simul justus et peccatore

Philemon - Outline

2010-06-08T11:55:00.000-04:00

I finished working trough the letter to Philemon a couple months ago and I thought I'd post the outline I used to teach. Perhaps someone will find it useful. Philemon Outline

1. Introduction

a. Prison epistle – written in Rome

i. Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians

b. Date: around 60, with Ephesians. Mark also had written around 60

c. Political environment

i. Jewish persecution of Church (33-64)

ii. Nero’s reign (54-68)

1. Eusebius attributed Paul’s death to Nero (also Peter)

2. The letter’s structure

a. Greeting/addressed recipients

b. Thanksgiving

c. Addressing issue

d. Closing

3. Paul introduced himself and addressed the letter (vv. 1-2)

a. Remember to think of this as a personal letter between friends and brothers in Christ.

b. Paul & Timothy

i. Dictated to Timothy; could have delivered it

ii. From both of them in concert

c. To Philemon & Apphia & Archippus

i. Apphia is Philemon’s wife (Calvin)

ii. Fellow soldier—a title belonging particularly to ministers (Col. 4:17, another mention) – son?

iii. Church in Philemon’s house

4. A typical greeting

Rom.

1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; 2 Thess. 1:2 (God THE Father); Phil. 1:3

i. “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

ii. Calvin actually preferred the translation: “joy and consolation”

5. Paul expressed thanks

a. Paul’s prayer is that their faith will produce forgiveness (v. 6) “sharing” = fellowship

b. Philemon’s household exhibited love toward neighbors and faith in Jesus Christ (v.7)

c. Philemon’s household “refreshed” the hearts of the saints (v. 7)

i. Christ’s benefits have been faithfully preached to them

1. This, in turn, gave Paul joy and comfort; encouraged to see disciples generated

6. All of the intro, greeting and expression of thanks preface Paul’s command

7. Vv. 8-16

a. Context

i. Paul in Roman prison for the gospel/Prisoner of Christ and an old man.

ii. Onesimus is Paul’s son in the faith.

iii. Onesimus was Philemon’s slave who ran away/useful to Paul after being saved.

1. “Onesimus” means profitable.

iv. Paul asked Philemon to receive Onesimus.

b. Vv. 8-9 Paul says he’s able to command but he “appeals” instead.

i. Why does Paul have such authority?

1. Cringe at Paul’s right to command.

a. Paul pointed out authority he wouldn’t exercise—results:

i. Extended mercy

ii. maintained seriousness of obedience

2. In individualistic democracy, no context for Kings and commands.

ii. What is it that is required?

1. v. 17 “…receive him as you would receive me.”

iii. Why wouldn’t he just command Philemon to take Onesimus back?

1. “…for love’s sake…” Calvin says, “Philemon’s love”.

2. The tone of the letter is gentle tactfulness.

c. Vv. 10-14

i. Paul deeply appreciated Onesimus’ company/service.

ii. Onesimus is sent back with Paul’s very heart.

iii. Desire for Onesimus to stay = declaration of his usefulness.

d. Vv. 15-16

1. Paul expected freedom—v. 22

2. v. 15 “…have him back forever.”

ii. v. 15 Paul appealed to the sovereign work of God through the sinful acts of men.

1. Contending for Onesimus, Paul said, “…parted from you…” instead of “ran away”.

iii. Added variable in the master/slave relationship—Onesimus is Philemon’s brother eternally.

1. “…especially to me…” or, immensely, intensely, exceedingly. “Elative sense”.

2. “…both in the flesh and in the Lord.”—as regards Onesimus’ relationship to Philemon

a. “…in the flesh…”

i. Master: slave = father: son

ii. Fellow Colossian

iii. In the affairs of this world in contrast to the affairs of the eternal world

b. “…in the Lord.” is obviously as a fellow member of Christ’s body.

e. Vv. 17-20

i. v. 17 Here is the request – receive him as you would receive your partner in Christ.

1. “koinonos”—sharer in the koinonia.

ii. v. 18 Illustrates atonement.

1. Forgiveness doesn’t mean that debt isn’t paid.

a. A company “forgives your debt”—they pay the price themselves.

b. You forgive your neighbor—you absorb that debt.

i. “You do not make the other person pay the debt of emotional pain, but you pay it down yourself. When someone wrongs you it creates an emotional debt of pain, it’s a debt that you feel.”—Tim Keller

c. Christ is punished and God forgives us —our debts are actually paid.

i. Jesus absorbed our debt. Asked His Father to forgive—I will pay for it (Luke 23:34).

iii. v. 19 Paul asked Philemon to absorb Onesimus’ debt or charge it to Paul’s account.

a. Philemon shouldn’t charge it to Paul—Paul appeals to Philemon’s debt (Matt. 18:21-35).

iv. v. 20 Paul answers the objection Philemon might have after reading v. 19.

1. Paul desires benefit from Philemon, “…in the Lord.”

a. Philemon would refresh Paul’s heart by receiving Onesimus.

i. Receiving in v. 17 is—Philemon absorbing any debt incurred by Onesimus.

f. Vv. 21-25

i. v. 21 Paul began verse 8 with an appeal to obedience and concludes with confidence.

ii. v. Paul is confident that he would return to Colossae.

iii. vv. 23-24 List of companions.

1. Epaphras—fellow prisoner (Col. 1:17).

2. Mark—the cousin of Barnabus (Col. 4:10).

3. Aristarchus—(Col. 4:10); (Acts 20:4—a Thessalonian).

4. Demas—later forsook Paul (2 Tim. 4:10).

5. Luke—the doctor, the author of the Acts and a gospel account.

iv. v. 25 Benediction

g. Recap

i. A personal letter from Paul to Philemon and his household, but especially to Philemon.

ii. Onesimus was Philemon’s slave who fled to Roman

1. Saved under Paul’s ministry

2. Made useful again, to Philemon and for the first time to Paul.

iii. Paul appealed to Philemon’s love for the saints

1. Onesimus is now counted among saints, so “receive him as you would receive me.”

2. Paul is confident of Philemon’s forgiveness/mercy. Philemon experienced God’s mercy.

iv. Paul hoped to see Philemon again and sent greetings from his fellow workers.

h. Questions:

i. What would you say this letter is about? One or two words.

ii. How does it challenge us?

iii. Is there any “Good News” in it?

Return?

2010-06-08T11:50:00.000-04:00

Well it's been 2 months since I last posted...very very busy.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Concluding Remarks

2010-04-06T07:35:00.000-04:00

Concluding Remarks

So, as I conclude I will make a summary comparison of the atonement theologies of the three men in question. We can say that Anslem approached the theory of substitutionary atonement as expressed in Reformed and Evangelical circles today: satisfaction for sins, the necessity of Christ’s death for our life, etc. The Abelardian view maintained that by God’s grace we are made lovers of God so as to prove our fellowship with him. Often loosely interpreted in our day as the moral theory of the atonement, it far more emphasized the idea of God’s love being shown through Christ’s passion than an answer to His justice. And Thomas’ view was worked out in the difference between the imputation of and the infusion of Christ’s righteousness to the believer; Thomas saw the atonement as a provision of the grace God used to make a sinner righteous before He called him just. His theory, like Anselm’s, counted on God’s grace, but where Anselm saw this in terms of God’s grace extended in mercy by forgiving the guilty because He punished the Innocent, Thomas saw it in more of what we would now consider Roman Catholic terms, that in order for God to call someone just that person must actually be just, thus God makes them so by infusing Christ’s righteousness thereby transmuting their soul from wickedness to righteousness.

Thus in the final assessment, even though their lives were separated by no more than 200 years, neither Anselm of Canterbury, nor Peter Abelard, nor Thomas Aquinas shared the same view of the atonement. Some of their ideas overlapped but the three of them drew rather different conclusions and therefore have influenced the world of theology in different ways: Anselm: penal substitution, Abelard: moral influence, and Aquinas: Roman Catholic Sacramentalism.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: The Westminster Divines

2010-04-04T07:35:00.000-04:00

Theological Comparisons

The Westminster Divines

So to put forth what may be considered the present day expression of the Reformed view of the atonement, I shall employ the words of the Westminster Confession.

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.[i]

This is one basis for the present formulation of the atonement theory which is referred to as “penal substitution” or “substitutionary atonement”. It has been worked out in all its implications in various sources since then; to name a few reliable ones: Loraine Boettner, John Murray, J.I. Packer, Mark Dever, Leon Morris, Robert L. Reymond, and John Stott. This theory has obvious legal overtones and surmises that, being the due punishment for original and actual sins, Christ’s death was a substitute for our own which is henceforth applied by God’s gracious instrument—faith.

[i] Westminster Confession of Faith contributors, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Georgia: Great Commission Publications, 2006), 33.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Aquinas - 2

2010-04-02T07:35:00.007-04:00

Theological Comparisons

Aquinas

It must first be pointed out that Thomassaw the need to conciliate God’s justice, which was quite different than the termsAnselm employed in his theory. “This is Aquinas' major difference with Anselm.Rather than seeing the debt as one of honor, he sees the debt as a moralinjustice to be righted.”[i] Nowregarding Thomas on the act of atonement itself, he first, with Anslem saw thenecessity of Christ’s incarnation. “Now a mere man could not have satisfied forthe whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it was needfulfor Jesus Christ to be both God and man.”[ii] Secondly,that the death of Christ was perfectly satisfactory because of His infinitedeity and was necessary due to the highly offensive nature of our sin. “…a sincommitted against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divinemajesty, because the greater the person we offend, the more grievous theoffence. Hence for adequate satisfaction it was necessary that the act of theone satisfying should have an infinite efficacy, as being of God and man.”[iii]Thirdly, that Christ came into the world to blot out both original and actualsin. “It is certain that Christ came into this world not only to take away thesin which is handed on originally to posterity, but also in order to take awayall sins subsequently added to it…”[iv]Fourththat in some way in Thomas’ mind, Christ’s merit is extended to the wholechurch. Thomas pointed out the objections to the merit of Christ extending toothers by asserting that, just as Adam’s demerit is extended to the whole racephysically, Christ’s merit is extended to the members of His body, the church,because He is its head. Thomas responded to those objections in these variedways. “But Adam’s demerits reached to the condemnation of others. Much more,therefore does the merit of Christ reach others.”[v] And hereis his logical progress from the representation of Adam to the representationof Christ, “As the sin of Adam reaches others only by carnal generation, so,too, the merit of Christ reaches others only by spiritual regeneration, whichtakes place in baptism; wherein we are incorporated with Christ…and it is bygrace that it is granted to man to be regenerated in Christ. And thus man’ssalvation is from grace.”[vi] Now itis clear from this last statement that Thomas’ understanding of the sacramentsis in contrast to the Reformers, and that the division of the Calvinisticcategories of the church into “visible” and invisible” are likewise not yetpresent. Even further, it is clear that Thomas differed from Anselm in yetanother way.

Aquinasarticulated the formal beginning of the idea of a superabundance of merit,which became the basis for the Catholic concept of the Treasury of Merit…Aquinasalso articulated the ideas of salvation that are now standard within theCatholic church: that justifying grace is provided through the sacraments; thatthe condign merit of our actions is matched by Christ's merit from the Treasuryof Merit; and that sins can be classified as mortal and venial. For Aquinas,one is saved by drawing on Christ's merit, which is provided through the sacramentsof the church. Aquinas' view may sound like penal substitution, but he iscareful to say that he does not intend substitution to be taken in legal terms[vii]

Thus Thomas—I believe contrary to Gesner’sassertion, alluded to earlier—is now aligned with the current Roman Catholicunderstanding of the atonement, in all its parts and implications.

[i]New World Encyclopedia contributors. “Atonement (satisfaction view)”. New WorldEncyclopedia; 2008 Sep 4, 22:35 UTC [cited 17 Mar, 2010]. Online: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atonement_%28satisfaction_view%29?oldid=799847.

[ii]Thomas Aquinas, The Suma Theologica ofSaint Thomas Aquinas: vol. IIDaniel J. Sullivan, ed., (Chicago, London, Toronto:Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), 702.

[iii]Ibid. 704

[iv]Ibid. 706

[v]Ibid. 820

[vi]Ibid. 821

[vii]New World Encyclopedia contributors. “Atonement (satisfaction view)”. New WorldEncyclopedia; 2008 Sep 4, 22:35 UTC [cited 17 Mar, 2010]. Online: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atonement_%28satisfaction_view%29?oldid=799847.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Aquinas - 1

2010-03-31T07:35:00.000-04:00

Theological Comparisons

Aquinas

So much could be said of the good Doctor Angelicus, Saint Thomas Aquinas; short life though he lived, his copious collection of theological musings warranted a more Methuselan period of time. On the particular doctrine of the atonement, Thomas has been quoted by Roman Catholic and protestant scholars both, as having held to their position. One such extreme instance of this is an article in Table Talk magazine where Dr. John Gerstner claimed that Saint Thomas held to justification by grace, through faith alone; while others remain more cautious because of the dichotomy he made between congruent and condign merit: congruent being that merit that one has outside of the gracious work of Christ and condign being that merit graciously provided by God, yet still a merit that Thomas finds in the act of the justification of a sinner. Make no mistake, Thomas firmly believed that God’s grace was absolutely necessary and any good deed would ultimately be attributed to its infusion. Thomas proved this in his own words,

Now everlasting life is a good exceeding the proportion of created nature; since it exceeds its knowledge and desire, according to 1 Cor. 2:9: ‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man.’ And hence it is that no created nature is a sufficient principle of an act meritorious of eternal life, unless there is added a supernatural gift, which we call grace.[i]

But therein lays the true issue. Thomas proved this in his own words as he attempted to answer this question, May a man, by God’s grace, condignly merit eternal life? To that effect, “If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to John 4:14.”[ii]

The major difference in Thomas’ theory of atonement and that of Anselm’s is this idea of righteousness infused. To import our own categories into the discussion, the Reformers were careful to say that we are not made righteous at all (especially by the infusion of meritorious acts such as belief), but that we are instead declared righteous on account of Christ’s merit for us. This was in fact Anselm’s position; he claimed that Christ’s death—which was an act over and above what God demands of all His creatures, a life of perfect obedience—merited infinite righteousness which would be imparted, as an alien source, to the sinner God chose to benefit. Thomas’s opinion of the sinner made righteous before God, graciously being given the capacity to do that which God commanded, was what he referred to as the transmutation of the human soul. By virtue of the soul being caused to obey, the person becomes righteous before God, therefore God can (and is in fact obliged—insinuated by Thomas) really and actually call the person righteous because they indeed are righteous.

[i] Thomas Aquinas, “Suma Theologica,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library ST Ia.114.2. Cited 17 March 2010. Online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q114_A2.html

[ii] Thomas Aquinas, “Suma Theologica,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library ST Ia.114.3. Cited 17 March 2010. Online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q114_A3.html.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Mix up

2010-03-30T07:35:00.001-04:00

Sorry folks...got a couple of the posts miss-timed. Notice the section of Anselm divided in two; the earlier post was supposed to follow the one posted on 3/29.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Anselm - 1

2010-03-29T07:35:00.000-04:00

Theological Comparisons

Anselm

Anselm, being perhaps the first theologian in 800 years to say so, did not find propitious, this theory of atonement which had an exclusive emphasis on ransom, thus facilitating his proposition of another theory. Anselm’s pioneering ideas in general proved to have influenced a 1000 years of atonement theology since his death. 55 years ago one philosopher described Anselm in this way.

The theology of Anselm is so full of rational speculation that one of his historians has labeled it a “Christian rationalism,”[i] Its ambivalence is due to the fact that, expressing the inner life of faith that seeks understanding, it is both overflowing with a religious feeling which sometimes borders on mysticism and full of dialectical passion which translates faith into terms of rational necessity. Hence its twofold influence in the fields of theology and of philosophy.[ii]

Though this sounds somewhat critical, the influence can’t be denied. He went so far as to object to the contemporary trend of questioning the radical nature of the cross because of its abject violence—why would the God of the universe chose to show His love to His creatures in such a brutal way? Anselm was careful to point out that this God could only incarnate the way that He did and that incarnation could only lead to the end we observe through the narrative of the four Gospels. Anselm put to his readers this hypothetical objection to God’s death on a cross,

Therefore, if he was willing to save the human race only in the way you described when he could have done it by sheer will, to put it mildly, you really disparage his wisdom. For surely, if for no reason a man did by hard labor what he could have done with ease no one would regard him as wide. And you have no rational ground for saying that God showed in this way how much he loved us unless you can show that it was quite impossible for him to save man in some other way.[iii]

It’s not as though God was forced to restore the relationship of His creatures and creation to Himself after it had been broken by Adam’s sin, but when He chose to do so He chose to reconcile some of mankind to Himself by not imputing the consequence of Adam’s sin to them, thus forgiving them their debts and loving them instead. But it is not as though this sin and offense—one we know is infinite because it is an offense against an infinite God—no longer exists and God has simple shrugged it off the way we do when we are actually asked to forgive one another. On the contrary, the sins we have committed, the sin nature we have inherited from Adam must be dealt with even if it is not counted to our own debt. So Anselm postulated the representation of Christ as our sin bearer, converse to our representation in Adam as he sinned and stored up guilt for all his children to inherit. Christ on the other hand stored up positive merit for our inheritance which should be counted to us by the Father in place of our demerit.

[i] H. Bouchitte, Le rationalisme chretien de saint Anselme,—Anslem as “father of scholasticism”: M. Grabman, Geschichte der schol. Meth., I, (Paris, 1842), 58.

[ii] Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House, 1955), 139.

[iii] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, in A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, trans. and ed. by Eugene R. Fairweather, M.A., B.D., Th.D, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 107

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Abelard - 2

2010-03-26T07:35:00.000-04:00

Theological Comparisons

Abelard

His comment begins regarding Rom. 3:21 and Abelard was quick to separate the formal, covenantal Law from the natural transcendent law of God and he then went on to make a contrast between the age prior to Christ when that formal Law ruled, and his present age, ruled, as he said, by grace, the age in which Christ has been manifest through the teaching of the gospel. And when we read further we see that Abelard made an additional contrast between the Law (be it formal or natural, it is not clear from his comments here) and love for God. Whereas, I believe the more orthodox position is that love for God is the fulfillment of God’s formal Law, not only an aspect of God’s natural law. Here is that contrast, “A righteousness, I say, imparted to all the faithful in the higher part of their being—in the soul where alone love can exist—and not a matter of the display of outward works.”[i] And then there are those passages that seem to exonerate Abelard of a justification by anything other than faith and show a doctrine of atonement more like that of Anselm than of Niebuhr or Tillich. “‘In his blood.’ [citing Paul’s letter to the Romans] This means by his death; and since this propitiation is set forth and established by God, not for all but only for those who believe, he adds, ‘Through faith’[citing Paul’s letter to the Romans]; for this reconciliation affects them only who have believed it and hoped in it.”[ii] But then, as one might expect, there are the occasions of his leaning toward what we now call the “Moral Influence” theory,

By the faith which we hold concerning Christ love is increased in us by virtue of the conviction that God in Christ has united our human nature to himself and, by suffering in that same nature, has demonstrated to us that perfection of love…So we, through his grace are joined to him as closely as to our neighbor by an indissoluble bond of affection...[iii]

And this comment further on in Rom. 3:26, “In other words, to show forth his love to us, or convince us how much we ought to love him who ‘sparred not even his own son’ [citing Paul’s letter to the Romans] for us…That is to say that through this righteousness [the showing of God’s righteousness or justice as in v. 26]—which is love—we may gain remission of our sins”[iv]

The common view of Abelard in the last 100 years or so can be summed up in the words of Sam Storms, “In fairness to Abelard, it would be a mistake to conclude that he omitted all reference to the sacrifice of Christ as a payment for our sin. Yet, his emphasis is clearly on the subjective effects of that sacrifice rather than its objective relationship to the wrath of God.”[v] Abelard’s primary emphasis therefore being the equation of love and righteousness (being justified), I believe the Abelardian theory of the atonement is positively stated, by God’s grace we are made lovers of Him and those who love God are justified before Him. Or, in the final accounting we are justified by faith and our love for the Father; the Father gives us this capacity to love Him, by His grace, therefore we are saved by grace through our love of God. It must be noted that “love for God” in the sense that Abelard used in his commentary on Romans in particular, encompasses faith; so there is no justification without love for God, there is no love for God without faith.

