer lives. Wise Christians will be aware of how subtle and insidious the world can be in its ability to infect them, their thinking and their actions (Small Group Study on 1 John).
Notice, second, that idolatry is essentially “loving and desiring what is in the world above God.” This is the 10 Commandments perspective on idolatry which places it at the very center of all sin. The 1st commandment is the prohibition against worshipping anyone or anything other than God (“You shall have no other gods before me” – Exodus 20:3). The 2nd commandment is a prohibition against worshipping God idolatrously, that is, as we want Him to be. Put positively, the first two commandments call for us to love God as He actually is with all of our heart, soul, and might (Deuteronomy 6:5).
Now why does the 10 Commandments begin this way? Martin Luther believed it was because we never break commandments 3-10 unless we first break commandments 1-2. When children fail to obey their parents, it is because they had another god before their eyes. In other words, children disobey their parents because they love and desire something in the world (i.e. the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life) more than they love and desire God. The same could be said of each prohibition listed in the 10 Commandments. Every sin we commit is due to the fact that we love and desire something in the world more than we love and desire God.
It is critical that we see that idolatry is at the root of all sin and worldliness. This is how Paul explains the presence of sin from Romans 1. In verse 18, Paul states that the wrath of God is against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. He then proceeds to reveal what is at the very root of all sin as he sums up humanity’s “fall” into sin, namely, idolatry. Verse 21 indicates that man was created to honor God as God and to give Him thanks but he chose not to. In verse 23, Paul says that man exchanged the glory of God for created things. In other words, man’s sin was an exalting the creature above the Creator. We were created first to worship and serve God, and then to exercise dominion over all created things (Genesis 1:26-28), but man chose not even to acknowledge God (Romans 1:28). Paul too speaks of sin in terms of idolatry.
So to “love the world or the things in the world” (1 John 2:15), in John’s mind, is to commit idolatry (1 John 5:21). That is the logical connection between those two texts. John knows that if we fail to walk in light, love, and truth, it is because we have put another god before our eyes, that is, we have loved and desired something in the world more than God Himself. Therefore, he closes his epistle by saying, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”
Defining “worldliness”
John uses “world” in 1 John 2:17 (“and the world is passing away”) to refer to the world system as it is enslaved to idolatry. I want to argue that in John’s mind worldliness is any behavior, thought, or emotion that is controlled by something other than God. Thus, worldliness is not so much an external thing as it is an internal thing. Worldliness is not as external and visible as we would like to believe. I admit that life would be much less complicated if worldliness were, but it is not. If we fail to see that worldliness is essentially a matter of the heart, we will be tempted to call certain behaviors worldly when in reality they are not because the individual is not violating any specific commandment of Scripture and is acting in faith giving thanks to God.
Now obviously this does not apply to that which Scripture expressly forbids (i.e. fornication, adultery, murder, stealing, etc.). We have Scriptural warrant to call those behaviors absolutely worldly. This is clear. But, if a man enjoys the God-instituted marriage bed with his wife but does not do it with thanksgiving in his heart to God, is not that man being worldly? He absolutely is. His enjoyment of a very good thing is being controlled either by the idol of pleasure, power, or another idol. If a man enjoys Classical music while driving home from work in his car but does not do it with thanksgiving in his heart to God, is not that man being worldly? Yes. We are worldly whenever we do not do something, whether it’s eating or drinking or working or playing, to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31), that is, we are worldly whenever we are not being governed by love and desire for God. To be worldly is to exalt something within God’s creation to a place of ultimacy. Whenever we do this, we eating or drinking or working or playing to the glory of that created thing whatever it may be. Glenn Tinder states it like this:
Our need for hope is so urgent, and our concern with transcendence so weak and erring, that hope readily becomes concentrated upon visible, worldly objects. When that happens, what is good becomes evil by being put in the place of God. A finite value is treated as though it were infinite, which is idolatry. In other words, we take things good in themselves, as elements in God’s universe, and try to incorporate them in a universe we ourselves have made and can control. This is what is meant by worldliness. We are all of us spontaneously idolatrous and worldly (The Fabric of Hope: An Essay, 41).
