Biblical Ground-Motive: The Bible's Big Story (a Repost from Nov. 2009)

The Bible’s Big Story

Without a firm grasp on the Bible’s Big Story, its grand meta-narrative, our understanding of the smaller stories and even the Gospel is hindered. Moreover, given how fast our culture is moving from the Christian heritage to crass secularization, those with whom we would share the Gospel haven’t the necessary historical context to make the Gospel meaningful. What follows is just one suggestion to help improve these conditions.

Systematic-Theologically Stated

In essence, the Bible’s Big Story can be summed up in God creating and redeeming a humanity to dwell among, so that throughout the Story we hear the promising refrain that is finally and fully realized in Rev 21:3, “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.”

Systematically stated, this Big Story or meta-narrative is an organic unity that unfolds through four major divisions: (1) Creation, (2) rebellion, (3) redemption, and (4) consummation or new creation. Thus, (1) God creates the universe and man. Originally, the creation and humanity were “very good” in God’s evaluation, by virtue of the entire created order, especially man, who, as prophet, priest, and king over creation, is in a proper relationship with the Creator God, evil being the contrary of this “very good” relationship.

Soon, though, (2) this sweet, loving, sustaining relationship was ruined by man’s rebellion against God. Because God is infinitely just and cannot lie, he was true to his word and decree, and thus brought man and his world under the judgment and curse promised upon man’s disobedience. Thankfully, (3) God is also infinitely merciful, and with the punishment came the Promise—the first promise of redemption, the Gospel (Gen 3:15). The promised “Seed of the woman,” the Coming One, “in the fullness of time” (Gal 4:4), Jesus Christ, stepped into history and accomplished that redemption through his incarnation, life, sacrificial-substitutionary death, resurrection from the dead, his exaltation to the right hand of the Father, and the sending of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (henceforth, these historical-redemptive events of Jesus’ sojourn on earth during his first coming will be called the Christ Event for convenience). We now live in the daily expectation of Christ’s return, when he will bring his redemptive work to a completion with his second coming, bring about a general resurrection of believers and unbelievers alike, and executing the final judgment, once for all to destroy all his enemies, Death and Hades, and the Adversary himself, that old serpent, Satan in the lake of fire. Only then, after the curse, evil, and death that was ushered in by man’s fall is finally destroyed, having been “put under Christ’s feet,” will (4) the new creation—the new heaven and new earth—be realized.

In the present, therefore, the whole creation in general (Rom 8:18f) and humanity in particular is living in the tension between Christ accomplishing redemption (his first coming) and his breaking into history to wrap up all things and bring that redemption to its completion in judgment on the wicked and salvation on the elect (his second coming). So “according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:13). This hope is our salvation.

Lest it seem that we have gotten ahead of ourselves in neatly systematizing all the complex data from Scripture in the four-fold framework above (i.e., creation, rebellion, redemption, consummation or new creation; henceforth, CRRC), we should observe that within the Bible itself there is a similar structuring of the Plan of God, which also bears witness to the beautiful coherence of the Big Story.

Biblical-Theologically Stated

A quick caveat is in order at this point. We need to make clear what we mean when we distinguish between systematic and biblical theology. First, it is not as though systematic theology is unbiblical over against the other, the biblical theology. Rather the two could be fairly understood better as: systematic theology is deductive in drawing its conclusions, whereas the other, biblical theology, is an inductive process. Both, however, are biblical in the sense that each methodology, if done with integrity and fidelity to Christ, will reach ‘biblical’ conclusions.

Therefore, when coming to the biblical data, that is, what Scripture diachronically and organically reveals concerning the major turning points in the Big Story, we find the same categories, only framed a little differently.

There is a literary device known as an inclusio. An inclusio acts as bookends for the content of a given literary passage or even the entire work. That is to say, an author will include his central theme or thrust of a block of material at the beginning and a corresponding piece of the same at the end, thus emphasizing that he intends the reader to bear this central point in the fore of their thoughts while journeying from one bookend to another. One explicit example of the use of an inclusio would be John’s prologue to his gospel (1:1—18).