[i] Ibid., 278

[ii]Ibid., 279

[iii] Ibid., 278

[iv] Ibid., 279

[v] Sam Storms, “11) Anselm” [cited 13 March, 2010]. Online: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/11-anselm/

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Abelard - 1

2010-03-24T07:35:00.001-04:00

Theological Comparisons

Abelard

Peter Abelard’s view of the atonement is quite less obvious from a simple reading of his writings on logic and on the interaction of the Christian with unbelievers as in Dialogue Between a Philosopher, a Jew and a Christian. One must make more interpretation and speculate on his doctrine than when engaging Anselm or Thomas on the same topic, although, in his commentary on Romans there are a couple of revealing statements. In large part, the scholars among those who do now or have in the past held to the “Moral Theory” or “Exemplary Theory” of the atonement generally attribute the theories infancy to Abelard. This theory and his reasons behind Christ’s death were somewhat in the face of Anselm’s; where Anselm would have claimed that Christ’s punishment on the cross was a necessity born out of our offence toward His honor, Abelard would have claimed that His death was a cosmic illustration of the sheer love God had for humanity and we are called by such love, to love others in such a way—first receiving the love of Christ through the presentation of it on the cross and therefore loving others likewise, thus justifying ourselves before a loving God. So it is not so much that we owe God holiness and cannot provide it so Christ did on our behalf, but that God is so loving that we must show that quality (certainly by God’s grace) so that we are rendered righteous and acceptable. An Abelardian formula might be this: God is love so we must love in order to be reconciled to Him. On the other hand, the Anselmian formula might be like this: God is honorable so we must have Christ’s holiness to be reconciled to Him because our sin dishonors Him. So the primary effect of the atonement was not to satisfy God’s wrath against ungodliness but rather, to provide the ultimate example whereby we might become holy ourselves and accepted by a holy God. In the final analysis Abelard, while not technically an advocate of the “Moral Theory” of the atonement (for to say such a thing is to engage in anachronism) does emphasis the reason for Christ’s death as being the love of God toward men nearly to the exclusion of the Anselmian necessity of Christ’s death for the purpose of appeasing the Father’s honor. Thus he is interpreted by those actual proponents of an exclusively moral influence view of the atonement and credited as the theological forbearer of their own novel ideas of Christ’s work. What I find most interesting is that Abelard, as he describes his understanding of the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice, he seems to expose a sort of semi-Augustinian view of salvation. Whether his view of man’s capacity to actually love God in some satisfactory sort of way as to cause his merit leads to his view of the atonement or vice-versa, I dare not say with any degree of certainty. But I will say that it is easy to observe the relationship and ask this question: having rejected the “Ransom Theory” as the atonement’s exclusive purpose, did Abelard adopt a semi-Augustinian anthropology and henceforth react with the proposition of another extreme theory whereby sinners are made righteous before God by the exhibition of their own love for Him. Like most theologians, Abelard betrayed himself and appeared to answer both “sic et non”; “yes” and “no”. Here is one instance of such an amalgamation of these two ideas: justification is by faith (not yet alone as so strongly put forth by Luther four centuries later) and justification is by love,

I said that by particular works of the written law, that is, by those formal precepts of which natural law knows nothing, no one is justified in God’s sight; but now, in this dispensation of grace, a righteousness [translated justice elsewhere] of God—something which God approves and by which we are justified in God’s sight, namely love—has been manifested, through the teaching of the gospel, of course, apart from the law with its external and particular requirements. Still, this is a ‘righteousness witnessed by the law and the prophets,’ who also enjoin it. Upon what righteousness depends he [Paul] adds immediately by saying, ‘The justice of God’ [Rom. 3:22]. He means the faith of Christ which we hold concerning him—either by believing him or by believing in him. And when he [Paul] continued, ‘Them that believe,’ he did not specify anyone in particular, that it might impartially extended over all.”[i]

[i] Peter Abelard, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, trans. and ed. by Eugene R. Fairweather, M.A., B.D., Th.D, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 278.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Anselm - 2

2010-03-22T07:35:00.001-04:00

Theological Comparisons

Anselm

In his formulation of God’s purpose in the atonement, Anselm used an idea that nearly every Medieval European could have understood; His ideas were illustrated by the cultural practices in which he found himself imbedded. In his attempt to rationally explain the incarnation of God, Cur Deus Homo, Anselm found himself describing what the atonement meant and why God did it the way that He did. He spoke of our offence against God as being akin to the offence against a nobleman—and in the feudal structure to which they were so very accustomed, they knew all too well that the offence against one of nobility would result in the harshest kind of punishment and required the most laborious type of compensation. It was in this context that Anselm developed his understanding of the atoning work of Christ—or at least attempted to illustrate it. It should be noted that Anselm received some critique for his use of feudal terms to illustrate the glorious atonement of Christ. Some were scandalized that he would speak of God’s honor rather than His holiness, but in the view of this author, the idea presents the same result, especially for us looking back. We see Anselm’s rendering in contrast to others of his day and that being the case, we should easily stomach his use of feudal nomenclature to describe the atonement differently than the “Ransom Theory” before him.

To add nuance to this idea of God’s honor being offended as a vassal might offend his king, listen to Anselm’s own words, “B. What is the debt which we owe God? A. Every inclination of the rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God…One who does not render this honor to God take away from God what belongs to him, and dishonors God, and to do this is sin.”[i] Put positively Anselm’s theory is this, that the offence of man against God was so heinous and God’s holiness is so contrary to it that, the penalty for the offence had to be reconciled, and that reconciliation had therefore to be made by God Himself, hence His own death on a cross. One primary element of Anselm’s theory was that all persons, all humans, Christ included, owed God perfect obedience. Obviously Christ is the only One who will ever fill that demand, but Anselm’s point was that God required something over and above that He required, that Christ would die to fulfill the obligation for the forgiveness of the human race. And Christ would be rewarded with the salvation of His bride. Some extrapolated version of this formula is the current atonement theory that Reformed community and a majority of Evangelicalism regards as orthodox. We call it “penal substitution”, “substitutionary atonement”, or the “Satisfaction Theory”.

[i] Ibid. (119)

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Preface

2010-03-20T07:35:00.001-04:00

Now we willbegin to consider the varied renderings of atonement theology as represented bythese three monumental figures. In the years prior to Anselm, the prevailingview of the atonement was called the “Ransom Theory”. Perhaps this idea was inpart a hold-over from the dualistic tendencies of the Gnostics or Manicheans,it presents the ultimate goal of the atonement as being one where God was onmission to rescue or ransom sinnersfrom their owner and master, the devil. So, after Adam’s sin his posterity wasplunged into the servant-hood of God’s antithesis, Satan. And God, loving thoseHe had predetermined to save, paid the penalty those poor sinners owed thedevil so to ransom them out of their bondage to him and free them to theservice of the King Jesus.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Introduction

2010-03-19T12:35:00.003-04:00

When comparing three ofthe most prominent theologians of the Medieval Scholastic period: Anselm, PeterAbelard and St. Thomas Aquinas, one must note their relative places in time.Thus I will rightly begin with Anselm, born in the Italian village of Aosta, who lived from1033 to 1109. His memory enjoys the titles, “The Tongue of Augustine” and “TheSecond Augustine” because of his self conscious effort to appropriate thatgreat man’s theology, and as we shall hopefully see—if one can imagine it—evenemulate certain aspects of it. And rightly so, for whom else in the 1000 years priorto Anselm was a theological mind worthy of such flattery? Would anyone dare todisagree that before Anselm, Augustine was the name that sticks out among thosetheologians whose words are necessary to consult. It is true, many great menand women lived in those so called, “Dark Ages” between these two men: Gregorythe Great in the 6^th century and Scotus Erigena in the 9^thare but two examples. But the scope of this paper lies within the 2^ndmillennia.

Like Augustine before him wasposthumously referred to as the “Father of Medieval Theology”, Anselm turnedout to be considered the father of the time following his life; in hindsight,he is considered the “Father of Medieval Scholasticism”. I make theseobservations, as I will likewise do with Peter Abelard and Saint ThomasAquinas, in order to highlight the importance of these men in the progress oftheological thoughts and philosophical meanderings that take us on a journeyfrom the Ransom Theory of the atonement to the various theories adopted in theScholastic Period.

Peter Abelard lived from1079 to 1142; being born in a village in Francecalled Le Pallet, lived most of his life in France. Abelard’s most notablehistorical moment may actually have had nothing to do with his work on thetheory of universals called, conceptualism, or his ideas on theatonement, or his being condemned as a heretic, but his forbidden romance withhis most beautiful and intellectually deserving student Heloise. Their love forone another has been burned in the annals of time by pen and brushstroke alike.

Where Anselm is lauded bythe Church as a hero, Abelard was condemned as a heretic under the judgment ofBernard of Clairvaux only one year before his death in 1142, having aged 63years). Though he stood against the Nominalists with Thomas on the issues ofuniversals, his heterodox views along with his extracurricular interests causehis memory to thus be rewarded by a strange mix of both scathing remarks andadmiration.

Lastly, one ofthe 33 esteemed “Doctors of the Church”, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the AngelicDoctor, “…was born in 1225, in the family castle at Roccasecca. Forty-nineyears later on March 7, 1274, he died at Fossanova, perhaps 20 kilometersdistant from his birthplace. Between those two he had lived in Naples,Cologne, Paris, Rome, Orvieto, Viterbo, Parisagain, and finally Naples.”[i] Thomasis considered by many to be the foremost Catholic Theologian, havingcontributed to the doctrinal definitions now extolled by Roman Catholics andalso having shaped the pagan philosophy of the late Medieval Period and Westernthought thereafter. Like Anselm and Abelard—and their intellectual ancestorOrigin—he too was largely concerned with the marriage of faith and knowledge.Though the three of them would have disagreed on the vows and terms of thismarriage, the thought of divorcing the two disciplines wasn’t even marginal. Thomas’contribution to the world of philosophy has been far reaching, having philosopherseven as recent as Etienne Gilson referring to themselves as “Thomists”; acategory bearing the name of its pioneer, Thomas Aquinas.

[i]Ralph M. McInerny, Aquinas (BlackwellPublishing Ltd: Oxford,2004), 3.

New Series - Theories of Christ's Atonement

2010-03-19T10:35:00.005-04:00

Today, after a long respite, I will begin a new series of posts that will be generated out of a paper I just completed. The topic is the doctrine of Christ's atonement and its formulation through the Medieval Scholastic Period (1000-1500). This series will deal with three theologian/philosophers from that period: Anselm the Bishop of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Exposition on Joel -43 - Summary

2010-03-04T07:35:00.000-05:00

1. Introduction—1:1

2. Warning—1:2-1:20

a. Locust Image/Comparison to the Past—1:3-4

b. Description of impending judgment—1:5-18

i. Call for drunkards to mourn—1:5

ii. Call for priests to mourn—1:8:9,13,14

iii. Call for farmers to mourn—1:10-12

c. Joel’s Prayer—1:19-20

3. Judgment—2:1-11

a. Description of invader

4. Call to Repentance—2:12-17

a. Description of Repentance

5. Promise of Restorations & Vindications—2:18-3:21

a. Temporal restoration—2:18-27

b. Eternal Restoration & Vindication—2:28-3:21

i. DotL—The Come & The Coming Kingdom

1. pouring out of the Holy Spirit—2:28-32

2. justice and mercy—destruction/deliverance—3:1-17

3. eternal inheritance—3:18-21

Exposition on Joel -42 - 3:9-21

2010-02-25T00:35:00.000-05:00

1. Vv. 9-16—Images of war – for everyone

a. Vv. 9-12—Joel foretold of a time when God would provoke the nations of His enemies to war.

i. V. 9—all people great in statue and small were warned to prepare.

1. The enemies of God need all the help they can get.

ii. V. 10—time for harvesting grain & grape would be replaced by time for God to harvest enemies.

1. God’s enemies were being called to fight but it has they who would be harvested.

2. 10c—even the weak must fight, there is no longer a choice.

iii. V. 11a—the nations are called to gather quickly.

iv. V. 11b—A shift in the proclamation.

1. Joel prayed that God would call His army (mighty men) to battle these Gentile armies.

v. V. 12—God stirred the nations to judgment.

1. 12a—Joel invited the nations to battle, almost like a taunt.

2. 12b—the armies are called to the Valley called, “The Lord has Judged”.

3. 12c—God’s justice is proclaimed. He declared intentions to judge the nations by this war.

b. V. 13—Joel shifted his voice to utter God’s call to His people for their participation.

i. God called the people to do battle with the nations, ensuring their destruction.

1. God’s people are to finally judge even those God used to judge them.

2. Like Rev. 14:18 Joel used agricultural bounty to describe fullness of time of judgment.

c. V. 14—Battle in the Valley of Jehoshaphat is compared to the DotL.

i. Many people are there in this valley of “judicial declaration”.

d. V. 15—Familiar imagery for the darkness of destruction/vindication.

i. Apocalyptic language doesn’t have to be interpreted literally to be taken seriously (2:10, 30).

ii. Hebraism describing darkness of a day—the DotL which may in fact be more than 1 – 24 day.

iii. Image represents the natural order turned on its head.

1. Think of the recreation or the resurrection of the Heavens and the Earth.

2. There must be death for there to be resurrection.

e. V. 16—this is a transition verse. The Lord is a Judge and Advocate.

i. 16a—the Lion of Judah devours His prey. This is a statement of His power over His enemies.

ii. 16b—the Lion of Judah delivers His people (Ps. 142:5; Jer. 16:19).

2. V. 17-21—Images of Peace – for Judah/Jerusalem

a. 17a—Section book ended by declaration of God being the Lord of His people.

i. Lion’s actions demonstrate great power of deliverance/affiliation with Holy Place—Zion.

b. 17b—Jerusalem (place & people) are Holy by virtue of their association with the Lord.

i. Never invaded again—complete reversal of curse of invasion/exile (2:27—thesis of Joel).

c. V. 18-19—Description of Kingdom consummation

i. 18—this is the final reversal of the covenantal curses—consummated at “that day” of eternity.

1. 18a—wine, milk, honey, & produce were all images of Heaven that Jews could understand.

2. 18b—the Valley of Shittim (surrounding Jordan from Sea of Galilee to Dead Sea)

a. Dry and barren place where only Acacia trees grow, will one day flourish with greenery.

b. The fountain that irrigates the inhabited eternal Land comes from a place and a people, both of which are used as instruments of blessing through dominion.

ii. 19—the final destruction of God’s enemies is part of the final deliverance of His people.

1. Punished for their treatment of God’s people is like the punishment they inflicted.

d. Vv. 20-21—Summary of the effects of the DotL

i. 20—Promise of eternal inhabitation reverses the curse of exile.

1. Some say this is only the redeemed Jews inhabiting an eternal/recreated physical land.

a. Land is recreated but Judah/Jerusalem is an image of the eternal Land for all God’s elect.

ii. 21—Promise of final vindication

1. In the midst of the terrorization of His people, God encouraged remnant by this promise.

2. The Promise of God’s eternal presence is the bookend of the section of verses—17-21.

Exposition on Joel -41 - 2:28-3:8

2010-02-22T16:28:00.003-05:00

1. Overview 2:28-3:8

a. Joel described the New Covenant age using 2 primary elements:

i. Out pouring of the Spirit.

1. Compressed its beginning (Spirit pouring out) with its end (prophesy, dreams, & visions).

ii. The coming DotL.

1. Described the restoration/vindication/deliverance of God’s people.

2. Described the retribution/destruction of their enemies.

2. 2:28-29—The Spirit in the NT

a. Joel continues in his prophetic perfect verb tense.

i. Indication of timing: “afterward”. After the restoration of the physical remnant to Jerusalem.

b. Prophesy of the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 2)

i. Spirit in OC/NC

1. No lack of controversy over this difference. Not as much difference as some perceive.

a. Spirit always illuminates and regenerates—OC & NC

2. Localization of the Spirit – OC

a. Spirit filled the Community as a whole

3. Democratization of the Spirit – NC

a. Spirit fills every individual in the Community now—same Community.

b. This is the primary function of Joel’s mention of the Spirit—poured out on all flesh.

c. Didn’t adopt universalism but the expansion of Kingdom to all tribes & tongues.

ii. Evidences of the differences

1. Great Commission

2. Democratization within the Kingdom

a. Signs

i. Prophesy

ii. Dreams

iii. Visions

b. Scope

i. Spirit’s inhabitation is no longer “officially oriented”. (Priesthood of believer).

ii. Trans-class inhabitation.

3. 2:30-32—Prediction of the NC era—the beginning to the end is compressed.

a. Signs of the end of the age.

i. Wonders in the heavens & on Earth.

ii. Blood, fire, & columns of smoke.

b. Salvation is in Zion; salvation is in Jerusalem.

i. Images of the Eternal City—Heaven.

4. 3:1-4—The DotL

a. Fortune is found in Judah & Jerusalem.

i. Indication of timing: “in those days…” In or associated with the NC era (described in 2:28-32).

ii. When does this restoration take place? Only a few options:

1. Physical restoration of remnant in 516.

2. Physical restoration in some future era (Rom. 11:24-25).

3. Prophetic account of the final DotL

a. Final deliverance for believers throughout all ages.

b. Final Judgment for unbelievers.

b. Judgment is found in the nations gathered in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (see 3:12 also).

i. 2:20—God judged Babylonian army specifically for invading (historical import).

ii. 3:2-3—God judged all the nations for terrorizing His people/Land (eschatological import).

iii. Reasons for the destruction of the nations.

1. Took nation into exile.

2. Divided up the Land.

3. Traded people as slaves and prostitutes.

iv. God forsakes Tyre and Sidon (coastal cities in Lebanon— >100 miles north of Jerusalem).

1. These two cities represented the enemies of God’s Kingdom.

a. Calvin notes that the “Greeks” in v. 5 are “people beyond the [Mediterranean] sea”.

b. Similar prophesy against Tyre in the OT—Is. 23, Jer. 27; 47, Zech. 9

c. NT—Matt. 21:11, Luke 10:13.

2. Relationship described in terms of debt and payment.

3. God reverses the curse He sent on

Judah

and hands it to the destroying nation.

a. God would punish the punisher by giving them to the Judeans.

b. God would exile the very nation He used to judge Israel to a distant land—Sabeans: (Job 1—murdered his children, Is. 45—given to Judah as retribution, Men of Sheba—1 Kings 10:1-13; Jer. 6:20.)

Exposition on Joel -41 - Chap 3

2010-02-18T07:35:00.001-05:00

Because of circumstances altering my study habits I will not be providing a manuscript for the rest of my comments on Joel. Instead, I will likely post the outlines for the passages as I would teach them. I don't know if that would be helpful to anyone, but I pray that it will.