When we identify the logical connection between 1 John 2:15-17 and 1 John 5:21, we learn that John sees the problem of idolatry as the problem of inordinate desire, or to put it another way, the problem of over-desire. We are not just guilty of idolatry when we desire that which is forbidden, but also when we over-desire that which is good. To over-desire a good finite object is essentially to treat it as if it were an infinite good. This, I believe, is the essence of worldliness. David Naugle asks:
Could it not be true that “worldliness” rests not so much in personal temptations to debauchery, but instead lies in “an interpretation of reality that essentially excludes the reality of God from the business of life” (Worldview: The History of a Concept, 278-279)?
In his book, The Way of the (Modern) World: Or, Why It's Tempting to Live As If God Doesn't Exist, Craig Gay argues that:
“The world” that Christians are called to be in but not of is, in effect, an interpretation of the realm of human affairs that places far too much emphasis upon human agency and far too little (if any) upon God’s…The most insidious temptations to “worldliness” today do not necessarily come in the form of enticements to sexual dissipation…but rather in the form of the suggestion that it is possible—and indeed “normal” and expedient—to go about our daily business in the world without giving much thought to God. Under modern, and now “postmodern” conditions…“the world” is an interpretation of human life that is largely void of the living God, and “worldliness” is characterized by practical atheism (The Way of the (Modern) World: Or, Why It's Tempting to Live As If God Doesn't Exist, 4-5).
According to Paul, one of the clearest evidences of idolatry, and therefore worldliness, is the failure to give thanks to God. In his discussion of the idolatry of men, Paul states that although men “knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him” (Romans 1:21). If you recall, I asked the following question a few paragraphs ago: “If a man enjoys the God-instituted marriage bed with his wife but does not do it with thanksgiving in his heart to God, is not that man being worldly?” The clear answer, according to Paul, is a strong “Yes!” Do you ever drink coffee, golf, read a novel, eat potato chips, surf the internet, watch The Lord of the Rings, play with your kids, or enjoy an ice cream cone without thanksgiving in your heart to God? What we need to recognize is how deeply and profoundly worldliness permeates our lives.
Idolatry, Worldliness, and Identity
The purpose of this extended discussion on idolatry and worldliness is to demonstrate that both are a matter of the heart. We must be very careful not to associate worldliness primarily with external behaviors such as going to movies, drinking beer, or listening to rhythm dominant music. This is not to say that most who go to movies, drink beer, and listen to rhythm dominant music are not being worldly. I think we would all agree that most people who engage in these activities are probably doing so in worldliness, but we err if we forget that the biblical worldview says that we cannot single out any part of life whether “sacred activity” or “secular activity” and call the first holy and the second profane. Rather, we must recognize that sin has touched all of life (including church going and milk drinking) and aggressively discern the idols of our hearts regardless of whether we are engaging in “sacred” or “secular” activities. Scripture’s teaching on idolatry and inordinate desire will not allow us to say (1) that all movie going, beer drinking, and listening to rhythm dominant music is worldly, and (2) that all church going and milking drinking is not. Why not? Because worldliness is primarily a matter of the heart, and our idols are not respecters of activities. This biblical understanding of the internal nature of idolatry and worldliness should prevent us (1) from labeling someone worldly just because the individual is involved in an activity that we consider worldly, and (2) from calling any activity not explicitly forbidden in Scripture worldly just because we personally associate it with worldliness.
When we think of worldliness primarily in terms of externals, we most often fail to see how faithfully serving in the church, or being a family man, or engaging in acts of mercy can be shot through with a worldly mindset. Our mindset can be said to be worldly whenever we are getting a sense of identity from something other than God in Christ. For example, would your sense of identity be intact if you were no longer allowed to serve in the church? Would your sense of identity be intact if your children went wayward? Would your sense of identity be intact if you no longer had the physical ability to engage in acts of mercy and because of that became dependent upon the mercy-acts of others? A true sense of identity does not come from what we do no matter how noble our intentions and actions are. It can only be found in what God has done for us in Christ. Whenever we seek our identity in something other than God, we are being worldly.