John’s prologue begins thus, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1). This last phrase univocally states the deity of the Word, Jesus. Likewise, the prologue ends by restating the same point(s), “No one has ever seen God; the only God [“the Word was God,” 1:1c], who is at the Father’s side [“with God,” 1:1b, 2], he has made him known” (ESV 1:18). John therefore wants the reader to understand clearly from the start that the One who the entire rest of this gospel is about is none other than God himself. By means of the inclusio, then, John emphasizes the deity of Jesus, and his exclusive ability to reveal the Father (1:18c), which is exactly what the rest of John’s gospel is about.

Similarly, and closer to the context now under consideration, we also find an inclusio being used in Genesis 1:1 and 2:4. Genesis 1:1 reads, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Similarly, Genesis 2:4 says, “These are the generations of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” These bookends are intended to stress that God, as Creator and Controller, is the absolute sovereign over everything that exists—everything. Such a concept would have stood in sharp contrast to every other prevailing pagan origins stories—whether they be in Moses’ day or our own! In addition, since Genesis 2:4 also serves as the introduction to the following section (2:4—24), they thus direct the reader toward harmonizing the two accounts. (It’s worth mentioning that these two examples are linked intentionally by John with the opening words: “In the beginning...” in a creational context [John 1:1—3]. To then discover that both introductions have a similar pattern with the rear bookend of the inclusio also preparing the reader for what follows is a literary jewel that shouldn’t be overlooked!)

Another strong feature in the Bible is known as chiasm. A chiasm begins and ends with the inclusio but also has more or less members between the bookends, which correspond respectively. For instance, it would follow a pattern similar to this: A-B-C-D-C’-B’-A’. Sometimes these members are comprised of single terms; sometimes they are constructed of larger concepts or thoughts.

With these illustrations of the inclusio and chiasm under our belt, we’re ready to move on and examine their function in the Big Story of creation, fall, redemption and consummation.

Granting, then, it’s overall unity, it should not surprise us that the Bible as a whole has this same features. The first three chapters (Gen 1 – 3) and the final three chapters (Rev 20 – 21) of the Bible have incredible correspondence to one another; so much so that there is sufficient reason to conclude that this pair of triplets form the inclusio that provides the bookends or framework for all the content between them; and the central thrust of the Big Story or meta-narrative, in terms of which all the little stories or micro-narratives make sense, not least the subject, object, and climax of the Big Story—the Christ Event. The Christ Event is the center or chi of the chiasm, making Jesus both the subject and object of all of history. As such, grasping the import of the centrality of the meanings of these member is essential for formulating a biblically robust doctrine of eschatology. This framework could be expressed as follows.


(A) Genesis 1:1—2:24 The Original “Very Good” Creation; God Dwelling with His People.

(A. 1) Gen 1:1—2:3 A general description of creation; God making all things from nothing

(A. 2. i) Gen 2:4—24 A particular description of creation; the dwelling place of God is with man contingently

(A. 2. ii) Gen 2:15—17 Life with God in the garden and access to the tree of life contingent upon trusting and obeying God, and thus keeping his Word.

(B) Genesis 3 The Fatal Fall of Man; God Judges Rebels; Death Enters

(B to X) Gen 3:15—Malachi The War Between the Two Seeds Begins (archetypically seen in Cain vs. Able in Gen 4)

(X) Matthew thru Acts 2; The Christ Event, Redemption Accomplished; the Inauguration of the Age to Come; the War Between the Seeds Settled in Principle; the Holy Spirit descends on the Church, God in flesh (Jn 1:14) and Spirit (Acts) dwelling with His People

(X to B′) Acts 2 – Rev 19 [actually to present] – The War Between the Two Seeds Continues (antitypically seen between those who are “born of God/or the Seed of the woman and those that are “of the evil one like Cain.” See esp. 1 John 3 and Revelation)

(B′) Revelation 20:7—15 The Final Fall of Man; General Resurrection; God Passes Final Judgment on Rebels; Death is Destroy

(A′) Revelation 21—22:5 The New Creation; God Eternally Dwelling with His People

(A′. 1) Rev 21:1—8 A general description of the new creation; Christ recreating all things anew

(A′. 2. i) Rev 21:9—22:5 A particular description of the new creation; God’s dwelling is with men eternally

(A′. 2. ii) Rev 22:6—21 Life with God and the Lamb in the garden and access to the tree of life are contingent upon trusting and obeying God and the Lamb, and thus keeping their Word.