Exposition on Joel -40- 2:26-27

2010-02-17T07:35:00.001-05:00

After all that had happened, Joel affirmed that the Lord had dealt wondrously with them. This adverb doesn’t carry the connotation of pleasance and delightful, but more of the sort of description of awe striking. The Lord dealt with the people in such a way as to drop their jaws in wonder. As though he says that the people, when they look back on all that had happened in their recent history, they would say to one another, “I can’t believe all this that has happened to us and our fathers. So, the Lord’s hand was in this all the time; how could we have been so blind to His work?”And so there you have it, even after their disobedience, the Lord had pity on them because He commanded them to repent and He gave that gift to them. He invested in the people the capacity to see their sin and plea for God’s mercy. And so He did have mercy on them and He kept His promise to Abraham and He would maintain the representation of His Kingdom on Earth until He brought forth David’s Great Son, Christ. That Anointed One who would suffer as a Lamb in the fulfillment of all the Law and triumph as the Lion over sin, temptation, and the Devil. As he says in v. 27, they will never see shame, for Christ (just as with all believers) bore that shame in their place. And thereafter, He would expand His Kingdom to all tribes, tongues and nations, filling the earth with the gospel until His return in glory whereby He will finally rid His universe of sin and death forever through the intrusion of His Kingdom. So we pray, Maranatha! Come quickly Lord Jesus!

Exposition on Joel -39- 2:20-25

2010-02-15T07:35:00.003-05:00

The beasts of the field are told no longer to fear, why? Because God has returned to them the green pastures and the fruit of the fig and the vine are to produce plenty. So if the beasts are provided for then how much more diligently will God provide for the people? This is a reversal of the curse we observed back in 1:17-19. Not only the beasts, but the Children of Zion are to be glad and rejoice. That Holy Mountain to which Joel referred in v. 1, is here used to identify the true, spiritual remnant of God, for they were not to fear but those wicked among them still, even then had no cause to rejoice. But this is to the remnant, the promises being fulfilled to that group who God would lead back into the Land. And their rejoicing too is anchored to the hope of the return of their earthly things. How can we describe Heaven and God’s eternal blessing except in terms we understand…”Heaven is like the abundant rain and fruitful harvest. The Kingdom of God is like grain and wine and oil overflowing.”? And thus the Land was a picture of the New Heavens and New Earth that are to come, and the Children of Zion were an illustration of the redeemed community that will one day worship at the very throne of God in that restored Realm. In the judgment of God the people experienced the curse of drought and famine, invasion and exile. Here Joel described the reversal of those curses from 1:4,7,9,10 and 12. And in verse 25 we see again this image of an army of locusts, God’s army of locusts who had ravaged the land for years. So God is essentially saying that He will move this army, which in reality is the army of Babylon, out of the Land so He can restore His remnant there—He would restore to them all the 70 years of harvest they had missed from the Land He had given them—that is true bounty, providing true temporal satisfaction. And like that bounty and satisfaction, the remnant of all the elect people of God, all those who would ever believe, from Adam to the last, will receive over-abounding Spiritual and physical satisfaction in the bounty of All Mighty God for eternity when His ushers in that New Land, that “Platonic Land” if you will, the New Jerusalem, the New heavens and the New Earth.

Exposition on Joel -38- 2:20 - The Great Northerner versus The Great God

2010-02-12T07:35:00.001-05:00

Joel is lead in verses 20-21 to describe this northern invader and its destruction. Note here that armies who invaded Palestine typically did it from the North. This designation of Northern Army does not necessarily indicate that they are a nation situated geographically in a northern direction in relation to Palestine. The strategically shrewd army would avoid the desert to Israel’s east and the Mediterranean Sea to their west by descending from the north, thus their designation as Northern. I believe that loads of confusing conclusions about end times might be cleared up if this fact was examined. So speculation of a premillennial sort that has been promulgated over the past 150 years that Israel (“God’s People”) will one day toward the end, be attacked by Russia or some other nation that resides north of Israel can be challenged. Their foul stench and horrible smell rises with the wind. Imagine the stench of war here; the aroma of massive casualties. It is difficult from the various translations to decide if the pronoun “he” in v. 20 refers to the Northerner or to Yahweh. If God is in view here then it is a repetitious way Joel used to describe God’s great and marvelous act in removing the threat from the Land. It would sound like this, God will remove the army from His Land and the stench of their rotting corpses fills His nose, He has done great things. So do not fear O Land, rejoice for Yahweh has done great things! On the other hand, if “he” refers to the northerner then a contrast is being made. If that is true then, apparently this army did great things—God used them to punish His people for their disobedience. They were God’s army in the sense that He used their wicked desires for conquest and plunder to accomplish His righteous purposes in the punishment which lead eventual to the restoration of a remnant; He purged and purified Israel. Now the odor of their defeat will rise and waft in the noses of the remnant because what they meant for evil, God meant for good. I believe it is this last interpretation that is true, and most of the translations treat it this way. I love this contrast the prophet makes between what the northern army has done and what God has done. He had said that the foul smell of the army will rise because it has done great things, but in contrast to that, God truly has done great things and the Land can rejoice because the aroma of plenty and bounty and satisfaction in harvest rises on account of God leaving behind a blessing. That is a marvelous thing that we really cannot comprehend.

Exposition on Joel -37- 2:20 - Compatibilism

2010-02-10T07:35:00.001-05:00

In any case, we hear God describe the foul smell of these offenders. These few verses should raise a question in our minds about God’s intentions. In 2:11 God calls this invading army, “His army”. Yet here in v. 20-21 He is destroying that army for what they have done. The skeptic will look at this and ask, “what kind of god does this, who is he and how can you call him righteous?” So we must deal with questions such as these. How does the Christian who takes the Bible seriously answer such objections? Clearly God does work like this (Gen. 50:20, Is. 10:12-14; 45:7). And ultimately we must say that it is not our job to question Him (Dan. 4:34-35) but you can’t really begin this conversation with the skeptic like that. Instead, showing your willingness as a believer to approach weighty topics such as this in humility and by admitting that you don’t understand all the ways of the Creator of the Universe will help to soften the objection. But philosophically speaking, the conversation with naturally progress into a discussion of God’s intentions and man’s intentions coming to the same ends but beginning with different purposes. The fact that we creatures do not know the future as God does, allows us to both, be used as instruments by Him, and make our own decisions about what we want to do in a way that our experience is that we had not been coerced by God—this is the reformed doctrine of compatibilism.

Exposition on Joel -36- 2:19

2010-02-08T07:35:00.001-05:00

So now in verse 19 God removed this reproach. The implication here is that the people and the nation had experience reproach and now, because of His mercy, God decided to end it and restore the people to right relationship. This must refer to the restoration of the kingdom 70 some odd years after verse 17. Here Joel must be giving a predictive account of the hope that the people could hang their hats of joy on. The next verse does pose an interpretive challenge though. If the people were being punished from 1:4-2:11 by invasion, desolation and finally exile to Babylon, then the restoration spoken of in 2:19 is likely the return of the remnant to the Land around 517BC, that much seems to be clear. However, v. 20 indicates that God would remove the invader of 2:1-11 as a form of the blessing—how are we to interpret that? This is where the interpretation that favors this invader from 1:6 and the beginning of chapter 2 as the Assyrian army from 701 gains ground. Perhaps then this previous invader is the Assyrian army thus placing Joel at a slightly earlier date. How can God restore the remnant to the Land by removing the Northern invader from their own land if they are not even there? That actually may be the answer. It is quite possible that the Babylonians came in around 600 and destroyed the Land, terrorized the people, took them into exile, and the held the Land as their own for 70 years until God ran them out as described in v. 20. This explanation clears up any confusion that may be deduced from the army being run out of the land and the remnant being restored to the Land.And remember how we are related to this event, this is all a picture of the church and the final day of our restoration/redemption. We are the remnant currently exiled, and like Israel was brought back into the Land, we will one day be brought into the New Heaven’s and the New Earth.

Exposition on Joel -35- 2:18

2010-02-05T07:35:00.006-05:00

Immediately following Joel’s description of how the priests were to pray and petition the Lord to bless the people instead of curse them, we are told that God became jealous for His Land and that He pitied His people. It is interesting that there is no intermediate notation of their actual repentance that we have been led to believe would have been a prerequisite for such a blessing to occur. That would cause us to assume that the people did repent in fasting, weeping and mourning and that the priests did offer up this prayer prescribed by Joel. Now we are given a description of God’s answer to that repentance. Joel says that God had pity on the people—how is this pity expressed? For one thing, it is manifested in the blessing of the people and Land through the restoration of those things that had been previously removed by the curse for their covenantal disobedience. God told the people that He was going to send them grain, wine and oil—all items that were taken from those who idolized them in the first chapter. But here Joel describes the reversal of their circumstances in terms of sustenance. Here He turns fasting into feasting; not only where those crops returned, but they were returned in plenty. Furthermore, God answered their petition from verse 17. He decided to remove the reproach they had experienced from other nations. But this must mean that they had experienced reproach of some sort. In 2:17 the priests prayed that God would not allow the nation, God’s very people, to become a byword before the nations; they didn’t want God’s name to be tarnished in the world by the perception of other nations; they did not want the nations of the world to think that Yahweh had forsaken them.

Exposition on Joel -34- 2:15-17

2010-01-30T07:35:00.000-05:00

And then Joel nearly repeats his admonition from the first chapter with the reiteration of the command to blow the trumpet. He calls Jerusalem once again, here with the possibility of God relenting, to assemble in religious sincerity, to set aside a time to fast. Everyone was to congregate, all the people: the elders, the children, even the infants. The bridegroom and his bride are even to interrupt the ceremonial honeymoon in order to gather and plead to God for His mercy on all Jerusalem. And then Joel finally calls on the priests. A direct correlation to the representation of blessing that’s mentioned in v. 14, the priests are given explicit instruction regarding their petition before the Lord. They are to pray against the promised curse for their disobedience. In Deut. 28:25, 36-37 God warns the people that if they break His covenant they will be a spectacle in the world. They were to be a peculiar representation of the Kingdom on Earth but they would become the poster child for shame if they continued to break God’s covenant. They were supposed to be an example of God’s heavenly community right here in creation but in their persistent breaking of God’s Law, they would be punished by being made an example of forsakenness. This is what the priests were called to pray against—God disowning His own heritage. And so the priests were to appeal to God’s reputation in the world as a reason for Him not to forsake them and destroy them. God doesn’t just look down the corridors of time and make a plan and lay out promises that happen to be in accord with the future choices of His creatures. God is far more intentional than that. He is trustworthy and we can consider Him our loving Father because of three main things: He knows the future; nothing surprises the plans of God. He is capable; God can do anything He wants. And He is good; all that He wants to do is good. So we know we can trust Him because of His character and His control over all things.

Exposition on Joel -33- 2:13b-14

2010-01-29T07:35:00.003-05:00

God calls for the people’s return because He is gracious and merciful. We always forget how good the Good News is. If we are told to forgive, we ask how many times I must. If we are told to give people good things when they deserve bad, we call it injustice. If we are asked to be generous, we consider it unbalanced. God is not like us, He is gracious and He gave us an alien righteousness and gave Christ our sin. He is merciful; He withholds even His fatherly displeasure toward His children when we sin against Him repeatedly. His justice is navigated by His desire to show mercy. Somehow in His divine purposes He found it to be a deficient display of His glory to only show contempt toward His deserving creatures. He decided instead to display His glory more fully in the presentation of His longsuffering covenant faithfulness—and we become the beneficiaries of His purposes because He has decided to be slow in showing His anger and quick to show us His steadfast love. When we begin to take all this grace for granted; when we just go on day to day without having God’s wrath poured out on us, we begin to think we are getting what we deserve. The truth is, His hand holds back His anger because of what He did in Christ. As Peter puts it, He has not come yet in His glory (the DotL) because all those who will repent and receive the His mercy, according to His foreknowledge, have not yet done so. So He waits. And it is a holy and just waiting; His justice and His mercy are not pitted one against another; He is not internally conflicted as we are. So they are called to return to Him because, who knows, He may decide to relent of this disaster His has planned for the covenantal disobedience of His children. We must first recognize that He is justified in punishing them in such a way as He determines. They are His as individuals and as a community, so He can do whatever He wants. But how can God change His mind? He is the same yesterday, today and forever. What does it mean that He would decide to do something different than He previously imagined? Is that what He is saying? What doctrine of God’s foreknowledge and providence is to be extrapolated from this text? This is not a predictive statement Joel is making here. It is not as though God is saying to the people, “I have seen your future and you are going to be destroyed, but if you repent then I will change that future”. No, God has given them a choice, and from their perspective and ours, this is an “if/then” scenario; if they repent, then God will leave a blessing instead of a curse. The negative implication being, if they do not return, then God will destroy them. Of course God knows their future and He knows that they will return in the way that satisfies His desires because He has given them the capacity for it. So they will not be utterly destroyed but a remnant will survive His punishment and eventually be restored to the Land. This is in fact, anthropomorphic language. God stutters to speak to us so we understand; He humbles His speech the way a professor of physics would bow to speak of planets and stars to his 8 year old. Facts about His intentions are mediated through our language and how we would understand it—in terms of how men would deal with the situation. So this is not a theological presentation on Joel’s part, one to be used to wrongfully develop some “Molinistic”, “Middle Knowledge”, or “Open Theology” approach to God’s knowledge of future things and His providence over His creatures. God is here, from our perspective, giving the people a choice: “return and experience blessing.” Or, “continue in your apathy and I will curse you to the uttermost.”
Joel goes on to describe what it would look like if God’s changed His mind. Instead of the army leaving a desolate wilderness in its path, God said He would leave in His path a grain and drink offering. Couldn’t Joel have as easily said that He will leave behind the blessing of a fruitful vine and flourishing fig tree, or that He would make the pomegranate, palm and apple prove bountiful? He could have said that God may relent and remove the locust but he didn’t. Why didn’t Joel say, God may yet relent and destroy the invading army? Why is this significant? The removal of the grain and drink offering was a two-fold terror for them. The food products were removed because of the destruction of produce by the invading army and the fact that they would not be able to offer up the prescribed sacrifices meant in their minds that God’s just wrath would not be appeased and it would come down on them all the more strongly.

Exposition on Joel -32- 2:12-13a

2010-01-27T07:35:00.003-05:00

After all that; after the proclamation that the people were entirely wrapped up in their own interests and entertained by the things God had given them; after a call for the people to lament and mourn the loss of the very things, other than God, to which they had unduly clung. After an explicit description of the invader God was going to send to punish their covenantal disobedience, even after all that…”yet even now” the prophet says. Beyond all possible and conceivable hope, “yet even now”, after all their sin, Joel holds out God’s gracious mercy to a stiff-necked people. And isn’t that just like God. On the cross, “yet even now” He cries out, “forgive them for they know not what they do”. There are so many examples of God’s merciful patience in Scripture and countless times we can recall in our own lives where we know God’s patience must have been tested. Is not His patience tested by the church today? He has called us to love one another, to strive for unity in truth, to uphold the truth of His Word, to proclaim Him in every nation, to all peoples without prejudice, to be generous with our time and money, to forgive others their debts against us, yet like the visible representation of the Kingdom of God back then, we fail miserably, “yet even now” His merciful hand is held out to us. He is patient beyond belief, not to a fault as we might say of someone, but perfectly patient. It does in fact run out when He desires to use the circumstance to display the brushstroke of His wrath because His patience never outweighs His holiness. Joel is here, perhaps more than anywhere earlier, speaking the direct words of God. God is calling the people to return to Him in their entire person. And as prescribed earlier in Joel and a myriad of other places, their return will manifest in their willingness to fast and weep and mourn. These are three parts of the same thing. It’s a three part harmony which God is calling the people to sing in the key of repentance. Rend not your clothes He commands, who cares if their tear their cloths in some empty ritual. God says, “Tear your hearts”.

Exposition on Joel -31- 2:11

2010-01-25T07:35:00.000-05:00

Finally in verse 11 we hear God claim this army as His own. God nurtured a nation in such a way as to raise up out of it an army with which He could punish His very own people, Judah. The instrument that God decides to employ for His purposes cannot be thwarted—God’s creatures cannot frustrate His plans. Whoever God decides to use will be empowered with the power that God Himself used to create the universe so they can accomplish the thing He has them determined to do—and they do it because they want to; the Babylonians weren’t forced against their will to invade Judah knowing someday that, even though they were being used by God as an means of judgment, they would be judged themselves for that very act. What they meant for evil, God meant for the good of His plan and story. And here we close the section with yet another reference to the DotL. The destruction distributed on Judah prefigured that final Day of Judgment.

Exposition on Joel -30- 2:6-10

2010-01-22T07:35:00.000-05:00

This invader in verse 6 is sent to cause the people to fear and to inspire anguish in their hearts, and that is precisely what they do. It’s the feeling you get when you look at Edvard Munch’s The Scream. The two figures in the background appear to be approaching the figure in the foreground as it is overcome with anxiety. The world seems to be falling apart like in a nightmare where you are intimately affected by what’s going on but you have no power to prevail over the circumstances. Verses 7-9 describe the army like a warrior scaling the walls of the city, they are determined and cannot be stopped. They are skilled and they are organized to cause the most damage possible. Their presence is frustrating like a thief; they come in without invitation. V. 9 is the climax of the description of this invasion. As with any military occupation, it is finally considered complete when the invaders come into individual homes and take what and who they will.The army in Verse 10 brought destruction, loud and thunderous like an earthquake and the devastation is remarkable. So depressing was this event for the Jews being overrun, it was as though the Sun and Moon had fallen from the sky. We must recall here that this event foreshadows the final DotL. And on that Day, in the re-creation of the Heaven’s and the Earth, the actual light of stars, including our own, seems likely to be snuffed out in some way because by the light of Christ Himself will the New Jerusalem be lit for believers in eternity. The interpretation of this phrase that claims a swarm of locust is blocking the light of the Sun and Moon just doesn’t do the calamity justice. The purpose of these images of the Sun and Moon here and in verses 30 and 31, and in 3:15 is to depict the very reversal of natural order, like we see described in Rev. 6. We expect light from those sources, but even their light is like darkness during such a tragedy as this.

Exposition on Joel -29- 2:1-5

2010-01-20T07:35:00.000-05:00

In this first phrase we see represented the common custom of the trumpet sound before an event. And we are aware of the voice that John heard sounded like a trumpet, and the trumpet of the angel sounded before pouring out God’s wrath. Just as in 1:2, the people are here called to attention. This time they were called to war. And the battle was to take place at Jerusalem; as the term, Holy Mt. Zion would have undoubtedly referred. At this point I think we can begin to develop a cumulative understanding of the term, The DotL. We can take 1:15, 2:1, and 2:11 and start this process. Combining the data we get from those 3 verses I think this can be said: all the inhabitants of the land should tremble because the great DotL is coming. That Day is near at hand and it is an awesome thing like the Almighty from whom mighty ruin comes.In verse 2, the army camped round about Jerusalem is described as a black gloom and darkness. It may have looked like an approaching swarm of locusts. Joel reiterates here what he had said about this invader back in 1:2, it was a tragedy the likes of which, they had never seen before and never would again. Joel’s intention was to impress upon them the sheer magnitude of the event.In typical prophetic fashion, fire in verse 3 kindles thoughts of God’s wrath; it is characteristic God’s wrath. The army signified destruction of massive proportion, and what image more quickly and completely, as though it has a mind of its own, destroys the surroundings and instills abject fear than the force of fire? It is difficult to control and unrelenting as it causes pain beyond belief. This image of Eden and fire are not unacquainted. In the progress of Scripture we see other places compared to Eden. Before the invader came in the land was something to be desired but afterward the army left it a scorched wilderness. It’s like Joel is using the images of Heaven and Hell to describe the complete difference in the before and after landscapes. As we look at verses 4-5 we see that great and powerful people spread upon the mountains was like a company of horses pulled chariots behind them. They generated a great deal of noise and barreled down off the mountains surrounding Jerusalem with such dexterity and speed that Joel described them as leaping; they leapt from hilltop to hilltop until they ascended the hill to the city and entered as quickly as they began. Israel never employed the use of horses in battle as frequently and effectively as other nations did. Thus this image of an army of men mounted on horseback should have easily stricken them with fear.