Seeking our identity in something other than God is essentially what idolatry is. If you read Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians with this relationship between identity and idolatry in mind, you will find that the Corinthians’ many problems stem from seeking their identity outside what God has given them in Christ. Before Paul begins to address the specific sins of which they are guilty, Paul reminds the Corinthians that God is the source of their “life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30). The Corinthians were operating functionally from an identity that found its source in the world rather than from the identity they had already been given in Christ. Victor Paul Furnish writes:
Here, as throughout the excursus, Paul means the crucified Christ who is “God’s wisdom and God’s power.” Because they are in Christ, their relationship to the world has changed…Although they remain in this present, passing age, it can no longer claim them as its own. Their identity is now established in their belonging to Christ, their lives are now marked by the sign of the cross (Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians, Victor Paul Furnish, 43).
The Corinthians had functionally adopted an identity offered to them in the world over the identity already provided for them in Jesus. This is idolatry.
Consider what Paul writes in Galatians 6:14. “Far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Tim Keller comments:
In vv.13b-14, Paul says that the heart of your religion is what you boast in. In other words, what, at bottom, is the reason that you are in a right relationship with God? If the cross is just a help but you have to complete your salvation with good works, it is really your works which make the difference between your being in God or out of God. Therefore, you “boast about your flesh” (v.13b), your own efforts. But if you understand the gospel, you “boast” exclusively and only in the cross. Here we come very close to the modern category of self-image and to the idea of basing your identity in Christ. Our identity is based on what gives us a sense of dignity and significance--what we boast in. Religion leads us to boast in something about us. The gospel leads us to boast in the cross of Jesus. That means our identity in Jesus is confident and secure--we do "boast!”--yet humbly based in a profound sense of our flaws and neediness (Small group study on Galatians).
Concerning “by which the world has been crucified to me,” Keller states:
[Paul] is not talking only of what the people of the world think, though that is certainly involved. He is saying that there is nothing in the world now that has any power over me. Notice he does not say that the world is dead, but that it is dead to him. The gospel destroys its power. Why? As we have been saying all along, if nothing in the world is my righteousness or salvation, if there is nothing in the world that I boast in, then there is nothing in the world that controls me—nothing that I MUST have (Ibid.).
To find our identity in anything other than in what God has provided for us in Jesus is to be both worldly and idolatrous. Why? Because it exalts what is temporal or finite to the place of ultimate value. Identity replacement (replacing our God-given identity for an identity offered to us in the world) is essentially God replacement, which is idolatry (Consider the golden calf incident: Exodus 32).
We must be very careful not to associate worldliness primarily with that which is external. It is clear in Scripture that idolatry is not primarily an external matter. It is primarily a matter of the heart (Ezekiel 20:16; 36-37). The internal existence of idolatry is present long before its external manifestation.
How Do We Keep Ourselves from Idolatry?
What is John’s solution to the cosmic problem of idolatry and worldliness? What hope is there for those who are often “spontaneously idolatrous and worldly”? In other words, is there any encouragement for those who have “idol factory” hearts? Consider the first two verses of chapter 2:
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. [2] He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
To us who are often “spontaneously idolatrous and worldly” John speaks of a reality that is of infinite value. John calls us who will continue to struggle, sometimes fiercely, with the problem of idolatry to look outside of ourselves to the one who has become righteousness for us. Whenever God’s grace brings us to face the painful reality of our idolatrous desires it also reminds us that “we [are having] an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” In commenting on 1 John 2:2, Tim Keller writes:
John is a realist. He knows he and his readers will sin. Having mentioned that we should not sin, he immediately goes on to tell us what recourse we have when we do sin. What is the recourse? Applying the gospel to yourself through faith and repentance. John points to those burdened by sin back to the basic truth of justification by faith. By an act of free grace, God pardons our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight on the basis of what Christ has done on the cross. Through no effort of our own, we are made children of God whom he loves and in whom he delights” (Small group study on 1 John, Tim Keller).