This is only one of many ways that the Big Story can be framed. However this is done, though, it must capture the four elements of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, keeping them properly related to each other, in order to make sense of the Bible’s Big Story. And once this Big Story is clear in your mind, it will amaze you how much more some of the smaller stories make sense to you.

There’s an old axiom: “Nothing is meaningful without context.” Rapidly, our culture and even the Church is loosing the vision of the Big Story. And without the Big Story concretely in place, the climax of the Story, the Gospel of Jesus scarcely makes sense. As Paul said, to the Greeks, those without the Big Story, the “word of the cross is foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Therefore, for both our own understanding and our ability to make much of Jesus through sharing his Gospel with others, we need a thorough grasp of the Big Story of the Bible.

Life, Death, Evangelism, Apologetics, and the Heidelberg Catechism

Here is an email I shared with a work associate. I share it to reveal how powerfully catechesis can be both in life and in death, both in yours and others.
________________

Dear Jack,

[“Jack,” a friend who worked for my client’s company was facing a case of the most aggressive cancer and invasive treatment. It entailed a mere five percent chance of surviving the next five years. I first addressed Jack’s grave circumstances, sharing with him our concentrated prayer on his behalf, and the many-sided ways that God’s mercy and grace were available to him through Christ and his gospel. Then, I identified a similar situation I had, and made application, then used the faithful Heidelberg’s gospel center in Q 1 to show and tell the gospel hope. Since the note, I am blessed to share that Jack's prognosis is greatly improved and treatment measures have been remarkable!]

I’m not sure if you were aware or not, but late last spring, I took a fall, while fishing and the next evening was in the first class seat on a life-flight helicopter headed to Roanoke Memorial. Evidently, the blow I took ruptured my spleen. By the time I finally went to the ER in Bedford, I had lost about two units of blood into my abdomen. All the staff, bless their hearts, began freaking out! They wanted me outta there yesterday! After making it clear to Fanny and I that the prognosis was rather poor, granting how much I had already lost, how much is lost during the removal surgery and the other attending risks, they told us that they already called and LGH didn’t want me either! Ugh. That was because their blood bank wasn’t prepared for a level three trauma. And I just thought I threw my back out real bad! This was a shocker to say the least. I had never felt so utterly out of control of myself and my circumstances in my entire life. I felt helpless and nearly hopeless.

After ten hours’ worth (I think; it’s all a bit fuzzy) of observation in ICU, my H & H number (hemoglobin and h-something?) began to rise. To everyone’s surprise, this indicated that the hemorrhaging had begun to slow way down, if not stop altogether. All the staffers were nothing short of incredulous. Nevertheless, three days later, my numbers were leveled out at normal; they ejected me! I had several doctors and nurses tell me that they had never witnessed a splenic rupture heal on its own. Just this week an MRI finally revealed that my spleen wasn’t the only thing to rupture. Two discs in my thoracic 12 / lumbar 1 area are bulging, one is ruptured, and a vertebrae is displaced, putting pressure on my spinal cord. Ironically, I’m thankful for that. I feared that the continued pains were related to the spleen, which is not an issue I really wanted to revisit.

Sorry for the windbag autobiography. But I share this story for a couple of relevant reasons.