Exposition on Joel -28- Verses 19-20

2010-01-18T07:35:00.000-05:00

And finally in the last two verses of thefirst oracle of Joel, likely because the people themselves would not heed thecall, Joel himself began to pray. Here he modeled the character of a prayer ofrepentance. First he called on the name of the Lord. It was only the might ofthe Almighty that could have delivered the people from their sorrows. Then he acknowledgedseveral effect God’s judgment had made. Joel modeled sensitivity to God’s workbefore the people—he acknowledged that God had done this and only God couldundo it. In verses 19 and 20 Joel also introduced another means for thedestruction inflicted on the land and the people. He spoke of fire and burning.One could conclude that Joel referenced the destruction of an army of men here.Another conclusion is that the description of fire is a way of emphasizing the“Supernatural” component of this calamity. Perhaps God sent down fire toconsume what little bit of the fields was left after being ravaged by an armyof locust or men or both. More likely it was the type of devastation caused bywildfires. They are particularly difficult to manage in drought conditions andthey are almost expected. That sort of destruction was still attributableexclusively to natural means. Of course, we can’t ignore the next mention ofthese fires in 2:3a. Whether it’s a metaphor or an actual fire set by thepillaging foreign army, Joel used the image to insight fear in the hearts ofhis audience. Remember that a big part of Joel’s intention over the last 20verses was to hammer into the heads of the Judeans that this is God’s calamity,it was God’s judgment that they were facing. If the people could convincethemselves that this was just another devastating year of droughts, wildfiresand locust swarms then their consciences might escape the purpose of thiscatastrophe. So I believe that the emphasis on the shriveling seed and driedgrain in v. 17 and on the consuming fire here in verses 19 and 20 is a way Joelused to point out the reason behind the reasons for their suffering. He onceagain called the people’s attention to the uniqueness of this event, even goingso far as to relate it to the tragedy of that final Day, the DotL back in v.15. But we get to look forward to the restoration. In just 18 more verses wewill see God turning the sword into plowshare and the fire in water as it were.So we rejoice not in the calamity butthrough it because of the promises ofGod, though we sometimes misinterpret them, are being fulfilled in Christ.

Exposition on Joel -27- Verse 18

2010-01-15T07:35:00.000-05:00

Like the young children of a home broken apart by the adulterous acts of their parents, the innocent beasts and sheep are both are affected by the nation’s adulterous nature. They neither brought this curse on themselves by their disobedience, nor do they benefit from God’s blessing by their obedience, but they too feel the devastation brought on the land by the invader inflicting God’s justice. Calvin is sharp to point out that the prophet likely intends to make an insulting comparison. Joel has made a great effort to call the calloused people of God to cry out for mercy, and though he persists, it was the beasts of the field and the sheep who cried out, and Joel uses them as an example. The people, in Joel’s view, are too dense to see their folly or they are too proud to admit it even if they are convinced. With groaning, wandering and desolation the animals, given to the people who were stewards over them, suffer the pain and death due to the sin of their masters. Like an unruly monarch or a negligent governing body, with every poor decision they ask the people they rule or serve to suffer the consequences of their actions. Most likely, the people would have cried out about the injustices of the ruling class before their leaders would have repented.

Exposition on Joel -26- Verses 16-17

2010-01-13T07:35:00.002-05:00

In v. 16 Joel rubs it in. He had alreadypointed out in v. 12 that their food had disappeared; they were all going tostarve and there wasn’t even any food left for their offerings. So not onlywere they going to starve to death but, in the meantime, God’s wrath would beperpetuated because they couldn’t make any offerings. Again he correlates the deprivation of food and joy. It seems quite obvious but their hardness requiredrepetition.Joel continues the imagery of drought anddesolation. Lest the people forget, the invasion of this army had left themwith nothing and famine was left in the wake of its destruction. Naturallythere was no need for buildings to store food when there was none to store, sothe image of God’s people tearing down the empty granaries, perhaps to usetheir materials elsewhere, would be a depressing sight indeed—one that wouldhopefully drive the people to repeat. Some suggest that the shriveling seed andthe withering grain indicate an all together “Supernatural” cause for thefamished Land, one not mediated through the natural means mentioned earlier,the army and the swarm. Whatever means God used to judge His people—army oflocust, army of men, or drought conditions, we can say with certainty that Godbrought this judgment down on the people. He was not to blame for theirmourning, but He was to be given credit for it; they were His creatures and Hehas done with them as He pleased. One additional observation here: from thewording in the ESV one could see in the first part of v. 17 an ironic metaphorof sorts. God promised to bless Abraham through his Seed, which we know to beChrist, but who was illustrated by the nation

Israel

so in the small sense theytoo are Abraham’s seed. Is it possible that here the people would have beenprovoked to think of themselves, the people of God as the seed under the clod ofthe foreign invader? Maybe, but not necessarily, this verse in Joel’s oraclehas been met with a great deal of difficulty. So difficult is the translationof this phrase that, more times than not, translation teams were forced to somesore of dynamic equivalence. In its translation, being so hard to understand atface value, speculative commentary understandably creeps in, just like we seeof the insects in v. 4.

Exposition on Joel -25- Verses 14-15

2010-01-11T07:35:00.002-05:00

In v. 14 Joel called the same group toset-apart a fast. This is an interesting play on words as well. He asks them tosanctify a time when they will corporately engage in a sanctifying act. All thepeople are to participate: the young the old, the clergy and the laymen. Theywere to gather all the people by calling them to assemble with a manner ofseriousness and to come together and fast. Communal fasts like this probablylasted for a day and involved all the people coming to the temple and aroundit. Just like wearing sackcloth, breaking the daily routine and gathering forthe purpose of abstaining from food was intended to highlight the gravity ofthe occasion. It would not only involve the lack of food for a day but alsolikely cause some the lack of profit that would regularly be gained in theirbusiness endeavors. This seems a bit ironic to me that God has His prophet callthe people to cry out for His mercy upon their hunger by having them abstainfrom eating. So in essence, stop eating so you can call out to God to relieveyour hunger, or to prevent your future hunger, caused by the devastation ofthis invader.

In v 15 we are introduced to the concept ofthe DotL in Joel’s prophesy. He places the calamitous event to which he hasbeen referring in the context of the idea that one day, on “That Day”, the Lordwill return to judge the wicked and vindicate the righteous. As we have seen inthe introduction, the theme of the DotL has two components, one of destructionand one of deliverance. The Jews assumed, because of their covenantalrelationship to God, that they defaulted in the deliverance category and thegentile nations would be judged and destroyed. In Joel’s day they hadn’tgrasped the idea that the Jew/Gentile distinction as an illustration of thosecounted righteous and those who do not believe, thus in the end, we know thatsome national Jews will receive judgment for their unbelief and some believingGentiles will be delivered on account of Christ’s righteousness. Joel uses thatimagery to shock the Jews of his day into repentance. Amos had a similar lot.In 5:18-20 where he too points out their misunderstanding of that coming Day.Joel continues toward the end of the verse with yet another play on words. “…destruction comes from the Almighty”,which might also be rendered, “…a mightyruin from the Almighty” (Stuart 234). As though another outcome waspossible coming from the Almighty; certainly even God’s mercy is given with themight of Christ’s perfect life and Passion that was necessary to answer the cryfor justice against all who sin. We see it described by Lewis as the mightyAslan roars at the demand for justice made by the White Witch though he wouldgo on make provisions for mercy on the stone table—So even mercy is not withoutits might. And that’s how Joel ends v. 15, “…a mighty ruin from the Almighty”

Exposition on Joel -24- Verses 14-20 - Overview

2010-01-08T07:35:00.000-05:00

Joelhas just taken us through 13 verses where he has called God’s people toattention, remembrance, and for them to mark the uniqueness of this event. Hehas in vivid imagery, described the horrible effects of a city coming undersiege by an army God has sent as a judgment for their covenantal disobedience.And so, now with no less force he commands the elders to call for the people toassemble and to fast and pray promoting the seriousness of their lamentationover their sins and the effects they have caused. And then he uses the imageryof the Day of Judgment as a way to give weight to the situation. Then he wrapsup his description of the destruction of their surroundings by telling themthat their gladness and joy is cut off just like their food supply. Finally heends with a model of the type of repentant prayer they ought to offer up . Howdo you think we should mourn the loss our nation experienced in Katrina and in911?

Exposition on Joel -23- Verse 14-20 - Introduction

2010-01-07T07:35:00.002-05:00

In one of the past posts we talked a littlebit about the relationship of God to visible Israel and His relationship to thevisible church. And we briefly discussed this idea of pleading to God for Hismercy regarding the sins of the visible church as a whole. Should we fast andpray about the scandals and self-righteousness that plagues the visible churchtoday and adds offence to the gospel? Is there any connection between thechurch’s sins and the calamities we endure today such as the Tsunami in Asia, or closer to home, the 911 attacks and Katrina? ThePuritans sometimes gathered for prayer and lamentation for the sins of theircongregations after a poor crop year or a devastating winter storm. Imagine aday when a pastor or a group of pastors calls for the visible church toassemble to cry out to God for His mercy on their sins as individuals and thesins of the church at large. Imagine if we, as the baptized people of God, werecalled to cease from our work, our livelihood and abstain from food for aperiod of time set apart with the purpose of focusing all our time and effortson praying for God to forgive our sins and show mercy to us and to our nations.If this event took place in our own age, we could imagine the possible newscoverage. It might go something like this: Pastorsfrom around the world came together today declaring for their parishioners afast. As they and the members of their churches gathered at local churchbuildings, their entire communities felt the effects. Millions in the USalone took vacation days so they could attend. Many outsiders see this piousact as nothing more than a practice in self righteousness, but as you arelikely to have heard, these leaders are claiming that they are calling andbeing called themselves, to repent (they say) of their personal sins and thesins of the Christian Church as a whole. Earlier today it was reported that anumber of child psychologists were consulted on the matter. Without exception,they agreed that parents who asked their children (some as young as five) toparticipate in a communal fast were doing nothing more than physically andpsychologically abusing them. The church leaders and parents have gone onrecord in their own defense saying that their Creator, Yahweh God has inspiredthis act through the use of His shepherds (most of the times called pastors orpriests). They’ve gone on to say that the consecration of a period of 3 days tolament the loss of their material possessions and even some of their loved onesdue to the 7 major terrorist attacks around the world in the last year, and theglobal impact they have had on economies, is what they have been called to do.As a “body” they claim to have begun the process of admitting their sins andare now displaying the seriousness of their plea to their God for mercy throughtheir collective refusal to eat or take part in the commercial activities ofthe world. What can not be ignored as the rest of the world looks on is thetension this event has created within the organized church, and the outrightrefusal of some leaders and parishioners to participate in what they refer toas a terrorizing act on Christianity from the inside. Many high-profileChristian professors and pastors, along with likeminded laypeople callingthemselves “progressives” have signed the declaration titled, “ChristiansAgainst the Christian Cancer”. Psychologists from Berkley and NYU have identified the behaviorof these fasters as symptoms of a type of mental illness similar to masochismwhich produces such attention seeking behavior as “cutting” and bulimia in someteens and early adults. Sociologists have identified this event as beingsimilar to Waco, TX and Jonestown—they hope the same end is avoidable andauthorities from around the world have said that if this event was isolated toone specific location then military action on behalf of the minors involvedwould be imminent. Now, on a lighter note, the hit Latin boy-band Menudo hasreunited with front man and former congressman, Ricky Martin to embark on aworld tour commemorating the 35^th anniversary of the band’sdebut—here’s Katie with the report. This is one way to apply this passageto our own lives. So does contextualizing Joel’s call like this help us tounderstand the passage better or help us to maybe sympathize with Joel’saudience?

Exposition on Joel -22- Verse 13

2009-12-16T07:35:00.005-05:00

In v. 13 we hear the prophet directly addressthe priests he mentioned as a part of the whole back in v. 9. He is expoundinghis call to corporate lamentation. He calls them to put on sackcloth, or ahair-shirt as we would refer to it in modern terms. The first time in Scriptureit is worn for the purpose of pleading for mercy for some offense is in 1 Kings20. It is recorded a couple times before that as being used in mourning. Herein v. 13 it is used ascetically to promote and maybe even prolong the wearer’sfocus on their lamentation. It was used to cause physical pain that wouldaugment mourning that was already there or as an outward sign to incite thetrue emotional and heart-felt pain that their sin should have provoked. Joelcalls the priests the ministers of his God. And like in v. 9 he provokes themto lamentation because they’ve lost their sense of worth and their purpose—thegrain and drink offerings had been withheld from the House of ministry, thetemple where the priest had mediated the people’s worship and God’s forgivinggrace through the ritual sacrifices prescribed in the Covenant God made withMoses. Their shame would come from not being able to make amends they thought.Surely, when the last offering was made and the store of grain and drink forthe sacrifices was finally depleted, they feared for themselves and the peopleall the more because God’s wrath could no longer be appeased through thesacrifices they had been instructed to offer up.

Exposition on Joel -21- Verse 12

2009-12-14T07:35:00.001-05:00

Inthe next verse Joel goes in to the reason why these farmers should be ashamedin the first place. Their efforts were fruitless because an army of invaders haddestroyed their crops. The invaders were sent by God because of the nation’sdisobedience. So, to the lamentation of that situation, even the obedientfarmer was called. He was called in the same way that Dietrich Bonhoeffer wascalled to lament the Nazi movement in his day, and the same way all believersshould lament the sins of their countries. Lest the confusion of currentnations and the eschatological events yet future are unwarrantedly mixed, noone in any nation can equate the relationship of God to their nation with thatrelationship He convened with the nation of

Israel

. So a more importantcomparison arises out of the “meta-narrative” of Scripture. Just like theIsraelite of Joel’s day that was called to mourn the sin of the visible nation of

Israel

, all those believers afterthe cross are called to mourn the sins of the visible Church. Here in verse 12 Joel called the farmers to do thisdirectly through his call for them to mourn the loss of their material goods.Just like Bonhoeffer, if he had lived to see the day, would have mourned theloss of his nation through world-wide ridicule and sanctions, the farmer wholoved God and his neighbor would have mourned the loss of Judah’s formerblessings. Lest we get the wrong idea here, we must remember that the nation ofJews, which included everyone who was circumcised, was guilty as a whole. So,essentially and from a legal standpoint, no one was innocent, no matter theirfaithfulness. It was not as though God had set up the Kingdom of David on Earthto perpetuate in proposed obedience for ever, no more than God had intendedAdam and Eve to populate Eden in that first state. No, the cross was alwaysplanned. So going back to v. 12, the prophet mentions here several types ofproduce in addition to the grape. In this context the fig, pomegranate, palmand apple don’t have special significance by themselves, but their mention in agroup is employed by Joel to indicate the totality of this calamity, as theyare routinely mentioned together (Num. and Deut.). And he ends this verse withan astonishing logical conclusion that along with the fruits of the vine andtrees, the gladness of the people will dry up. A process that began with shamewould end with sorrow. They were called to be ashamed for the lack of theirproduce but that lack was ultimately the result of the lack of their obedience.It was not just their lack of harvest that caused them to be ashamed. Theyought to have known that it was God who brought the growth and plenty. Theirshame was finally caused by their sin which in turned caused the loss of theirproduce. So Joel makes a direct connection between the removal of theirgladness, which was due to their loss of material goods, with the fact thatthey had disobeyed God’s Covenant Laws. “Shame on you” he says, “…for your sinhas resulted in the sorrow you now endure because you have nothing left to beglad about!” This last part is a metaphor of sorts. Joel had already describedthe totality of the devastation by mentioning the fruits that were withered,and at last he claimed that the fruit of their joy would wither off the treethat was Judah.That was the picture that his words created.

Exposition on Joel -20- Verse 11

2009-12-11T07:35:00.019-05:00

Verse 11 seems similar to the parallelstatement in v. 5 regarding the drunkards and drinkers of wine, here in v. 11Joel calls out a group of Judeans which includes tillers of soil andvine-dressers. The dissimilarity with v. 5 is that there is a difference inclassification. Although both of these workers are farmers of sorts, thetillers bring to mind more of the growers of grain and the vine-dressers arethose who tend to the grape and other vines. One way of distinguishing the two would be that the vine-dressers are tending to and cultivating those types of plants that live longer than two years—perennials of a sort. Their activities consist of pruning dressing and harvest. The "dirt farmer" on the other hand, is likely tending to those annual plants like vegetables and grains. His yearly tasks would include tilling the ground and preparing it for the seeds he will plant, caring for the seedlings and harvesting the mature fruit those plants produce. Together, the two designations form one group that is intended to encompass all the agricultural workers in Judah. A groupthat immediately brings to my mind the image of Hobbits, lovers of good tilled earthand all things that grow. This phrase “Beashamed” in the ESV can more literally be rendered “wilt” and is regularlyapplied to the condition of plants withered in drought conditions. Joel calledto mourning even the godly Jewish farmer who was sufficiently thankful fortheir growth, and who gladly gave up his first fruits for the sacrifice in thetemple, the farmer who had resisted the temptation to love and embrace thebounty of his labors more than the God of Heaven. The removal even of hisproduce as a result of invasion, destruction and desolation would have crushedhis spirit. The godly farmer was no less tempted to idolize the fruits of hislabor, but who by God’s grace, had resisted it, he would have mourned the lossbecause all good farmers and tillers of soil love to see the thriving life ofbeautiful green plants and enjoy in thankfulness, the time of harvest when theycan pull that first ripe, red tomato from the vine. But we know that they wouldalso eventually have mourned their own hungry stomachs because the invadersdestruction, trampling, and thievery of the crops would later lead to the lackof food. The idolatrous farmer’s spirit also would have been crushed by theloss, but for different reason. In addition to their suffering throughstarvation, he would have grieved over the loss of that in which they foundtheir worth and their security. Instead of worshiping God for His bountifulharvests every year, they raised their own green-thumbed hands in a celebrationof their talent and their produce which they had raised. Instead of resting securely in the arms of thefaithful God who had brought their fathers out of Egypt, they sought their securityin the talents and hard work for which they thought themselves responsible.Whereas the tiller of soil who was humbled by the knowledge of his brokennessbefore his God, who honored God with thanksgiving in obedience to the templelaws of sacrifice, giving up the first and best, and keeping the Sabbath holyso to honor the bodies God had endowed with His image, he likely would havesuffered the loss of the comfort of a full stomach for himself and his familymuch sooner than the farmer who held back his food. But the farmer whose faithwas largely in his own capability, he would have kept back that which the Lorddemanded. Being a workaholic he would have worked his employees as many days ofthe week he could manage. So Joel calls them both as a group, to a feeling ofshame.

Exposition on Joel -19 - Verses 9-10

2009-12-09T07:35:00.000-05:00

The awkward structure of verse 9 presents theending clause, “…the ministers of theLord…” is easily overcome by looking at a similar usage later on. In 2:17bwhere Joel says, “…let the priests, theministers of the Lord, weep.” In this verse the ending clause refers to thenoun priests. We are given further description of their function. Likewise, inv. 9b we can affirm the same intent out of this structure that in the Englishappears to be clumsy. These priests in v. 9 are in fact, like those in 2:17,the ministers of the Lord. The Contemporary English Version, The KJV, and theASV all place this modifying clause after the noun clause and before the actionverb. So it sounds like this, “…thepriests, the Lord’s ministers, mourn.” And with this rendering we can gaina clearer idea of the prophet’s intent—that the invader has destroyed thesource of their offerings causing the priests to mourn. Not just because theycould no longer offer up these things to God, but that leftover was a source offood for them (Lev. 2). So they so were suffering the pain of starvation.