John’s solution to idolatry is found in the one who is our Advocate before the Father, Jesus the Righteous. It is his blood that cleanses us from all iniquity and therefore idolatry (1 John 1:7, 9). It is his righteousness that is the basis for our full acceptance before the Father (idolaters though we be). When John refers to Jesus as “the righteous,” he is saying, in part, that idolatry never found an entrance into Jesus’ heart. When he was tempted by the devil to be idolatrous, Jesus responded, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve’” (Luke 4:8). Jesus never failed to worship and serve the Lord his God. He never failed to find his identity solely in his relationship with the Father. The primary term by which Jesus addressed God the Father was Father. He always lived in the tender and profound awareness of God the Father as his Father. Jesus lived functionally out of “the communion of love” that he enjoyed with the Father and the Spirit. T.F. Torrance writes:
In the Fourth Gospel the teaching of Jesus centers throughout on his intimate relation as the incarnate Son to the Father which he described in terms of their existing and dwelling in one another and of their seeing, knowing and loving of one another. “As the Father knows me, so I know the Father…I and my Father are one…the Father is in me and I am in him” (The Christian Doctrine of God, 164).
The great miracle of the gospel is that because of the work of the God-Man in his incarnate being, living, and dying for us, we are given the right to be called the children of God and are brought to share in the eternal communion of the Godhead’s love. Because of Jesus “the one eternal God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is our God and our Father” (Ibid., 140). Where Adam and Israel failed and we fail to live functionally out of the love of God, Jesus, the God-Man, did not. And in and through his incarnate Person and Work the Son brings us to share in and enjoy his fellowship with the Father (1 John 1:1-4).
When we remember that we are having “an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,” at least two things happen. First, we are emboldened to confess and repent of our idolatry knowing with full confidence that our fellowship with God will be restored. Second, we are sanctifyingly reminded afresh of the priceless identity that Jesus is for us before the Father. When we consider the fact that Jesus is our identity before the Father, it’s not that Jesus has successfully offered himself to God the Father as our identity but that God the Father Himself has made Jesus to be our identity. This means that the Father’s disposition toward us is no different than the Son’s disposition toward us. As a matter of fact, they share the same disposition toward us. The Father was not coerced to welcome us into the fellowship of the Trinity. No, the Father Himself is the very source of the life that we have “in Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:30). It is through this sanctifying remembrance of the gospel that the attractiveness of idolatry loses its power.
It is only the gospel of our Righteous Advocate with the Father that cuts at the roots of idolatry in our hearts sanctifyingly showing us (1) the futility of seeking to establish our own identity in the world apart from God’s gift in Christ, and (2) the superiority of the identity God has already provided for us in Christ. I am convinced that the view that thinks of worldliness primarily in external terms is due to the failure to understand the breadth and depth of the gospel. It is due to the failure to see that the gospel penetrates to the very center of what is wrong with us as fallen creatures and unbelievably sets things right. The Bible teaches that we are idolaters at the very core of our being. And only the gospel of God is able to restore such a profoundly idolatrous people to a right relationship with God both in position and experience.
Both Adrian Warnock and David Wayne are linking an interesting discussion started at Stronger Church. It asks the following question: "If you could only have five books out of your library to keep to help you prepare sermons, what would they be?" I want to modify the question slightly. "If you could only have five books to aide you in your study of Scripture for personal holiness, what would they be?" So feel free to answer from either perspective.
Here is David Wayne's answer:
Actually, for about the last seven or eight years I've been using Logos Software and accumulating all kinds of stuff from them so I would just ask for my laptop and my Logos disks and could be very happy. But, since that's not the question I'll play along.Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - ok, this has four volumes so I'm done, but if you'll allow me to count it as one volume I'd go with the following three others.
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem (betcha thought I was going to say Berkhof, didn't ya?)
According to Plan - Graeme Goldsworthy
Your Best Life Now - Joel Osteen - kidding - just checking to see if anybody's really reading this. How about Young's Analytical Concordance so I can have a language reference.
My answer is the result of about 5 minutes of thinking. It would probably change if I thought about it a few more minutes, but right now I'm satisfied. Also, I'm assuming that I will have my BibleWorks computer program which allows me to reference the biblical languages :-).
1. ESV Bible 2. Preaching the Gospel in a Post-Modern World (Tim Keller) 3. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture (Graeme Goldsworthy) 4. Gustav Oehler's Old Testament Theology 5. New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (I. Howard Marshall)
What 5 books would you choose?