First, although the doctors had little experience in, and even less so a naturalistic explanation of, the spleen “healing,” concerning the latter, we did. Here we were, 1200 miles from any family and (despite how likable we are, we haven’t made many friends in Big I ;), my main concern was for my girls, Fanny and Israel. Poor Fanny got lost in Bedford, trying to leave BMH and follow the chopper to Roanoke! But she was praying, and praying hard. A pastor friend, who lives in Bedford, shot over to BMH and was able to pray for me just before I was loaded in the bird. We had a handful of close family in the faith praying, and God heard these faithful few, and our faithful King Jesus came, “with healing in his wings” (Malachi 4:2).

This explains what was inexplicable to the doctors, regardless of whether or not they would admit it. Granted, this answer isn’t subject to pathological analysis or empirical observation. However, neither are time and gravity, logic and love, morals and motion. That these aren’t subject to scientific observation doesn’t challenge their reality; rather, the reality of these things—among others—provide the necessary preconditions that make scientific analysis possible; they must be taken for granted for my doctors to even do their scientific reasoning. So, that the absolute-personal God, who created and is “upholding all things by the word of his power,” has the gracious will and almighty power to be personally present, caring for his people, may have been implausible at best to those doctors of mine, that didn’t challenge the fact that he was there and acting (Genesis 1; Hebrew 1:1—3). Heck, science is allegedly all about finding the best case explanatory hypothesis. But, if Jesus Christ promised that his Father and ours would respond to our prayers in his name, and we thus prayed, and God responded, our explanation certainly got the blue ribbon at the science fair that night (St. John 14:13—14)! I just think sometimes that the doctors’ pride can’t handle being outclassed by the Great Physician. :) As William Hunter’s ole hymn by the same name goes:

The Great Physician now is near,
The sympathizing Jesus;

He speaks the drooping heart to cheer,
Oh, hear the voice of Jesus!

Mine was just one experience of many—an unusually many—remarkable answers to prayer for healing and wholeness. I’m sure you are aware of Ms. E’s radically reversed situation this year. We had the honor of praying her through that season with them. So incredible and “scientifically inexplicable” was her situation that I believe even many of her doctors had to tip their hats to God’s hand of providence in the situation. God’s mercy in healing people has just been incredibly apparent round about us this year. It’s been a privilege to witness it and be a part of it. I’m excited and hopeful about praying with so many others to see what God might do in you and your situation.

In addition to the physical healing that God wrought in my experience last spring, the second reason for sharing it is the spiritual and psychological wellness that I experienced during and through it.

Our particular theological heritage has a rich history in creeds, confessions, and catechisms. These, whether the shorter or longer ones, are basically systematic summaries of what we believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments teach concerning the big numbers—God, the creation and preservation of the world, man, sin, salvation, etc. Earlier last spring I was winding up to write a devotional commentary on one of the oldest, most-beloved catechisms in the Reformed-Presbyterian tradition, the Heidelberg Catechism (which, Lord willing, will be ready for press spring of 2015). About a week before my fall I had memorized the first question and answer of the Heidelberg. I believe, with many others throughout the world and time, that the first Q/A of this warm and personal catechism is one of the finest statements of the good news that God brought to light in Christ that has ever been penned (outside the Bible, of course). It goes like this.

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

There are some folks that think that doctrine is airy-fairy, abstract and dry, having nothing to do with practical, warp-and-woof experiences of life. Well, this doctrine and my experience stand as an indictment against such ideas.

I had buried this truth deep into my head the previous week, but my fall brought about the true test of whether I had truly buried it in my heart. In my twenty years of following my faithful Lord, knowing myself like I do, I had always feared that my faith would falter when a serious test hit me. I have often enjoyed this “comfort in life,” but what would happen on the pangs of possible death? I’m the guy who was still sucking my thumb at 12 years old! I still cried about getting shots when I was 14 years old! I’m the most pusillanimous person you know, believe you me! 

Nevertheless, Jack, I felt utterly no fear, as I was being prepped and loaded on the helicopter. Of course, I was worried about my girls. That was the only fear I felt, however. By grace and the enabling power of God’s Spirit, Christ Jesus—who had died and rose three days later, defeating the grave—he was truly my “only comfort” in body and soul, life and death! By God’s grace, this doctrinal truth had made its home in the deepest part of my soul. If this doctrine is true—and it is—then there is no reason to fear anything in either life or death, if Christ is one’s “faithful Savior.”