In verse 10 the fields have been destroyedand the very ground of God’s Land mourns the effects caused by the people’sunrepentant sin. In this verse we have a sort of summation of the precedingphysical curses. In 10b we are told that the reason the ground mourns isbecause the grain is destroyed, the lack of which is lamented by the priests, andthe wine has dried up, whose dearth is especially noticed by the drunkard, andlastly, the oil has been removed and the sorrow caused by that lack would befelt far and wide. The lack of oil symbolized the lack of God’s presence andfavor, and the lamps would have none to burn, bringing no light into darkness.But this lack represents a state much like that of a famine. But the prophet’spersistence through these exhortations indicates that even the state ofstarvation has only driven the people to mourn, as Calvin says, for theirstomachs and not yet for their hearts.

Exposition on Joel - 18 - Verse 8

2009-12-07T07:35:00.001-05:00

In the three verse section, 8-10, Joel beginsthe response demanded by the prophet in the content of the preceding 2 verses.if we take verses 8-10 as a small section and interpret them in light of oneanother: in v. 8 Joel described what the lamentation should look like; he gavethe example of the young widow who was likely childless, and in v. 9 we havebeen given one of the effects of the army, the instrument of God’s judgment,and we are told that the priests who are directly affected by the loss and thusbecome the direct object of the prophet’s call to mourning, and at last, in v.10 we see the destruction of the fields and their very mourning.

In verse 8 in particular Joel tells them tomourn. How? He actually prescribes a quality to the lamentation he’s callingthem to. Like a virgin who has lost her husband or likely her betrothed. Thiswas a call to extraordinary mourning, mourning even in a hair-shirt. Certainly,any wife would mourn her husband’s death but the young woman scheduled to bemarried or recently married, the one who has not been made to bear children,that woman would lament the death of her husband to an obviously greater degreethan the woman married for years who has offspring to give her societal worth.This is an obvious generalization. I’m certain Joel knew that some time inhistory an old woman mourning the death of her husband of 50 years may have outmourned a young maiden, but the point is that Joel is calling the people togrieve the loss of their material possessions with great intensity. Even so,they are ultimately called to lament the sin and lack of repentance which willresult in this wrathful event; to don sackcloth like this virgin who has losther husband of her youth. God uses means such as the removal of temporalcomforts, pleasures and conveniences to cause people to repent, and He used Hisprophets as a means to point those judgments out and call the people to repentbecause of them. So it often sounds as though Joel and other prophets arecalling the people to repent just because of the temporal judgments, but infact, they are ultimately calling the people to repent because of their sin.Their sin has invited God’s wrath and that wrath comes in two ways: primarilyas the destruction and removal of covenantal blessings because of the nation’sdisobedience, and secondarily as destruction and removal of the resources thepeople used to sin. You could call this the ironic curse. It is as though Godhas equipped Joel with an environment of or the threat of loss and suffering sohe can then effectively preach God’s mercy for those who turn to Him becauseGod’s chastening. I can think of two examples that might illustrate this: thegood news of Christ’s righteous life, His death, and His resurrection haven’tnearly the impact on the mind and heart of an individual as when they are firstbrought to recognize the sorry state of their affairs through the applicationof the Law and the despair that is wrought on the soul by trying to keep it.The environment of suffering which was produced by God’s temporal judge, Hisarmy, would make the prospect of His mercy all the more sweet, and thus drivesome to repentance. It is also much like those of us who spank our children. Wedo not call them to repent just so they can avoid the pain of being spanked,which would just be manipulation. Certainly, we can point to that pain likeJoel points out the loss of temporal goods, but ultimately, we actually callthem to repent of the sin that has lead to the judgment represented in the painof the spanking. So too, Joel ultimately calls the people to repent of theirsin that lead to the judgment represented in the pain of invasion, destructionand exile.

Exposition on Joel - 17- Verse 7

2009-12-04T07:35:00.000-05:00

Here again, in verse 7 specifically, the verbusage is past tense which seems to indicate that this tragedy has happened oris ongoing. Again, there is the possibility that this verb tense is “propheticperfect” like in the oracles of other prophets. In that case, these events areyet future, but Joel uses this emphatic literary devise to promote thecertainty of these future actions if the people do not repent; in other words,they are so certain to happen that he speaks of them as though they havealready happened. The invasion of an army would likely be an extended event. Asmentioned before, this invasion of Judah could have been on any one ofthree historical occasions. Whatever the case, whether this invasion hashappened or whether it will happen, the army destroyed the vine and fig tree,causing the people to mourn the loss of their substances, which would hopefullycause them to lament their sin and cry to God for mercy like Joel does in verses19-20.

Verse 7b—“…their branches are made white.” In this portion of the passage,though I believe here the prophet is speaking specifically about the invasionof an army of men, Joel seems to allude to the type of destruction inflicted bylocusts. Locusts would literally have ravaged the land and a swarm of themwould strip all the bark off the limbs of fig, olive and grape vines, exposingthe raw, white limb under the bark; the nakedness of the half eaten treessignifies the terrible state in which the land would be left. But an army ofmen would be no less devastating on the crops in the land and this descriptiondovetails nicely with the army being figuratively described as a swarm oflocusts.

Exposition on Joel - 16- Verse 6

2009-12-02T07:35:00.002-05:00

V. 6a,“⁶For a nation has come upagainst my land, powerful and beyond number” introduces the army, notingits strength and size. The bitter irony here is that, in Gen. 12:2, 15:5, and17:2-6, God had promised Abraham that He would make from His Seed a powerfulnation, great in number. But here in v. 6a we see that God nurtured anothernation, powerful and numerous so to exact His justice on the nation He called Hisown. Verses 6b and 7 provide us with a more direct description of this terriblefoe. Verse 6 answers the “why” question that we might ask at the end of verse5. In other words, “Awake, you drunkards,and weep, and wail, all you drinkers of wine, because of the sweet wine,for it is cut off from your mouth.”, why is the wine cut off? Verse 6 tellsus that the invading nation is strong and innumerable, and its teeth are likelion’s teeth. Now we see the destruction that was first blamed on the swarm oflocusts is now being attributed to an army of men from a foreign nation. Joeldraws on a second animal description. The people would have feared lions, beingaware of the destruction they were capable of inflicting with their teeth. SoJoel paints a picture in their minds of Judah’s people being torn apart bythe jaws of a lion. Helpless as a lamb, they fall victim to the fierce armywhose weapons cut through the nation like a lion’s teeth cut through flesh.Consequently, verses 7-13 could appear to be a set of some sort because Joeldescribed the effects that the enemy had on the people and the Land, and calledfor them to lament those effects, and he does this in a “back and forth”manner—describing the situation then calling for lamentation, then describinganother situation and calling another group to lament.

Exposition on Joel - 15 - Verses 5-10

2009-11-30T07:35:00.005-05:00

I want to begin the following section with a brief explanation of the meaning of verses 5-10 then I will expound on each verse in greater detail. Wake up you idolaters for you’ve lost your wine and oil and the very ground mourns!—Verse 9 is the direct result of v. 7.—The offerings are cut off, why? They are cut off because of the large and powerful nation which has splintered the fig tree, stripped its bark. So, you priests, you who minister to the Lord, mourn like a young woman who has lost the husband of her youth.

Verse 5, Joel appeals to the overindulgent to lament their circumstances, caused by their sin.—Verse 5 in particular addresses the drunkards and the drinkers of wine. Wake up, Joel says, because one of the effects of drunkenness is drowsiness. The idea here is that Joel is calling the people to attention by specifically addressing those abusers of substance. So we could, without doing damage to the text, we can make a useful application is especially in light of the availability of intoxicating substances today. But Joel mentions wine in particular because of the effect the invasion would have had on the landscape. Obviously, a swarm of locusts would have ruined the vines, but an army of men would have effected a similar devastation by stealing the already fermented juice, and also by trampling thevines of the countryside underfoot. They would have likely ruined any hope of grape production in the immediate future. I don’t believe there is any evidence that suggests that the two separate identifications of alcohol consumers here is an indication of two different types of people, but seems to be a parallel statement both describing the one who has embraced their drunkenness more than they have embraced God; people who had grown calloused to God’s nudging having it destroy their sensitivity to God’s Spirit. And it’s clear that the nation asa whole, drunk on wine or not, had become calloused in the same way. Joel’s plain intention in this verse is to capitalize on the distress of those whoenjoy wine. When there is none to enjoy the drunkard and the drinker of winewill mourn its absence. An absence brought on by their sin of abusing it.

Exposition on Joel - 14 - Outline of Verses 5-18

2009-11-25T07:35:00.003-05:00

In Stuart’s outline of this section he labelsverses 2-3 a “call to reflection/reaction”. Verse 4 is a “description oftragedy”, verses 5-18 he labels a “call to mourning”, which breaks down intothese four sections: verses 5-7—the mourning of drunkards, verses 8-10—ageneral call to mourning, verses 11-12—a call for the farmers to mourn, verses13-18—a call for priests to mourn

What’s interesting about verses 5-18 is thatJoel calls the drunkard, the farmer, and the priests to mourn, but to mourn theloss of their earthly goods, or the temporal items that brought themsatisfaction. The drunkard got great satisfaction from the numbing provided byhis wine, the farmers reveled in the production of their crops, and the priestsbased their identity on offering material sacrifices to the God who is aSpirit. But God removed all of those blessings to punish the nation for itsdisobedience and even the righteous among them would suffer that loss.Ultimately though, we must say that Joel and all the other prophets for thatmatter call the people to lament their sin and the sin of the nation. Joelinitiates that mourning by calling the various groups to lament the loss of thethings they held dear. There is nothing that will cause a person to either cryout to God or cry out against Him like the removal of theidols that have captured his attention. God doesn’t visit His wrath upon themin Person or without mediation; He sends the instrument of a foreign army tocrush the people’s disobedience. Likewise, through His lawyer Joel, God callsthe people to mourn: first to mourn the loss of their things taken from them by the invading army, but later, He callsthem to mourn their sin, for that is why the army was sent in the first place,to curse their covenantal disobedience through the removal their creaturelycomforts. The powerful invading army is the means serving God’s end.

Exposition on Joel - 13 - Verses 4-6 Concluded

2009-11-23T07:35:00.008-05:00

Now for a few evidences that lead me tobelieve that the foe in v. 4 and in v. 6 are the same, and that this is an armyof men that Joel equates with a plague of swarming locusts. The locust plagueof v. 4 serves as an image that promoted the comprehensive nature of theeffects described in the devastation inflicted by this invader. What more canwe make of this rhetorical question asked by Joel back in verse 2? If Joel isreferring to the invasion by a literal army of desert locusts then the peoplemight have been tempted to answer, “Yes! We have (or our fathers have) seensuch a thing in our day!” But the way the question is posed, the answer must beno. This debate is why the relationship of v. 5 to verses 4 and 6 is soimportant: If v. 5 is an ending for the curse of verses 2-5, then one couldeasily conclude that the locusts in v. 4 were literal. If v. 5 is the beginningof the description/explanation for all of chapter 1, then the figurativeinterpretation surfaces. The figurative interpretation would stand in line withthe historical fact of God’s sending of a great and terrible nation to punisheven Judahfor her covenantal disobedience. One’s interpretation relies heavily on whetherthey regard v. 5 as an ending to a five verse section or as the preamble of thepassage from verse 5-7.

The infrequency with which the locusts are mentionedwhen the entire book is considered is another indicator that they are notliteral. If the locusts in v. 4 are literal, assuming verses 1-5 are a separatecurse, then Joel gives very little information about the happenings surroundingthe 1^st curse and virtually no introduction to the army in 6-18. Theonly other mention Joel makes of locusts is in 2:25, which obviously refersback to v. 4. All in all, that is a negligible portion of the 1^st 2chapters which he uses to proclaim the destructive force of covenantaljudgment.

The language In the ESV lists four types orclassifications of locusts are described. But if you look at the ASV orCalvin’s commentaries, they translate these stages as a variety of bugs andinvertebrates: locusts, canker worms and caterpillars. One thing is for sure,Joel isn’t giving the people a lesson in entomology and the four designationsare therefore not to be used to describe four types of solders or armies as hasbeen tried by some over zealous speculators. If the locusts are figurative thenthis is simply a poetic declaration of the comprehensive nature of thiscalamity. Nothing will be left. Current scientific evidence shows that thedesert locust actually has 6 stages of development. I’m not saying that thisobservation alone is reason enough to abandon the literal interpretation of thelocusts in v. 4. Again, one’s orthodoxy isn’t won or lost there; scholarswithin the same theological camps tend to differ. Though it is the minorityopinion, I believe Joel uses the image of locusts to describe the way an armyof men would come and leave nothing but death in their path, taking the citiesand fields by force. Farmers wielding hoes and axes and pruning hooks asweapons were no match for a swordsman on horse or afoot; when this army inchapter one invaded, those brave enough to try and defend their families’ livesand freedom would simply be cut down where they stood. The people in Judah who werenot murdered would go into captivity as God had intended.

In conclusion, I believe it makes themost sense of the chapter 1, Joel’s first oracle, to see verses 6, 10-13 as aresult of these invaders which are first illustrated in v. 4 in the image of aswarm of desert locusts. But whether these locusts were in fact an armythemselves or whether they symbolized an army of men, Joel insures that thiswas going to be a plague of special magnificence. Just like the swarms that hadravaged the fields in the past, this army of invaders would ravage God’s Landand His people—this is the very point. In the wake of the temporaladministration of God’s wrath against the nation’s covenantal disobedience, therighteous along with the wicked were subject to the pain and suffering causedby the invasion, the desolation inflicted on the Land and the exile of itspeople. It is interesting to note here that, just like the Devil himself, thisarmy is God’s army. Look at 2:25 I willrestore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper,the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you.To be sure, the invading army had their own evil motives and would likely bepunished for their actions in the future, but I believe the same could be saidof their attack and pilfering as was said of Joseph’s brothers. What they meantfor evil, God meant for good (Gen. 50:20). So the horror of an enemy’s army onthe horizon was described by Joel as an invasion of desert locusts, and thedestruction it would leave in its path was illustrated by the prolongeddestruction that would be wrought by an army of locusts.

Exposition on Joel - 12 - Verses 4-6 Continued

2009-11-20T07:35:00.002-05:00

V. 4 is one of the places where one’sinterpretation of the passage may be influenced by one’s view of Joel’s placein history, or vice versa. If one accepts the interpretation that the locustsin v. 4 are figurative and the army in v. 6 is literal, then this prophesy ofJoel’s must have occurred at or just before one of the noted invasion in Judah. Asmentioned previously, in 701 BC, the Assyrians invaded but not to the point ofJudah’s destruction and exile. The Babylonians came in their first majorassault on Judahin 588 BC. In 586, they successfully sacked Jerusalemand overran Judahtaking the people into captivity. So it could be said that Joel gave theseoracles during one of those ominous events.

Based on the verb tenses in our Englishtranslations, it appears as though the invasion has already begun. The prophetcalls the event to Judah’sattention in v. 2 and asks them in v. 3 to memorialize this horrible day whenGod’s judgment came upon a stiff-necked people. It seems to me that Joel iscalling the people to repent becauseof their suffering, indicating that the crisis of verses 4-18 is current, whichlends credence to the speculation that he prophesied during one of theinvasions and not entirely before, not between, and not after those historicand calamitous events. There ishowever, the possibility that this verb tense is “prophetic perfect” like inthe oracles of other prophets. So, even though this event hasn’t happened yet,its occurrence is so certain that the prophet speaks of it as though it hasalready happened. This also could be the case in Joel’s oracle here. So if youconsider the idea in verse 15, that the day is near, and destruction yet comes,one might be inclined to believe this prophecy happened at least before theBabylonian invasion. If Joel gave this prophecy before that time, then it seemsclear that the purpose was to call the people to lament their present hardships(whatever they may have been) and repent so to avoid the judgment of Godthrough the Babylonian invasion. In that case, this 1^st oracle wouldserve as both a “call to communal lamentation” and as a warning, such as theone near the end of Deut. 28.

Exposition on Joel -11 - Verse 4-6

2009-11-18T07:35:00.004-05:00

In v. 4-18 Joel describes the enemy and itseffects and calls the people to lament. In v. 4 in particular, Joel imagines anunrivaled swarm of locusts. As Yahweh God, their Father was drawing them out ofEgypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart against the descendants of Abraham and Godsent a series of plagues to convince Pharaoh to let His people go but alsodisplaying the power that the One True Creator God had over the very images ofcreated things the Egyptians had worship. They idolized the beetle and the frogand other living things. So God sent them those gods in abundance. So the Jewin Joel’s day would be reminded of the locust plague God sent through Moses andalso of the past “invasions” of locusts that had left their fields desolate,and left their harvest bare for a season or more. Considering again, v. 2, itis as if Joel was saying, this tragic event will surpass all those other thingsin your minds. It is very likely that, if not the people themselves, theirparents or their grandparents would have endured a swarm of locusts that ruineda season or even several years of crops. Thinking of verses 2-4 together is abit like me reflecting on the economic pressures we face today and asking myparents how it compares to the recession in the ‘70s. Or, if there were stillliving, it would be like me asking my grandparents if this present difficulty issimilar to the Great Depression. Of course both of those former tragedies haveso far, proven to be more terrible than the one we now face, but the point isthe perception of similar types of tragedies through time. So the sound of theonslaught of locust’s wings made the people shudder with fear, but so would thesound of a company of horsed men and men on foot. Is this swarm of locusts literalor figurative? To introduce this topic, a little information about desertlocusts: As they swarmed and foraged they were aptly described as a plague byMediterranean peoples even 4000 years ago. A single locust that lays her eggsin June will, by September, have nearly 8 million descendants. That is averitable army of locusts. As a matter of fact, no human army has ever amassedsuch substantial numbers. But the theological ramifications of Joel’s imageryshould be recognized here as he uses “Pentateuchal Curse” language—this is acurse for disobedience. You’ll remember the passage in Deut. 28 (specificallyv. 25-59) where, in the context of the punishment of invasion and exile, Godwarned the people of an army of men which would be used to destroy them andremove them from the Land. In Deut.28:38 and 42, in addition to the invasion of a foreign army, God promised thatlocusts would also be used to punish the people by destroying the Land. You’llalso notice there in Deut. 28 that the locusts and the army are mentioned inthe context of the same curse, which has given Stuart and others the liberty tointerpret the locusts of Joel 1:4 and the powerful nation of 1:6 as a singleconsequence of

Judah

’sdisobedience. Regarding the debate over the literalness of these locusts,several options present themselves. Bear in mind that this could be considereda comparison/contrast of verses 4 and 6: 1) the locusts in v. 4 are figurative,and the nation in v. 6 is literal. 2) The locusts in v. 4 are literal and thenation in v. 6 is also literal. 3) The locusts in v. 4 are literal and thenation in v. 6 is figurative. If the nation described in v. 6 is literal, thenverses 4 & 5 are one curse being fulfilled, and verses 6-18 represent asecond curse being fulfilled. If the locusts in verse 4 are literal and thenation in v. 6 is figurative, then it could actually be considered a metaphorfor the locust swam in v. 4. A view for which 2:18-25 could be used forsupport. Perhaps 2:25alone may lead the interpreter to think of the description of the invaders in2:1-11 as an illustration of the literal swarm of locusts described in an extendedmetaphor of an army of men. In any case, Joel is careful to call the people’sattention to the uniqueness of this invading army.