I am always on the lookout for gospel-centered blogs though I don’t actively search for them very often (time issue). If you take a look, you’ll notice that I’ve created a new link category that lists a few gospel-centered blogs that I have found. These are blogs that make much about the centrality of the gospel for all of life. Making much of the gospel of Christ is to what I have dedicated my blog. Here are those who are currently on my gospel-centered blog list:
Adrian Warnock's UK Evangelical Blog Beginning with Moses Dave Bish - thebluefish Dave Cruver - to tell you the truth Paul Schafer - Glorious Gospel of Christ Group David Wayne - Jolly Blogger Rob Wilkerson - My Miscellanies on the Gospel
May the tribe of gospel-centered bloggers increase. I would love to see more bloggers who not only hold the following beliefs but also occasionally blog about them:
1. As Tim Keller writes, “The gospel is not just the A-B-C’s but the A to Z of Christianity.” It is not merely that which gives us entrance into the Christian life but also that which grows us in the Christian life. Therefore, gospel-centered bloggers do not address sanctification issues without reference to the gospel of God.2. The gospel is the hermeneutical key to unlocking the Scriptures. Graeme Goldsworthy: “By referring to the gospel as the hermeneutical key I mean that proper interpretation of any part of the Bible requires us to relate it to the person and work of Jesus.” Therefore, gospel-centered bloggers do not interpret and apply texts without reference to Scripture’s overarching story-line of the gospel.
3. “The light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” is seen in the gospel (2 Corinthians 4:3-6). God shines this light in our hearts with saving and sanctifying effect through the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, gospel-centered blogs will make much of the gospel of Christ in their blogging.
As I mentioned in a recent post, the ascension of Christ should receive much more air-time than it currently does. Though ascension was separated chronologically from the resurrection by 40 days, we must be careful not to separate it theologically (Romans 8:34). Christ’s ascension to the Father’s right hand was the inevitable and necessary consequence of his resurrection. It signifies Christ’s defeat of death and the powers of evil, the inauguration of his heavenly priestly ministry, and the Father’s full acceptance of him, his work, and all who died with him, were buried with him, and were raised with him (see Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology 457) (Colossians 2-3). Charles Scobie writes:
“The Ascension and session complete the Christ event. They underline forcefully that the resurrection of Jesus was not merely the resuscitation of a corpse. In the cases of Jairus’s daughter, the widow of Nain’s son, and Lazarus, all of whom were raised by Jesus from the dead, we are left to assume that they resumed their normal life here on earth, only to face death again in due course. Jesus’ triumph over death is of a totally different order, though it does guarantee the ultimate resurrection of believers. God not only raised Jesus from the dead; he also took him to be with him in the highest position of power and authority. To believe in Christ’s ascension and session at God’s right hand is therefore to believe that the Christ event is God’s final and decisive act within human history for the salvation of humankind. The ascension and session complete the full NT pattern of preexistence/incarnation/exaltation. Thus, ‘so far from being incredible, the Ascension is an indispensable part of the Christian message, without which that message would not be complete or intelligible’” (Argyle 1955: 241) (The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology 465).
It seems to me that if the gospel would not be complete or intelligible without the ascension of Christ, than his ascension must hold an indispensable place in gospel-centered living. In Colossians 3:1-3, Paul is clear that the ascension and session of Christ is to have a central place in the thinking of gospel-centered people.
“If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set you minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.”
Gospel-centered people are those who minute by minute set their minds on the Christ who is seated at the right hand of God. Certainly, the ascension of Christ is essential to gospel-centered living.
The ascension is so important to Luke that he closes his Gospel with it (Luke 24:50-51) and refers to it again at the beginning of the book of Acts (Acts 1:9). In both cases, Luke is careful to connect the ascension of Christ with the sending of the Spirit (Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8). Throughout Luke’s two-part book (i.e. Luke and Acts) he consistently connects Spirit-filling with gospel-proclamation (e.g. Luke 1:41-15; Luke 1:67-68; Acts 4:8-12; Acts 4:31; Acts 7:55-56). So it seems to me that we should recognize a strong connection between the ascension, the Spirit, and gospel-centered living. If this is true, the question we must ask is this:
Is the connection between the ascension and the Spirit merely one of chronology, that is, is it merely that Christ could not send the Spirit until after his ascension, or is the connection also theological?