It is amazing how circumstances like mine and yours radically relativizes what once seemed like top priorities but are now periphery issues at best.

It’s with chagrin and shame that I must confess that I’m ignorant of whether or not you enjoy this hope that the Heidelberg talks about, and that carried us through my recent crisis. The gospel of Jesus Christ, that is. I pray—and will continue to pray—that are enjoying it. If not, though, it is my earnest hope and prayer that you will reconsider it...or seriously consider it even if for the first time. Frankly, I know of no other real hope we have, save God’s mercy in Christ.

After years of studying the plethora of perspectives and worldviews available to us, I’ve found that only the biblical world and life view provides sure enough footing to make sense of our experiences, be they better or worse, in this world or the one to come.

I’ve enjoyed what little times we’ve had to talk, and pray that they continue well beyond this windy note...(salutations, etc.).

Credo-getics: Confessional Christianity vs. Mormonism, Pt I

I begin by making an honest confession.  Despite my acute interest and study in the discipline of apologetics, it is with chagrin that I admit to being relatively ignorant of the touchstone points for apologetical dialogue with Mormons.  Because of their prevalence in the two communities that we’ve lived in, I am as comfortable in conversation with Jehovah’s Witnesses as I am in these fine fleece jammies Fanny got me for Christmas.  Furthermore, the gravity of the issues notwithstanding, debating well-educated antitheists is easier for me than trying to cogently communicate an order of gut-bombs from Sonic via the drive-in squawk box.  Mormonism, though...well, until the other morning, I had only met one other, and that years ago in Kansas. 

Elizabeth, then, is only the second Mormon I have ever knowingly had a conversation with.  In part, my lack of study with respect to Mormonism and the various other cults stems from the deep conviction, one vindicated by a fair bit of experience, that the presuppositional approach to defending and commending the Faith relativizes the need to memorize all the nitty-gritty details of the cults’ doctrines and a battery of canned arguments and responses.  Rather, when one commits to reasoning and arguing presuppositionally, one needs only to known the depths of his own Faith, once for all handed down to the saints, and how to reason out from it.  In nowise does this diminish our responsibility to becoming conversant with the plethora of perspectives in our society.  What it does do, however, is encourage one to more deeply study the only one that really matters, the biblical perspective, commonly called confessional Christianity.   

Elizabeth is a fun personality in her mid- to late-twenties.  She helps operate a quaint little Celtic shop in Lexington, VA, called Celtic Tides.  We love going to Lexington, which is just under an hour away.  When we do, we are sure to make a stop at the Tides.  This day, we were picking up a belated Christmas gift Fanny had stealthily order me right under my nose; it was a great surprise.  I had spoken to Elizabeth on the phone earlier in the week, confirming that the ring was in and when we might be able to pick it up.  I also picked up several clues in that conversation that lead me to suspect that she was a Mormon, not least that she attended Southern Virginia College in Buena Vista, a small village between our place and Lexington. 

Last month I posted a bit on the practical doctrine of the Trinity, which included applications by Kevin DeYoung and Cornelius Van Til. These quotes were making the apologetical application of the doctrine of the Trinity to the perennial philosophical conundrum of the one-and-the many or unity and diversity.  As I cited Van Til there, saying,      

In the ontological trinity there is complete harmony between an equally ultimate one and many.  The persons of the trinity are mutually exhaustive of one another and of God’s nature.  It is the absolute equality in point of ultimacy that requires all the emphasis we can give it.  Involved in this absolute equality is complete interdependence; God is our concrete universal (Common Grace & the Gospel, 8).

So, granting that we were in a shop that had the Triquetra (the so-called Celtic knot or Trinity symbol) on virtually everything, I couldn’t think of a better point of departure for a conversation with Elizabeth, as she has this symbolic testimony to the living true God daily before her. 