Exposition on Joel - 10 - Verses 1-3

2009-11-16T07:35:00.001-05:00

In verses 1-3 we find Joel’s introduction andcall on the people to hear the Word of the Lord. This entire chapter and the 1^stpart of chapter 2 have to do mainly with the destruction coming on

Judah

and the call for the people to lament its effects. Verses 2-3 give Joel’shearers and us as well, a call to remember the destructive force of locustsfrom the plague that occurred in the Exodus. Joel is setting the people up tocompare their present suffering through invasion to the desolations of thepast. They are what can be referred to as a “call to communal lamentation”. Itcan be difficult to distinguish this type of lamentation from that of a funeralsong or some sort of elegy, but the two verses contain several key elements aspointed out by Stuart (239). Joel commands the people to recall their recenthistory and to memorialize this event.

In v. 2 Joel calls the elders and infact all of the people to see the uniqueness of this event. The reason being isthat people become complacent and unhurried when events occur on a regularbasis, regardless of their intensity. Asmuch difficulty as the periodic swarm of locusts would have caused, even thatthey had gotten used to—most likely and most appropriately marking theirinvasions up to the nature of things. But when an unusually strong calamity issent their way, the people’s sensibilities tremble, such as it is with thisinvading army in verse 6. It seems to be the opposite in our day. We try to shrug off the big stuff and we tendto get hung up on the small things. Many of us actually spend a lot of timetrying either to avoid or cover up the discomforts that intrude into our lives.Symptoms of it can be seen in the way we entertain ourselves. Many of us loseourselves in movies and television almost like a drug, one that helps us forgetabout life’s larger troubles, even if only momentarily. We also try to shrugoff the big stuff in less benign ways, consider the way we try to ignore deathas a reality. The way we talk about it andeven some of the burial customs we embrace are actually symptoms of our desireto disengage from reality when it bites. Our technological advances have givenus such control over our circumstances that even the smallest discomfort ordisruption will frequently send us into a spiral of anxiety. Just to be sure,I’m not suggesting that these intrusions on our comfort like death or chronicpain or relational angst are necessarilyjudgments God has sent to call us to repentance like the invasion in Joel wasintended, but I mention them just to highlight the fact that the Judeans hadtaken the common things for granted. Joel makes it a point to remind them thatthis particular invasion and its effects are anything but common. It’s a bitlike the Californians who have gotten used to the occasional tremor. Joel istelling the people that this is not tremor; it is as though he asks them, “hasan earth quake of this magnitude happened in your recent history?” The answerto this rhetorical question posed in verse 2 is obviously, no.

In v. 3 Joel also calls on the people to telltheir children about this day of trouble. This verse could be a Hebraismwhereby the audience is being asked to remember and being asked to tell theirentire household to remember these events, whether they are present or future. Itreminds me of Joshua 4 when God brought the people across the

Jordan

and commanded that 12 stonesbe piled up as a memorial. God wanted His people and their children to rememberit so every time they saw that “monument” they could point to it and say to theirchildren, “see there, these stones were put there to cause us to remember theday when God did…” In a similar way, Joel calls the people to stack stones asit were, to remember this day when the Lord your God, in His terrible justice,sent an army to punish the nation. Little did the hearers of Joel’s oracle knowthey would likely be reminding their children and their grand children, whowould be born in a land other than their own. Perhaps if they were lucky, theirgreat, great grand children would be born in

Judah

(70 years later) after thereturn of the remnant. They could finally hear of this invading army while thepeople sat once again in Abraham’s Land.

Exposition on Joel - Introduction - 9

2009-11-13T07:35:00.005-05:00

In this introduction to the prophesy of Joel we have seen the difficultiesscholars have had placing Joel’s ministry on a timeline: we’ve made a briefsurvey of the history of the Old Kingdom andthe possible kings who reigned during the ministry of Joel. We’ve alsoconsidered God’s other prophets who might have ministered His Word at aroundthe same time. And in addition to those topics we also considered severalthemes of the book, the major ones being: First, we see in Joel, as with nearlyall the other prophets, that the threat of God’s imminent judgment demands therepentance of all peoples, a sort of contrition that in Joel’s day typicallymanifested itself in the rending of a nation’s heart and her true cry for mercythrough prayer and fasting.—Secondly, the future Day of the Lord with itspromises both of the deliverance of believers and the destruction of thewicked. And we discussed how Joel uses that Day to describe the day when God’swrath will come upon Judahin invasion, desolation and finally, exile. But, just as the trusting Jew didsome 2 ½ thousand years ago, we too can take heart in the comfort of beingassured that all of God’s promises are being fulfilled and that they are yesand amen in Christ Jesus our Lord. So as you consider Joel’s prophesy, think ofhow the visible church relates to the nation of Israel. Do this so you don’t losesight of the importance of his prophecy to us, and not just the future aspectof the DotL but the warnings of present temporal consequences for disobedience.The threat of judgment on and the call of repentance to Israel in thatday might have very similar meaning for the visible church today. But don’tstop there; don’t meditate on the imperatives of the Law too long withoutpreaching the indicatives of the gospel to yourself. Believers must finallyreflect on the promise of deliverance that awaits us at the DotL, and rememberthat, as a believer you never suffer the damning face of God’s wrath. Perhapsat times you will feel the pressure of His Fatherly displeasure but He who isfaithful will never forsake us because He forsook His Son on the cross. He whoadopted us will never disown us because on the cross, He disowned Christ in ourplace. He who married us as a bride will never divorce us because Christ ourhusband suffered the divorce in our stead, on the cross. Yet His work wasratified in His resurrection, so that we too may look forward to that Great Daywhen our resurrected spirits will be united forever with the bodies that Godwill raise. So when you hear the threats of judgment and the call torepentance, do take them very seriously; hear the Law through the criticismsthat Joel and the other prophets level at the nation Israel and also at thesurrounding wicked nations and reflect on your own sin and the sin of thechurch, but know that you can’t use the application of the Law that condemnsyou in order to do what it asks. Trying to use the Law to do what it commandsis a bit like trying to use a road sign as a map. If you are traveling to Chicago, the sign that says, “CHICAGO 1500 MILES” only lets you know howfar off you are, it doesn’t give you the power or knowledge of how to getthere. No, the power to obey is no where but in the gospel itself—the truththat Christ has obeyed perfectly and suffered the punishment for all our sinspast, present and future, therein lies the power to be set free from sin. Andeven so, that only in part until we are completely rid of our personalwickedness and the very desire to sin at the time of our changing when we arefinally and forever glorified.

Exposition on Joel - Introduction - 8

2009-11-11T07:35:00.004-05:00

Well, if at this point you’re still askingyourselves, “What does this really have to do with Joel?” Recall that Imentioned the confusion that may have occurred in the typical Jewish mind; ascircumcised members of visible

Israel

,they largely didn’t expect God’s wrath to ever befall them, and they especiallydidn’t expect the judgment contained in the prophesy of the DotL to be directedtoward them because it was a day where they all expected salvation. And that’sjust like people today not resting their faith in what Christ has done, butrather in their baptism or their parent’s faith. I think I can rightly claimthat confusion based on the topics that the New Testament writers had toaddress, and the manifest difficulties seen in that transition. So thediscussion of this view of covenant signs and linage has to do with the Jewishexpectation at the DotL. Joel had been sent, in part, to disabuse the people oftheir misinterpretation of that coming Day, a Day that Joel spends a great dealof time talking about. And I believe we’ve sufficiently covered that theme inJoel. Even though we will have given more time to the theme of the DotL, now wemust consider what is like to be regarded as the main theme in Joel. Repentanceappears to be the overarching theme, as it is in many of the prophets. Manytimes the prophets were instructed to call the nation to repentance and when iteventually occurred it would generally manifest in one primary outward aspect: Thecorporate expression of grief over the nation’s sins. And in the Old Covenantparadigm this grief was supposed to result in: individuals pleading for God’scovenant mercy through prayer and fasting.

Regarding this outward display of repentance,in addition to Joel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel all mention fasting, and partof Isaiah’s ministry was to criticize the nation’s misuse of the regulation offasting and Joel was careful to call the people not just to an outwardexpression of repentance; not to rend their clothes alone, but moreimportantly, to rend their hearts—it’s a bit like when Jeremiah spoke of theLaw being written not only on tablets of stone but upon our very hearts.

In the midst of all this talk of destructionwhich resulted from their lack of repentance, the one thing we can’t afford toforget is that, Joel gives us a glimmer of hope. In the context of promisesmade directly to the divided Jewish nation, Joel gave the people, and he givesall who are counted among God’s people a pledge that one day our suffering willbe vindicated and that God will bring us peaceably through whatever wrath Hemay pour out upon the heads of the wicked. But in the end, and somehow to God’sglory, both justice and mercy will be done; justice for all those who havespurned God’s general call to believe, and mercy for all who do believe. We seethis glimmer of hope beginning in chapter 2:18 &19 where the Lord is saidto have pity on the people because of the jealousy He has for His Land, whichis actually an allusion to the former promise God made to Abraham. Verses 19and 20 God’s acts of mercy are described. In the passage from verse 21-27, Goddeclares His plan to vindicate and restore that which is His, and He goes on todescribe the way in which He will do it. And finally in verses 28 and 29,somewhat book-ended by the terrorizing aspect of the Day of the Lord, Godpromises the blessing of His Spirit, a blessing that we have seen come to passat the Day of Pentecost..

Exposition on Joel - Introduction - 7

2009-11-09T07:35:00.000-05:00

The confusion of covenant signage and familiallineage being equated with God’s favor, in part, was how the Jews had falleninto all sorts of race, class and gender based discrimination: non-Jews werenecessarily thought of as godless. Of course, they generally were but were notall necessarily forsaken. Women were dependent on the covenant sign having beenplaced on the patriarch with whom they were associated. And the poor wereoppressed as generally having reaped the slothfulness they had sown. Theinfirm, such as the leper, they were banished (and for good physical reason ina day of limited methods of quarantine) never being associated with God’speople, having been forsaken. But Jesus came and supped with prostitutes andtax collectors—the shunned. He spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, and Hehealed the leper, all as expressions of the expansion of the scope of theKingdom. Not that Jesus came to say that the road was no longer narrow, butthat the variety of people called to travel that road is greater than anyoneexpected especially God’s Old Covenant people. So what was meant as anillustration, the peculiar people of God in an Old Kingdombound by Old covenant rights and rituals, those people thought the illustrationwas the fulfillment; they thought it was the way things would always be. Insteadof realizing that they were a picture or shadow or prefiguring of the Kingdomto come, they considered themselves with their customs and religiousobservances, to be the Kingdom of God fulfilled. So whenthey heard about the coming Day of Yahweh, the coming DotL. So they thought ofthat coming Day only as a day of salvation and deliverance for them, and a Dayonly of damnation and destruction for the gentile nations—the other kingdoms, the kingdoms of thisworld. So instead of allowing the people to continue in that delusion, Joeluses the image of the descending army to wreak as much havoc on the hearts ofGod’s own people as it would on God’s own Land. And he uses this imagery ofwhat would be a relatively immediate fulfilled DotL as a foreshadowing of thatdistant future Day when not only will the unbelieving nations be judged, butthe unbelieving Jewish nation would be judged as well. It was a warning not tomisunderstand the coming Day of Yahweh where His judgment will transcendnations, even that nation He called His own. This was likely a hard pill forthem to swallow, as were most of the words of God’s prophets.

The significance of the possiblemisinterpretation that the rank and file among the Jewish nation would have hadabout the covenant sign of circumcision is that they likely would have basedtheir assurance on it. Not unlike the parallel misconstruing of the sign ofbaptism today. Maybe you haven’t, but I have met people who have been raised in“Christian” homes, who were baptized either as infants or early in life, butthat is their only real tie to the historic faith. They have no genuine faithof their own, but they generally rest more on their baptism than on the cross,and they will usually say something like, “I know I should be in church but Godunderstands, He’s forgiving, He knows none of us are perfect.” So many timesthat same person practically becomes a deist. He’s certainly no atheist, butwhen it comes right down to it, he’s no Christian either. He’s adopted the world’sphilosophy of works religion. So that’s the interest we have in the possiblemisinterpretation on the application of the covenant sign—it can happen eventoday. That’s why I’ve chosen to belabor this point.

As for the right view of the application ofthe sign, in the New Covenant today, we baptize our babies into the membershipof the visible church, with the full expectation that God will translate themone day into the membership of the invisible Church through regeneration, thosein the Old Covenant were commanded to circumcise all their households into themembership of visible Israel. Just like we make the distinction between thevisible and invisible Church today, the same distinction could have been madebefore the cross—visible Israeland invisible Israel.All the children of Abraham and their children and their servants werecircumcised into visible covenant community membership, but the faith of thecircumcised individual (be he an infant or an adult) is expected but notguaranteed. Just like the baptized baby who has been made a member of thevisible church doesn’t have a guarantee of eventual faith. This is sort of asad illustration but one I believe serves the purpose of accurately describingthe scenario. A woman can have a child conceived in her womb and she rightlyexpects the eventual birth of the child, so it is anticipated but it’s notguaranteed. There is always the chance of miscarriage. We can only hope that,even in this fallen world, the miscarriage is the exception to the rule. We praythat the eventual full-term birth of that baby is ordinary. So it is with theone who is baptized in the New Covenant and the one who was circumcised in theOld, they are like that conceived child, and ordinarily they are reborn intotrue and genuine faith. But there is always that chance that they willeventually reject the gospel and fall away from the faith, and that is amiscarriage of the process.

Exposition on Joel - Introduction - 6

2009-11-06T07:35:00.002-05:00

The judgment that God was going to bring downon the people He called out of Egyptwas neither unfounded nor arbitrary; it was rooted in the covenant. Themeta-narrative of God’s story of redeeming the world, the big picture if youwill, revolves around this covenantal language. We hear it first in Ex. 6:7,then in Lev. 26:12, and finally in Rev. 21:3. “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them,and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.”Then if you look at Deut. 28 you see so clearly the covenantal blessings forobedience and curses upon disobedience. It’s in this environment that theprophets were chosen and sent by God—as both a mercy and a judgment. Theprophets came to Israel and Judah in orderto condemn the wicked among the nation; to condemn the wickedness of thenation. In our prophet’s specific ministry, Joel used the paradoxical image ofthe coming and future DotL as a catalyst for proclaiming both the immediatedestruction of the people for their disobedience and the deliverance of thebelieving people because of God’s great covenantal faithfulness. Theirdeliverance had been foretold through the Seed of Abraham, David’s greater Son,and The Shoot who would rise up out of the stump of the tree (mentioned in Is.11) that had been sheered off at its base in the captivity. The imagery of afuture Day when Yahweh God would come and judge the wicked and deliver Hispeople, was ingrained in the minds of most Jews in Joel’s day but what theyhadn’t understood was that in the DotL, and all it’s foreshadowing lesser daysof trouble, provision was made for the judgment of the nation’s own covenantunfaithfulness. So we see in Joel where the substantial Day, the eschatologicalDay, the Platonic ideal image of the DotL is predicted and foreshadowed in theform of warnings, the warnings of invasion, desolation and finally exile. Wealso see the shadow of this Day in Joel’s prediction of exile as a call for thenation to repent and the warnings of destruction and exile if they aren’theeded. But Joel isn’t the only one of God’s messengers to tell of the comingdeliverance and destruction in God’s Day of Judgment, His finally Day. Therecapitulation or recurrent presentation of images such as the DotL occursthroughout the bible: and eventually brought them into the Promised Land, Hemade them peculiar and they were pilgrims for a time in the wilderness. Thatrelationship was meant to depict an eternal one which God was making with thepeople of His choosing. A people who would be redeemed from out of the fallenworld of sin, who would walk for a time as pilgrims, then who would be broughtinto the ultimate Promised Land which was foreshadowed in the Old CovenantPeople. But if you look at the Exodus as a foreshadowing of the future Day ofJudgment, we see that the same event meant deliverance for the Jews, while itmeant destruction for the hardened Egyptians. And the dispersion that resultedwas predicted by John in Revelation as a shadow form of the final DotL. Throughthe darkness of the dispersion of the Jews after the destruction of the temple,the message of deliverance began to spread to the ends of the Earth. So, afterdarkness comes light; post tenebras lux,as recited by the Reformers. These examples might be seen as paradoxes(combining destruction for some and deliverance for others) just like the eventJoel and others described as the DotL or the Day of Yahweh or the Day ofJudgment. They occur in time as smaller events that point to the big event.

We have the great privilege and distinctpleasure of looking back at all the fulfillment of bible prophesies, except ofcourse for the fulfillment of the great commission and Christ’s return inglory, and we must sympathize with the misunderstandings that occurred. Thereare several pretty good reasons why confusion plagued those who, in God’sprovidence, had to look forward, through the shadows, to substances which theyforetold. Many of the Jews had mistakenly believed that their pedigree throughthe familial line of Abraham alone was their ticket to being the beneficiariesof God, regardless of their actions; they thought no one could take that fromthem. They believed, and thus rightly held in very high regard, that the ritualcircumcision of an 8 day old child ensured that none of God’s wrath wouldfinally be poured out on that individual (exopere operato). But Paul in Romans 2:25-29 would later inform us that notall Israel are of Israel—it is our faith, which is the gracious gift of Godthat separates God’s children from the children of the Devil, not the applicationof a covenant sign alone. Likewise with the continuation of covenant signage,now by the covenant baptism of our infants into visible church membership, weas parents and other onlookers who partake in the grace mediated by thatsacrament, fully expect God to later regenerate that baptized baby—He has setHis mark on that little helpless and virtually unresponsive child who willordinarily inherit genuine belief. But those who have tasted of the benefits ofGod through this nurturing, yet finally apostatize and fall away are theexception to the rule, thus are much more liable to God’s severe wrath becausethey tasted His grace first hand; consider 2 Pet. 2:1-3 where Peter tells offalse teachers who tasted the very grace of God through what we call the covenantcommunity, yet they forsook Christ and their trouble will be greater because oftheir exposure to the gospel and their failure to believe it.

Exposition on Joel - Introduction - 5

2009-11-04T07:35:00.003-05:00

We now have two major ideas in mind withregards to the “zeitgeist” of the temporal Jewish kingdom: One, that theprophets delivered their messages in the context of the covenant (with itsblessings and curses) and two, that the Jewish people had largely misunderstoodhow God’s plan to create a people for Himself would be fulfilled in what wecall the ecclesia or Church. They hadit in their minds that in essence, to be loved by God and to live as Hisbeneficiary was to be nationallyJewish. So in light of this misunderstanding three topics should be taken intoconsideration: the reason behind God’s judgment—the covenantal disobedience ofthe people, the means of the warnings Joel gives—the DotL. And third—the rightway to view God’s faithfulness to His people and the right way to look at theapplication of the signs of the covenants: both circumcision in the Old andbaptism in the New.