Consider how Christ’s ascension and session are connected with the Spirit in Acts 7:55-56. Luke writes:
“But [Stephen], full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
It is not incidental that when Stephen saw the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God he was full of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit that causes Stephen to look heavenward to where Christ is, standing at the right hand of the Father (cf. Colossians 3:1-2). Luke uses the same word for Stephen (i.e. gazed) that he used when referring to the Apostles’ heavenward gaze at Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:10). We could say that the Spirit was causing Stephen to set his mind on where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. In Stephen’s time of great need the Spirit was filling him with the experiential knowledge that even as the Father had welcomed the resurrected Christ, so now Christ the Advocate was welcoming him. I. Howard Marshall comments:
“Although Stephen was a man full of the Spirit (Acts 6:5) he experienced a special filling with the Spirit which enabled him to enjoy a heavenly vision” (Acts, 148).
What heavenly vision did Stephen enjoy? He enjoyed the sight of his Advocate, the Son of Man who had been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Daniel 7:13-14; Matthew 28:18), welcoming him into his Father’s presence where there are fullness of joy and pleasures forever more (Psalm 16:11). Consider Tim Keller’s thoughts on Stephen’s experience:
“At the very moment that an earthly court was condemning him, he realized that the heavenly court was commending him. In other words, the ‘fullness’ he experienced was an experience of the gospel. At that moment, he got an extremely vivid, powerful sight of what he already knew intellectually—that in Christ we are beautiful in God’s sight and free from condemnation (Colossians 1:23). But the Spirit took that intellectual concept and electrified his entire soul and mind and heart and imagination with it. At that moment, the verdict there (at the throne of God) became so real and overwhelming to him that the verdict here (in the earthly kangaroo court) became inconsequential. He faced his accusers with not just boldness, but even with a calmness and joy, and forgiveness” (Evangelism: Studies in the Book of Acts).
If you recall, in John 14:16-17 Jesus says, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth.” Jesus tells the disciples that the Spirit is a Helper or Advocate of the same kind that he is for them. Herman Ridderbos writes, “This [Helper] will take Jesus’ place after Jesus’ departure (cf. John 16:7) and in his activity as [Helper] will do nothing other than what Jesus has been doing, except that in doing it he will continue and advance Jesus’ work” (The Gospel of John, 500). In 1 John 2:1, John uses the same word for Helper to refer to Jesus’ work as our Advocate before the Father (“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin, But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”). I believe that one of the primary things the Spirit does when he fills us is make the Advocacy of Christ so real to us that we enjoy a contentment and confidence that can not be shaken by adverse circumstances. This was the experience of Stephen when he faced the kangaroo court. The other Advocate (i.e. the Holy Spirit) made Stephen profoundly aware of the active Advocacy of Christ before the Father for him.
What I believe happens in Spirit-filling is that the Spirit essentially does in us what Jesus did for the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Luke 24:32-33 says that Jesus made their hearts burn within them as he opened to them the Scriptures. When the other Advocate, the Spirit of truth, fills us, he gives us a fresh experience of the gospel. He fills our hearts with the beauty of all God has made Jesus to be for us in his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to His right hand. And in doing this he gives us a courage and boldness that we would not have otherwise. It is interesting to note that as soon as Jesus departs from those two disciples, they immediately returned to that place which was previously the occasion for lost hope, namely, Jerusalem (Luke 24:33). This is what the Spirit does when he fills us. He causes the truth about Jesus to so fill us that our hearts burn within us and we are filled with a new courage that we would not otherwise have.
When Paul commands the Ephesians to be being filled with the Spirit in Ephesians 5:18, he is essentially commanding them to let the word about Christ, that is, the gospel, continually dwell in them richly. And if this is happening in a church, what you will find is a people who, rejoicing in their Advocate with the Father, are empowered for service with great confidence and humility. To the degree that we are aware of who God has made Jesus to be for us, and are aware of His session before the Father as our Advocate, to that degree we will exhibit great love, joy, boldness, and forgiveness. To be filled with the Spirit is to be under the grasp and thrill of the gospel.
Both the ascension and Spirit-filling are essential for gospel-centered living.