However, the conversation began in a different direction.  After asking her if she was indeed a Mormon, Elizabeth happily affirmed that she was and expressed her passion for her chosen religion.  I then replied that, as for me and my house, we were confessional Christians, who passionately owned the early Creeds (I mentioned to her the Apostles' and Nicene) and the historic confessions of the Reformation.  This fairly started our conversation with a judicial full disclosure of our precommitments.  Allowing her to continue talking, she demonstrated that she had a solid understanding of her own position and the crux issues at stake in the clash between your respective worldviews. 

Something that she was quick to point out was that Mormonism holds to human divinization, what they call the doctrine of exaltation, whereby good Mormons will eventually become Gods.  (This is not to be confused with the doctrine of theosis, taught by the Patristics and today emphasized in the Orthodox tradition.)  After all, for Mormons, God the Father was once a mere fallen mortal, who was good enough to become a God and inherit our universe.     

I told Elizabeth that that sounded like a wonderful teaching!  We would all love to think of ourselves as Gods, and that the prospect of such, as held out by Mormonism, certainly allures the human consciousness.  In fact, I continued, if left to ourselves that is exactly how struggle to live life out in our fallenness.  Shifting tone, I told her that I had read of something that sounded strikingly similar to her doctrine of exaltation.  I then quoted Genesis 3:4—5 for her.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I explained the context to Elizabeth, wherein Adam and Eve were confronted with two hypotheses, one God’s and one Satan’s.  With respect to the tree, God's word on the matter was ‘Eat, die the death,’ whereas Satan contradicted God’s word of judgment and suggested that God has base motives for withholding the fruit; Satan said, ‘Eat, become gods.’  Experience and experiment, thought our first parents (and all their kids since!), would be the only means of knowing which word on the matter was true.  They ate, and...the rest is history.  Genesis 5 leaves no ambiguity as to which interpretation of the tree was correct.  The genealogical record of the antediluvian patriarchs has the refrain “and he died” no less than eight times!  Moses wanted to leave no doubt for the reader that the wages of sin was death.  Even now-fallen Eve recognized immediately, sensing her alienation and shame, that with the words of the serpent, ye shall be as gods, were a lie: “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” (Gen. 3:13; cf. 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14).  The fact is, humanity’s universal experience provides absolute, empirical evidence of the truth of God’s word on the matter—every moment of every day!  He most certainly has not left himself, not least his justice and righteous judgment, without witness.    

Her expression revealed that Elizabeth was not quite prepared for the topic to lead to these conclusions.  She mustered new resolve, and suggested that the serpent’s hypothesis was nevertheless true, even if God’s prediction of the consequences of disobedience were wrought out.  I explained to her that such a view of the text was certainly at odds with Jesus and his Apostles, and thereby could not be correct. 

For instance, I told her, when Jesus said, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” in John 8:44, he had Genesis 3 in mind.  Similarly, when St. John spoke of the devil, he added that he “sinneth from the beginning,” which again points us back to the fall in Genesis 3.  Therefore, those, such as the LDS’s prophet Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism, perpetuate Satan’s suggestion as the truth of the matter, they are therefore from the “seed of the serpent” (Gen. 3:15), and are “full of all subtilty and all mischief,” “enemies of all righteousness,” and never “cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord” (Acts 13:10; cf. 1 Jn. 3:8ff).  In short, they are of their father the devil, as Jesus put it (Jn. 8:44).  So, I concluded with Elizabeth that what she was presenting as a distinctive doctrine of Mormonism rested on a satanic lie, the one that introduced all subsequent sin and misery into our originally-good world.  Jesus, as revealed in the Scriptures, came to destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8); and I prayed and continue to pray that that is precisely what he was and is doing in the heart of Elizabeth. 

I confirmed that she followed me and understood what I had said.  She said she did, and that she could see my point.  Still, her expression indicated that, although she followed the reasoning, she was suppressing the truth of the matter in unrighteousness, clinging to her deeper commitment to the lies of Mormonism.