In Joel’s day the nation didn’t reallybelieve that God’s wrath could come down upon them, not His chosen nation. Theyhad forgotten the curses for disobedience in the Mosaic covenant and rememberedonly the blessings of the covenant made to Abraham their father. Kind of likethe haughtiness of Harry Potter in the “Half Blood Prince”. Many of the peoplehad in mind that, in order to become part of the elect people of God one had tobecome part of the physical nation of Israel; over the years, they hadequated the two. They failed to see themselves as an illustration of somethinggreater. But because of a lack of information, we must give them a pass. It isnot likely that we would have understood it any better. Theirs was an age ofshadows and types and things that only pointed forward to the fulfillment—JesusChrist. Their misgivings were in large measure the result of some of the functionsof the covenant: the exclusivity in the rituals and celebrations; thepeculiarity of the dietary laws, the warnings against marrying foreigners.Their misinterpretation of those things contributed to a fallen understandingof those outside of the covenant, especially in their time but even afterChrist came. The transition and understanding didn’t come easily. Christ had tobe interpreted. And Paul in Eph. 2:11-22 helped reform the world’sunderstanding of the mystery that ALL nations would be brought into thecommonwealth of Israel by their adoption through the blood of Christ. Beforethat, this idea of being loved and cared for and benefiting from the grace ofGod without first becoming a Jew (which in the Jew’s minds at the time meantbeing circumcised and keeping the other Mosaic Laws) was unthinkable. Paulinforms us, just as Hosea prophesied, that the “uncircumcision” who were “not apeople” have been made a people by being brought near to the commonwealth of Israel.Consider the Galatian heresy Paul had to deal with, it only happened because ofthis misunderstanding. Some influential people were teaching “another” gospel,one where of course the heretics admitted that one needed Christ’s sacrificebut that the person would also need to be physically circumcised andparticipate in a distinctly Old Covenant Jewish format of worship. Those falseteachers in Galatiahad fooled many to think that a proselyte still basically had to become anational Jew before becoming a disciple of the risen Christ. So in thismisunderstanding of fulfilled Jewishness, the Galatians of Paul’s day werestill in disbelief regarding the expansive nature of God’s mercy, that itincluded all tribes, tongues and peoples. The Jews in Joel’s day were likewiseconfused about the punishment of their people at the DotL. Part of Joel’smessage was to remind them that faithless Jews too, along with the godlessGentile nations, would receive the brunt of God’s damning wrath.

Exposition on Joel - Introduction - 4

2009-11-02T07:35:00.005-05:00

But Jesus came and spoke But by the inspiration of God’s Spirit, Joelturns the Jewish expectation of the Day of the Lord upside-down—because oftheir heritage they thought of that coming Day only as a day of salvation anddeliverance for them, and a Day only of damnation and destruction for thegentile nations. So instead of allowing the people to continue in thatmisconception, Joel uses the image of the descending army, a result of theircovenant disobedience, to wreak as much havoc on their hearts as it would onthe Land. And he uses this imagery as a foreshadowing of that future Day whennot only will the unbelieving nations be judged, but the unbelieving Jewishnation as well. It was a warning not to misunderstand the coming Day of Yahwehwhere His judgment will transcend nations, even that nation He called His own.This was likely a hard pill for them to swallow, as were most of the words ofGod’s prophets, else why would they need to be sent, if there was no misconceptionabout the nature of God and the nature of man?

The NT gives us many example of the diversity ofthe DotL. From Romans 2:16 we hear that on that Day the secrets of men will bejudged by Christ. But on that Day, the Day of the revealing of our Lord JesusChrist, will also be a Day of final salvation for believers, even theCorinthian believers whose egregious sin Paul addressed (1 Cor. 1:4-9). Andthose who Paul suggested their bodies be delivered over to Satan, even that wasso their souls would be delivered at The Day of the Lord (1 Cor. 5:5).According to Paul’s words later in his second letter to the church in Corinth,the Day of Yahweh will be a day where we will boast in one another’s good works(2 Cor. 1:14). And in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians he describes theDay of the Lord as a day the coming of which, no one can foretell, a coming daythat will likely surprise more people than it will catch waiting for it. EvenJesus mentions its mysteriousness as recorded for us in Mark 13:31. But thatDay is not designed to distribute God’s wrath or displeasure to His elect, butonly to those vessels for which that destruction has been measured out (1Thess. 5). And in his instructions to Timothy, Paul speaks of a future Daywhereby we will receive God’s mercy and crowns will be doled out (2 Tim. 1:18and 4:8). Not only Paul, but Peter as well was inspired to describe this comingDay. In his second correspondence he reminds us of the justice that will beexacted on that Day. He also describes the scoffers and mockers that willcharacterize the end of this present age, but in the same breath he admonishesbelievers to wait patiently for this Day, for what will sadly be the Day ofJudgment for many, is the Day of our salvation (2 Pet. 3). Lest we forgetJesus’ own comments on that Day: He warned, as recorded by Matthew in 7:22,that even some who called Him Lord would be forsaken in judgment on that finalDay. And Christ instructed His disciples and us as well to keep the NewCovenant Passover meal, that feast we call communion, until the Day of Hisreturn when He will supp once again in person with the extended group of OT andNT disciples which He calls His Church and His Bride (Mark 14:25). Christ alsodevised a couple parables describing both the immense pleasure and horrificterror that will be displayed on the DotL when He spoke of the 10 virgins andthe 10 talents and how the unprepared virgins He never knew and the wicked andslothful servant would be cast into outer darkness (Matt. 25).

Exposition on Joel - Introduction - 3

2009-10-30T07:35:00.003-04:00

Several themes surface throughout theprogress of Joel’s prophesy: the Day of the Lord and repentance. Then again,one could say that Joel’s style is really just characterized by variations onone theme—repentance. In chapter one he uses the drunkard, the priest, theinvading army and later, the final Day of Judgment, all as means of calling thenation to corporate repentance. And in chapters 2 and 3 we see the promises ofjudgment and salvation finally meted out in the Day of the Lord: aneschatological final day which is depicted throughout redemptive history inlesser, but still terrible, days of destruction and deliverance. We observe oneof the more prominent features of the promises and fulfillment to God’sbeneficiaries in His Spirit: promised in Joel chapter 3 and fulfilled in Actschapter 2. We can also observe the importance of the themes of the mourning andthe lamenting of the sin of Judah;and of course a call to their repentance, which necessarily becomes a call toconsecrate fasting and assembly in order to corporately lament the sins of thenation. In addition the mention of the mourning of the very land itself—thebeasts of the field, the pastures, vineyards, the languishing olive groves andthe gladness of the people having dried up along with the impoverishment oftheir physical resources.

Specifically regarding the Day of the Lord,Joel uses the term to describe 2 events: the recent torment on the land, anarmy described as locusts in chapter one, and the future and terrible Daywherein the evil nations will be judged in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, describedin chapter 2. Unlike most of the other prophets, simply warning the people bypredicting the actual futuristic nature of the coming Day of Yahweh or the Dayof the Lord, in Joel it is more so the gasoline fueling the fire of Hisoracles. So significant is the concept of the DotL to Joel’s prophesy that itis strategically placed in every one of the four major subsections of the book,thus making it undeniable crucial to the idea God had for Joel to preach. Theconcept of that Day in the book of Joel follows a pattern similar to the OTprophecies of Christ coming: as we know today, Christ’s coming was to betwo-fold: first in humiliation and second and finally in His coming in glory.The OT saint likely had confused the two due to their frequent compression, asthey were often spoken of as though they were one future “coming”, and in likemanner, the OT saint had likely confused the final deliverance that could beexpected by believers at the DotL with the destruction that was to be expectedat the DotL. So they were shocked to learn of their exile as a form of thepunishment provided for in the context of the DotL. The notion of the Day ofthe Lord is more fully expressed in the New Testament where we get a morecomplete picture than that provided by any pre-Messianic prophesy. And such isthe nature of prophesy in general, it normally follows this pattern: prophesy,then fulfillment, and then understanding. However, it can be demonstrated byour present concern in Joel that understanding is truly partial when we look athow the Jews in the OT thought of the Day of the Lord. After Joel’s prophesyand prior to the NT exposition of the concept, most Jews regarded the Day asbeing exclusively a day when the wrongs perpetrated against the people of Israel would berighted. But in Joel and in some NT passages we discover that unbelieving Jews(an unbelief manifest in gross and perpetual disobedience) will be judged inthat Day along with the evildoers of other nations.

You see, in Joel’s day and even in Christ’sday, especially before Paul in Eph. 2:11-22 helped reform the world’sunderstanding of the mystery that ALL nations would be brought into thecommonwealth of Israel via their adoption through the blood of the Ultimate andfinal Passover Lamb, Jesus of Nazareth, and all those (Israeli and gentile)unbelievers would receive God’s wrath on that final Day. The Jews believed thattheir pedigree through the familial line of Abraham alone was their ticket tobeing the beneficiaries of God, regardless of their actions; no one, theythought, could take that from them. They believed, and thus rightly held invery high regard, that the ritual circumcision of an 8 day old babe ensuredthat none of God’s wrath would finally be poured out on that individual. ButPaul in Romans 2 would later inform us that not all Israelare of Israel—itis our faith, which is the very gift of God, proved by our good works thatseparates God’s children from the children of the Devil, not the application ofa covenant sign alone. Likewise with the continuation of covenant signage, nowby the covenant baptism of our infants into visible church membership, we asparents and other onlookers who partake in the grace mediated by thatsacrament, fully expect God to later regenerate that baptized baby—He has setHis mark on that little helpless and virtually unresponsive one who willordinarily inherit genuine belief. But those who have tasted of the benefits ofGod through this nurturing, yet finally apostatize and fall away are theexception to the rule, thus are much more liable to God’s severe wrath becausethey tasted His grace first hand; consider 2 Pet. 2:1-3.

Exposition on Joel - Introduction - 2

2009-10-28T07:35:00.003-04:00

Perhaps Joel’s ministry as God’s covenant lawyer (as the prophets were often considered) began sometime between the 6^th and 9^th dynasties of the Northern Kingdom. We do know for certain that it didn’t begin prior to 873, the beginning of the reign of Judah’s 4^th king named Jehoshaphat, due mainly to Joel’s mention of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, but probably sometime before the exile in 586, if you take the pre-exilic position. Even though that period between 873BC and 586 BC appears to be quite ambiguous enough not to draw any criticism, it still remains the minority report among those considering it. It is ones placement of Joel’s ministry on the “wrong” side of the exile which is the debated issue.

As a point of interest, if Joel’s ministry occurred very early on in the Kingdom timeline, then it probably overlapped the ministries of other prophets such as Elijah and Elisha. I’d like to point out here that when one goes looking, you can find some discrepancy in the years of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah, but much more variance in the ministries of the prophets, so take these associations loosely, just as a means of placing their lives in time, hopefully making them less abstract. So if Joel’s ministry occurred very early on, he could have ministered to monarchs like: Athaliah, queen of the South, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah and Jotham. Whereas if one favors the later pre-exilic dating, then Joel would have enjoyed a time with contemporaries such as Zephaniah, Nahum, and perhaps even Isaiah and Jeremiah. And this later dating places Joel under the reign of kings like: Ahaz, Hezikiah, Manasseh, Amon and Josiah. But if the post-exilic dating proved true, then Joel would have shared his time of ministry with the likes of Daniel, Ezekiel (in the North), Habakkuk, and Malachi, who ministered to no kings because at that time the Jews had been exiled.

All of that information just to say that Joel mentions no king under which he prophesied, unlike Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Amos, who provided relatively great detail concerning their place in the kingdom and the kings to which the Lord gave His word through those prophets. ¹The word of the LORD that came to Joel, the son of Pethuel: Joel also gave no information about his vocation. It is however a general speculation that he may have been a temple priest due to the emphasis he places on the responsibilities of that office and how they suffered the lack and grain and drink offerings and how the priests mourned. Secondly, most agree that his ministry was concerned primarily with Judah, based partly on his mention of God’s holy mount Zion.

Joel, among other OT prophets, is considered an apocalypticist. In other words, among his writings are words of forth-telling that include a final end to the age of the world or cosmos as we know it. This is understood as God’s just and merciful act of judgment and of the final rewarding of His people. Another stylistic element to consider is that Joel’s prophecy in 2:1-11 bears a striking resemblance to that Isaiah’s in chapter 13. They share some vocabulary, themes, and the aspect of an invading foe. This comparison seems to support an early date for Joel rather than a later, because both portions of literature appear to be Pentateuchal in origin (Lev. and Deut.). Being established in Deut., Joel employs the justice of the covenantal curses for disobedience as the reasoning for the judgment of God on the nation that He called His own. He took well known historical events like the locust plague of Exodus and provided a new perspective in order to illustrate his prophesy. Note also that the presence of invasion, drought and desolation (three of the types of God’s judgment directed against the rebellious nation) are major punishments for infidelity to the Mosaic Covenant, and they were all precursors leading ultimately to physical exile from the Promised Land.

Like the majority of prophetic books, with the exception of much of the structure of Isaiah and Hosea, Joel follows the standard “woe-then-weal” format. It’s fairly easy to classify the first portion of the prophecy as distress, causing woe, and the second part as deliverance. Whereas the prophesies of Isaiah and Hosea, which of course are quite a bit larger, follow a format characterized by woe-weal-woe-weal, etc.

Though the final chapter of the book almost appears to be a completely separate prophecy, it seems more reasonable to conclude that the book is one cohesive prophecy possibly delivered at one time, but likely delivered in the span of a week or a month at most, due in part to the relative compression of the book: within 3 chapters there are tightly woven themes and ideas that cohere by similar word usage sprinkled over the course of the prophesy. Though the book has been traditionally broken into 3 chapters, there is reason to believe that it is structured in four different oracles medium in length, and if not given to the people at one time, perhaps in four separate revealings over a period of time, like I said, probably not spanning more than a month.

Exposition on Joel - Introduction - 1

2009-10-26T12:35:00.001-04:00

I would like to begin our study of the book of Joel with a bit of background information and at least cover the first verse of chapter one, which includes the prophet’s introduction of himself. Debated Jewish tradition dates Joel between Hosea and Amos, which is apparent from the canonical order. The tendency in ancient writings such as these was to group them chronologically, but there were occasions when the subject matter, style and vocabulary were the determining factors. As you all likely know, the grouping of books traditionally referred to as minor prophets gets its name from the Latin word meaning shorter, so their importance and eternal weight is neither attested to nor denied in that nomenclature. It is interesting to note that in the 3^rd century BC Septuagint, the Minor Prophets were divided into two groups, six and six, and the ordering being highly favorable of the chronology that was considered correct at the time. As far as the dating of Joel goes, this position seems to promote either a very late pre-exilic or post-exilic date of Joel’s prophecy, sometime between 600BC – 570BC. Following that line of thinking, there are several reasons for modern scholars to share the post-exilic (2^nd temple) opinion: It is claimed that Joel’s apocalyptic style is more like that of Daniel, Zechariah and parts of Isaiah. Most other pre-exilic prophets mention a reigning king, Joel does not. Joel’s perspective on foreign occupation (2:20; 3:3) and Diaspora (2:26; 3:6) seem consistent with the thoughts of other post-exilic prophets. But these reasons are not absolutely compelling. Apocalyptic literature has its origins at least as early as the 7^th century BC (Is. 13). Because of the close comparison of Joel 2:1-11 with that passage, it stands to reason that his apocalyptic preceded Zech. 1-8, thus placing him earlier than many think. Prior to “The” Exilic period, in the time between 722BC-586BC deportation and exile was a present reality due to the war-time policy of Assyria and other Near East nations, being one of the expected punishments of war. So Joel 3:7 doesn’t have to refer to the specific Israelite Exile we think of when we consider the times of the prophets.

Ultimately, any responsible scholar must side with Calvin when he says that it would be foolish to dogmatize about the dating of Joel’s prophecy. Regardless of date, the book’s message can be appreciated even though a period of ministry cannot be determined with any high degree of certainty. Nevertheless, many speculate out of necessity so as to help form a solid interpretation of the book’s prophecy. But whether one takes the post- or the late pre-exilic dating, the integrity of the book still stands. There is also a third opinion which states that the prophecy is early still, somewhere between 850-750. In any case, the book is God’s revealed Word, profitable as Paul puts it, for teaching, reproof, correction and training. Through the years it has been with a great deal of difficulty that commentators and bible enthusiasts alike have tried to date Joel’s prophesy and still today there is disagreement even within the specifically Reformed community. So as I mentioned briefly before, there are two primary positions on the dating of Joel’s prophecy: Some say that his prophesy was pre-exilic (a position which can be divided into early and late pre-exilic dating). The terms pre and post exilic, when applied to the ministries of the prophets refers to whether they prophesied before or after the Jews were exiled: the Jews of Israel to Assyria in 722 and the Jews of Judah to Babylon in 586.Yet another school of thought claims that Joel’s prophecy occurred after the fall of the Northern and Southern kingdoms.

Just some quick background concerning the Jewish kingdom and its division: Saul, David and Solomon were the only Jewish Kings to rule the temporal Kingdom of God united (1050 BC – 930 BC). America has already enjoyed a span of life nearly twice that of the united Jewish Kingdom, not that our nation is united in the quality that would have been demanded by the Jewish nation under monarchal rule. Nonetheless, the unity expected under the supposed godly rule of one man quickly dematerialized in a nation of sinners, and thus the Jewish nation (a pre-figuring of the Kingdom of God’s elect nation) was divided around 930 into two kingdoms: the Northern Kingdom called Israel and the Southern called Judah. In the 200 years following the division, due to their separation from the Davidic line, Israel experienced nine different dynastic reigns until it fell in 722 to the Assyrian empire. On the other hand, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin continued in the line of David with Rehoboam (son of Solomon) as their first king in the divided kingdom, but they too fell to the Babylonians in 586.

Exposition on Joel

2009-10-26T10:35:00.002-04:00

I've recently been charged with the task, and great pleasure, of leading the young adult fellowship at our church. The major portion of my responsibilities is to teach a bible study on Wednesday nights. I chose to go through the prophesy of Joel. so begins a blog series of the same material.

God's Knowledge, Who Can Know it? - part 20

2009-10-14T07:35:00.006-04:00

Our choices and their immediate causes

This brings us to the discussion of how we make choices and why. I have made the assertion that, regarding the choices we make, we necessarily could not have chosen otherwise but I would like to bring the words of other men to bear on the topic. This is what John Hendrix has to say regarding our choosing Christ.

“So if there is not of necessity any moral reason or motive that ultimately compels one to believe or not then how could God blame someone for rejecting Him? To believe the gospel is a moral choice, from the heart. If not then God could not call the rejection of the gospel a sin. If our affections do not cause us to believe then belief and unbelief is ultimately non-affectional, not from the heart and rejection could not be considered a sin. But if it is a moral choice then how did one person get a more moral disposition than the other? One remained proud and the other humble? Was this by nature or by grace? If by grace then why don’t all men have it? If by nature then some people are more virtuous than others apart from grace. This dilemma is really fatal to libertarian free will and none of them have been able to answer these basic questions. The answer ‘just because’ is not enough. [i]”

Hendrix’s words assert that our choices are made because of our affections, not in spite of them. Clearly not all non-Calvinist/non-Reformed persons espouse an anthropology of libertarian free-will nor do they all claim to adhere to philosophical systems that promote a variation on the theory of middle knowledge. Though I must that I don’t know where else thinking individuals would likely rest on the issue of God’s foreknowledge, providence and His ability to carry out His plans in time as He wishes except that they claim either of the three main views: Open Theism (Process Theology), Molinism (Middle Knowledge) or Compatibilism.

When a worldview claims libertarian free will as one of its foundational tenets, one of two things result: either it makes a belief in original sin (at least the historic, biblical understanding of the term) a contradiction within their system, or it must be denied all together. Listen to what they say about their own system.

“Libertarians take very seriously the widespread judgment that we are morally responsible for our actions and that moral responsibility requires freedom” That is, a person cannot be held morally responsible for an act unless he or she was free to perform that act and free to refrain from it. This is basic moral intuition.[ii]”

If responsibility, as such a one would claim, is grounded in one’s ability to have chosen “X” or non-X without any compelling influences, then we don’t inherit guilt and condemnation from Adam (as the historical, biblical understanding promotes) but instead we inherit only the capacity to sin, thus denying the doctrine of original sin. The other result is that such a one may accept the doctrine of original sin in some superficial sense but also claim that Christ died to make all men savable in order to give everyone the capacity for choosing God, thus leading to the contradiction in their system where men both, inherit Adam’s sin and maintain the ability to choose not to sin while still “counted in Adam”. I personally like what John Owen has to say regarding this man-made philosophy, and find it difficult to state it any better.

“To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect.[iii]”

He goes on to assess the libertarian view of creaturely freedom and his responsibility in a way with which I must agree.

“The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence…the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined. [iv]”

I have heard it stated very often that men only go to Hell because of their personal unbelief. If this unbelief is a sin that finds its origin in the fallen affections of the human heart, a heart whose condition was inherited from Adam, then it is biblical to say that ultimately we are guilty and go to Hell because we are inherently sinners; unbelief being one of those sins for which the unregenerate man will be punished in Hell. As a result it would be more accurate, yes even more biblical, to say that one goes to Hell because they are a sinner unredeemed, and that their unbelief is one sin among many for which they will continue to render payment in Hell as they abide God’s wrath for an eternity. So if it is not simply my unbelief that causes my damnation, then on what foundation is human responsibility based? This forces us to answer a more telling question, why do we make the choices we do? According to the Libertarian, if our choices are to be considered free (and they must be in order for God to hold us responsible for them, according to the Libertarian) then they can have no determining factor, no sufficient condition or cause at all—not even our affections or desires are allowed to cause our choices, not even they are the antecedent cause for what we choose. But Libertarianism and Dynamic Pre-Temporalism do not establish culpability for our choices instead they absolve us of being responsible for the things we do. Rationality leads us to believe that the contrary is true, that only if our choices are born out of our desires can we be held responsible for those choices. As Hendrix stated before, if our choices are not born out of our desires and affections then it would be unfair for God to judge us by them. Here is Hendrix again on this topic.

“The Belief in Libertarian Free Will Destroys Moral Responsibility – Walls and Dongell make a strong case that our judicial system is based on the commonsense view of libertarian freedom since the lawyers often defend the degree of guilt of clients based on whether they were coerced, their upbringing, emotional state and the like. These kind of conditions indeed often make people less culpable if their inability made them so they could not have done otherwise. If criminals could have made different choices than they did, i.e. if they were coerced into making a bad choice, then we all agree they would not be as legally responsible for their crime. While it is true that coercion often plays a role in the legal degree of punishment, but this only scratches the surface of the matter. Consider the opposite that if criminals just chose to commit a crime but had no intent or motives for it at all then the lawyer would be forced to plead insanity for his client before the court. If the choice to commit a crime were not based and caused ultimately on a reason, desire or motive then he would have to be absolved from guilt because he would not be responsible for it. If one chose to murder someone simply because he chose to it would be a sign of sickness not responsibility. Libertarian free will, therefore, destroys responsibility. Moral responsibility exists, not in spite of, but because our choices have reasons, motives, intent. Only the determinist, therefore, upholds moral responsibility. Can we be held responsible for doing something we do not want to do? [v]”

So we conclude that if our choices are not rooted in our natural affections, then God cannot hold us responsible for them because those choices would be arbitrary, thus making God’s judgment of them capricious. The only other option is that the choices we make are in fact rooted in our desires just as the proverb suggests (4:23).

[i] Hendryx, J. W. 'Just Because': Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will. Same source as endnote number 3.

[ii] Walls, Jerry L, and Dongell, Joseph R. Why I am not a Calvinist. (InterVarsity Press, 2004)

[iii] Owen, John III: 433

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Hendryx, J. W. 'Just Because': Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will. Same source as endnote number 3.

God's Knowledge, Who Can Know it? - part 19

2009-10-12T07:35:00.005-04:00

Preexistent potential realities?

In summary, I have divided into four categories the most likely views regarding the pre-temporal knowledge of and existence of future events and choices:

1. A being greater than God created multiple, potential sets of realties from which Yahweh God must choose, yet Yahweh God knows all the events that would have taken place had He chosen otherwise.

a. Explanation: This view is manifestly non-Christian. However it does make great science fiction. Logically though, if there existed a being greater (this other being has created potential realities from which Yahweh God must choose, thus making him greater) than the God of the Christian Scriptures, then that being would by definition, be God and the being to whom he submitted sets of potential realities from which to choose is a lesser being and, also by definition, could not be God—at least not the Creator God described in the Bible. The lesser being may not have been created by the being that generated the potential realities, but then again, the being that did may have created both of them, who knows? In other words, the being that created the possible realities is necessarily greater than the one who chooses from them, and the being who chooses becomes a non-God because he is subject to some force outside Himself that influences his choices.

2. God conceived of multiple, potential sets of realities and then He chose from them. These sets exist only as thoughts until chosen, and in process, realized. They only exist in the first place because God has thought of them as potential realities. In effect God says I might do this, yet I might do this other thing—God considered what I would do and made His choice based on what He knew I would choose.

a. Explanation: This view possibility challenges the perfection and wisdom of God. The implication of this is, if God thought of two possible futures and chose to implement one into reality and not the other, and then the one discarded is inferior by virtue of its being discarded. That, in my opinion, is an untenable thought regarding anything God does. If one possible future was chosen above another then it must have been for the reason that it is better future in some way and to some degree, however insignificant the difference may be. If the choice is not made based on the intrinsic superior value of one potentiality above the other, then it must be based on exclusively on God’s knowledge of his creature’s future choices or else His choice must be considered arbitrary—that would be an attack on the purposefulness of God. If the former is true then God is ultimately subject to the power of the future choices that He knows His creatures will make. If the latter is true then God’s goodness would have to be called into question. God must act or choose with purpose in order to maintain His righteous character. To choose without purpose is in essence to choose without knowledge—and choosing without knowledge is something that is not possible with God, unless of course you are an Open Theist. God is by definition, all-knowing. If God knows everything past, present and future then His choices must be in accordance with that knowledge or else He would be making a decision against what He knows to be best. Even for creatures, a choice made with knowledge has at least that much purpose. Thus God’s choices made in perfect knowledge are perfect also in their purpose.

3. Multiple sets of potential realities exist as a result of the mere possibility of their future realization through the choices made by possible creatures within each set. God must chose from those sets and the one He chooses becomes real as time goes on.

a. Explanation: If these alternate thoughts from which God must choose were not from His own mind, then from whose mind did they come? In the case of the possible strands of realities (futurabilia as Molina called them), it must be concluded that the generative source or sources of these strands were the thoughts, choices, and determinations of the subjects within the strands themselves. And if this is so then the subjects had no objective primary cause—rendering them causes which in effect, cause themselves! In due course, one must draw the same conclusion here as with the previous view.

4. God’s singular set of decrees lead to His creation, which includes the ends and the means to these ends (all creatures and their thoughts, choices, and actions are obviously included).

a. Explanation: If this view is true, then there can be no other possible outcomes. This view, referred to as Compatibilism, Reformed, or Static Pre-Temporalism as I have dubbed some of its specific aspects, I believe is the biblical model.

God's Knowledge, Who Can Know it? - part 18

2009-10-09T07:35:00.002-04:00

Many believers would oppose Open Theism when presented with its heresies by affirming that God does has perfect knowledge of the future, but it is only the Compatibilist who rightly says that God’s knowledge of and decree of future events and choices are inseparably related. Therefore the future, which God sees perfectly, finds its source in all of that which God desires to take place; not withstanding that God may desire one thing above another and may exhibit varying degrees of affection toward different things. And as I said before, I do not think that the Molinistic scheme actually accomplishes that which it is attempting to accomplish, namely that God is protected from being the ultimate cause of evil simply because real counterfactuals exist. If God knows perfectly the future choice that a man will make, if God knows that I will turn right at the light, then do I legitimately have the power of contrary choice, could I actually choose to turn left? The answer is no, of course not. Even if the potential reality that represented my choice to turn left did exist, God knew that I wouldn’t.

God's Knowledge, Who Can Know it? - part 17

2009-10-07T07:35:00.005-04:00

Let us remember that a system of dynamic pre-temporal items must assume that counterfactuals are independent of God’s knowledge, determined and finalized in time by the future choices and creatures they reflect. This is the logical assumption if we take into account the goals of this system. One deduction to be made in light of all this is that God’s choice between these contingent realities is not genuine if they do not exist objectively to Him. In the Dynamic Pre-Temporal system it seems that God chose the best path among many, the way in which He would be most glorified, therefore we must conclude that God could not have chosen to do otherwise because no potential future could exist (in time or otherwise) which God had decided not to choose. If He had generated or observed an alternate choice then it too must have existed as an alternate and simultaneous potential reality. Ultimately, because the Bible gives us no reason to believe that there are actual, alternate, potential realities, we finally must say that God would never have had or observed a potential reality or counterfactual which He would not finally choose.

Like Compatibilism and Static Pre-Temporalism, Middle Knowledge and Dynamic Pre-Temporalism assert that God does know the future with certainty but Dynamic Temporalism claims that He also knows all the counterfactuals of all the choices that would potentially be made therein, even though He also knows that they most certainly will never happen. In one aspect of this scheme, counterfactuals only existed after God’s decree of the events to which they are counter. In other words, God decreed x, x+1, x+2, x+3 and so on, but then suddenly non x and non x+1 existed as their counterparts or counterfactuals. If this is true then I see two possible conclusions:

1. Those counterfactuals are imagined in the mind of God along with the events He has decreed to actually take place, but in His imagining of the counterfactual, their non-existence is necessarily decreed. So at the same time (if we can speak of it temporally) God decreed the factual which claims that Judas would betray Christ should certainly come to pas because He knew Judas’ intentions, and God decreed that the counterfactual which claims that Judas would not betray Christ would never come to pass. So the factual and counterfactual exist simultaneously as the thing decreed to happen and the thing decreed not to happen.

2. Those counterfactuals must have been generated by the future deliberation an individual would have between possible choices, thus making that individual the primary cause of the counterfactuals and the individual’s deliberation the secondary cause of the counterfactuals those deliberating desires preconceive. In other words, God decreed that Judas would betray Jesus. Immediately, the potential future wherein Judas wouldn’t betray Jesus was generated but just as immediately, it was discarded by God because He know for certain that Judas would in fact betray Christ.

Consider the intent of the Molinistic point of view which in part, is supposed to shield God from the possible charge of being the author of evil and to establish the idea of libertarian freewill— which from their point of view allegedly establishes the creature’s liability to his Creator’s laws. I contend that if God chose to know the certain-future and the counter-future, assuming the counter-future will most certainly not occur, and the certain-future is a thought in the mind of God which would be chosen over the other, thus causing the counter-future to be discarded, then the counter-future has no real potential from God’s point of view, rendering it inert, unviable, and absolutely unnecessary. This appears to suggest that God has discarded one of His thoughts and kept another. If so, then the thought discarded must have been inferior in some way. Or it was simply discarded because it didn’t agree with the actual future choices men were going to make. In which case, the perfection of God’s knowledge of the future, free choices of men is challenged. And in the former case, it is an attack on the perfection and immutability of God.

If God had allowed or ordained the existence of a real counter-future or counterfactuals along with His ordinance of the certain-future, then the argument for libertarian free will is also lost and the proponent of such a theory would have to face the` same criticisms he makes of the compatibilist: why is God not the author of evil if He even allows a future wherein men are capable of choosing to do evil things and if God exists then why is there evil? Also if the counterfactuals are known in the mind of God, then creatures still do not actually posses the power of contrary choice; they cannot do otherwise because God perfectly knows even the choice they didn’t or wouldn’t make. If God knew of our choices ahead of time, no matter what the number of possible alternative counter-futures, then He still has to answer to the same objection normally posed to the Compatibilist—Is man free if he could not have chosen otherwise? If God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil knowing that Adam certainly would sin and take the fruit and yet He created it anyway. The Molinist is then subject to the same criticism that is leveled here. I suppose that is one of the reasons Pinnock (who was formerly a professor at Westminster) has become an open theist. He is honest enough to admit the futility of the middle knowledge model. If the counterfactuals are conceived of in the mind of God, then He is not protected for being the author of evil, as the Molinist would count that protection. So in order to maintain consistency within the Molinist’s own system, God cannot be the creator or the source of these alternate outcomes; therefore they must find their source elsewhere, and the only other place is in the creature that chooses. But this demands that the knowledge of the future choices of creatures that did not yet subsist, exist before the creatures that are necessary for the decree as ordinances of the future choices. This situation is as impossible as a shadow without a substance; a reflection without an object to be reflected. Listen to one modern day Molinist as he identifies this necessity.

“According to Molinists, God uses his knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which are contingent and prevolitional in deciding which persons to create in which situations. But if such counterfactuals are contingent, they might not have been true. Who then, makes them true? Or to phrase the question more carefully: Who or what actually causes the ones that are true to be true, and the ones that are false to be false? In whose actual activity are we to find adequate metaphysical grounds for such truths...Could God be the one who by himself causes their truth? Clearly not. The truths in question are supposed to be true prior to, and hence independent of God’s will. To suggest that God can decide which such counterfactuals are to be true is to abandon the libertarian standpoint essential to Molinism. ”

If counterfactuals exist outside of God, or they are not thoughts generated in the mind of God then He is ultimately subject to them (even if their number is infinite). He must observe them from a point completely disconnected from them and their creation. The only other option is to conclude that these counterfactuals or the counter-future exists in eternity past because of the deliberation of potential individuals in the yet written future. They exist simply because they might possibly happen in the future. Imagine that the degree to which there are differing numbers of possible choices a person could make regarding a certain decision, there are that many (however slight) different strands of potential realities resulting from the possibility of each choice being made in time. Imagine eternity past before the foundations of the world: Father, Son, Holy Spirit…and the extemporal, ethereal sets of potential realities—sounds absurd but is that not what is being offered as an alternative to the biblical understanding of the providence of God and the problem of evil? A scenario wherein God knows all the potential realities does not make Him more sovereign, but in fact it denies His sovereignty altogether because that being is made subject to the future and His choices—yes even election—are conditioned upon the preexistence of potential outcomes that He must observe, not determine.

God's Knowledge, Who Can Know it? - part 16

2009-10-05T07:35:00.002-04:00

While there are a great many interesting views to consider as one ponders eternity, the time-space continuum and the like, in the end a Star Trek epistemology makes for a very poor filter through which to sift one’s theology. On the whole we Americans anyway are so inclined to reject the science for the fiction, the substance for the shadow, ignore the archetype for the type, and praise the ad rather than the product. Just look at the way most television commercials are presented. The reason we come away saying, “That was a great ad but I don’t remember what they were advertising” is because we associate more with the vehicle than its occupants. In an environment where short attention spans are expected, we can see why no one wants to invest the time it takes to really appreciate the product when they can simply enjoy the 30-second advertisement, which often has nothing to do with it. Think of the modernistic movement in painting and other fine arts where the whole philosophy backing it was to display the media at the expense of the composition and content; it was an exercise in communicating nothing through something; even though it did actually communicate something by the absence of content. One example would be Lichtenstein’s “brush stroke”. The idea that was regarded as important was not the thoughts communicated but the tools that were used in communication. Maybe this is one reason why churchgoers are happy to sacrifice good theological lyrics just for a musical style they enjoy better, a variation on the idea of form over content. It happens with preaching as well, often the thing regarded as more important is the homiletically palatable approach rather than the theology communicated in the process. It was architect Mies Van der Rohe who popularized the phrase: form follows function. The function of an object is what must ultimately determine its form. In applying this format to preaching the Word of God we can see that the homiletics of the presentation should be determined by the theology that needs to be communicated from the Word. If there is a dispute between the two then the function of The Word must win out over the form of homiletic style. I admit that I am guilty of all these errors as well. Even in the senior thesis I did for my bachelor’s degree in furniture design I emphasized the process more than the product rendered. Look also at the “Emergent Church” movement wherein the journey is what is emphasized, not the place you might end up. If you set a goal…you may not reach it, and who wants to be considered a failure for not having reached their goals? You may object by saying that this is strictly utilitarian, but I’m not suggesting that we forego aesthetics for use, or emotional pleading for accurate reading, or journey for destination—no, we must have both. Yes, we must have the object but we must also have the reflection, we must have the end but we must also employ means to get there. We must have both content and form. They must work in concert, but the thing depicting must not jealously usurp the authority if the thing which it depicts.

God's Knowledge, Who Can Know it? - part 15

2009-10-02T07:35:00.003-04:00

Continuing on, option three above asserts that God knows the future events that will most certainly happen, but He also knows all the counterfactuals of all those events, even though He also knows that they will certainly never happen. This option also claims that those counterfactuals had existence prior to God’s decree of the events to which they are counter. If this is true, then I see two possible conclusions:

1. Those counterfactuals or “potential” realities must find their source in some being or some force greater than or equal to God Himself. Perhaps those beings or forces are the ones having to choose between those counterfactuals.

2. They are self-existent.

If we assume that these realities are not generated in the mind of God, there are several problems with this idea we can see immediately. It is impossible that they would exist as an idea if the reality they shadow only exists potentially. In order for the substance of a future (that is, its cause and effect events and the beings within said future who will be making choices) to exist prior to its occurrence in time, and in order for it to be known or perceived pre-temporally, it must necessarily be a certain and not just potential future event or choice. Its pre-temporal existence is the knowledge of its future certainty as an event; in fact it is God’s knowledge of it that establishes the “gist” of its existence. And its existence as a knowable item causes it to occur at some future, temporal point. Thus there were or are now no “realities” that merely had the potential for future occurrence, only realities that possessed the certitude of future occurrence can exist as knowable futures—and even then, they are really only knowable to God unless He reveals them to His creatures in a glimpse at it were. The supposed “potential reality” can’t exist if its pre-temporal representation does not necessarily cause its existence in the future. In order for a future event to be foreseen it cannot simply be a possibility. The thing foreseen pre-temporally is not so disjointed from its future occurrence in time. They do not exist as completely dislocated thought and reality, but the thought must be causal in relation to the reality it preconceives. It is like an object and its reflection, if you remove the object the reflection can not exist. So in that way the event foreseen is like the reflection and the event that occurs in time is the object being reflected—take away the event in time and you must also remove its reflection to be foreseen. So the reflections do not exist theoretically from which to be chosen, they reflect a real future object, thus the reflections exist because they necessarily will occur, as they are reflecting real future objects. If they can be foreseen then they will certainly occur. Similar to the way we view the past, events that have already occurred are static just as are event that will happen in the future, and this I believe to be the orthodox Christian view. This view could therefore be referred to as “Static Pre-Temporalism”, a view that is contrasted with the Middle Knowledge or Molinistic view of real counterfactuals, which could be referred to as “Dynamic Pre-Temporalism”.

I know that Static Pre-Temporalism perhaps does not make for as good a background for entertaining science fiction as Dynamic Pre-Temporalism does, but it is the truth. I wonder if those who would reject Static Pre-Temporalism are those most influenced by a post-modern Western culture which, over the past 50 or 60 years, has been subjected to an influx of false Eastern mystical thoughts regarding time and space and reality. A ground fertilized with naturalism and primed for receiving the seeds of relativism was all too eager for the views of time, space and reality that would be popularized through shows like “Star Trek” in the 1960’s. Don’t get me wrong, I very much enjoy science fiction but it is just that…fiction tainted, some might say, by the occasional fact. It is true what they say, that truth is stranger than fiction, however, fiction is much easier to conform to our individualistic and relativistic ideals regarding reality: history and the future. We have seen this much more recently with Dan Browne’s treatment of history—most people want a history they can conform to their own ideas about how things should have been. Maybe many theologians today have contracted what I call the “Rodenberry Syndrome” (inspired by the name of the creator of “Star Trek”—Gene Rodenberry), an obsession with novelty; and the insatiable desire to “go where no man has gone before”. This is a highly dangerous activity in the realm of theology, but we can observe it in the Molinistic concept of real counterfactuals; that the future is relative to each individual’s choices.