Nevertheless, she still seemed to be rather engaged in the conversation, as Fanny and Israel browsed the goods.  Therefore, I took this to be a green light to springboard of the ambiance of Triquetra round about us, and set the holy doctrine of the Trinity against Mormonism’s paganistic polytheism (henotheism to be precise).  But the second part of the conversation will have to wait until tomorrow.  Until then be blessed in our thrice holy God!

Acts: The Point of Persecution

First, the persecution of the early church was integral to the community’s identification with her Lord.  Stephen’s martyrdom is of particular interest in this connection, but there are a number of antecedents in the church’s experience well before this.  Luke is intentional in his efforts to cause his reader to draw the connection between Christ and his people, the church. 

For instance, all things seem to be going quite well for the fledgling church, until Peter and John’s first arrest and hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:1—22).  The council’s primary question for the apostles was hardly original: “By what power or by what name did you do this?” (v 7).  These professional persecutors had challenged Jesus with the same question just weeks earlier (Lk 20:2).  In Jn 15:20, Jesus said to the apostles that if he, the Master, would be persecuted, they, the servants, should expect no less—persecution would come.    

As an emphatic case-in-point, illustrating the solidarity between Jesus and his church’s experience, take the martyrdom of Stephen.  Stephen’s case before the council is in part the fulfillment of Jesus’ words in Lk 21:15, “I will give you…wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.”  Then in what lead to Stephen’s trial, his dispute with the synagogue of the Freedmen (Acts 6:8—9), we read that, regarding Stephen’s apologetic, “they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (v 10).  In Jesus’ trial, there were many “false witnesses: (Matt 26:59—60), so also in Stephen’s (Acts 6:13).  The climax of both Jesus’ and Stephen’s defense has them pronouncing Jesus as Messiah through an admixture of the Danielic ‘Son of Man’ and Ps 110:1 (see Lk 22:69 and Acts 7:56 respectively).  In his dying breath, Jesus prays for the Father to receive his spirit (Lk 23:46).  Stephen, in his dying breath, prays, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Act 7:59).  Finally, both pray for their enemies/murderers (Lk 23:34; Acts 7:60). 

Therefore, Christian persecution is explicable only in terms of Christ’s persecution.  Luke struggles to make this point clear.  Nothing makes this clearer than Jesus’ first confrontation with Saul the persecutor in Acts 9.  “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?...I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (vv 4, 5).  However, it was the “disciples of the Lord” that Paul was persecuting (v 1).  This demonstrates the covenantal identification between the Lord Jesus and his church, which gives all Christian persecution its ultimate significance. 

 Secondly, this persecution served in a disciplinary capacity.  As we read the narrative of Acts, we are anticipating the radical movement and expansion set forth in the commissioning statement of Jesus in 1:8, “Jerusalemàends of the earth.”  As it is, however, all the way to chapter 7 it appears that the disciples are quite at ease in Zion.  It is not until 7:58 that anyone ventures beyond the walls of Jerusalem, and in this case it is Stephen being “cast out of the city” to be stoned!  This remark, I believe, serves as a prolepsis, a brief remark that looks forward to further development; and in this case, the development of the programmatic statement of 1:8.  Consider how chapter 8 begins: “And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem…” (v 1a).  And what was the result of this great persecution against the Jerusalem church?  It was the outworking of Jesus commission to the church in Jerusalem.  “And they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria…Now all those that were scattered went about preaching the word” (vv 1b, 4). 

Persecution was, therefore, a means of the Lord for accomplishing his church’s mission to the world.  In part, the book of Acts is an explanation and defense of the separation of the church from Judaism, and that the church, not Judaism, is the rightful heir to the OT religion.  This should not surprise us, since in Lk 21:13, Jesus tells the apostles that just such persecution “will be your opportunity to bear witness” (cf. Acts 1:8).  Additionally, it is Paul’s persecution at the hands of the Jews that drives the story of Acts, finally to Rome, “the end of the earth.”