Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 179

April Book Briefs

Dale Ralph Davis. The Word Became Fresh: How to Preach from Old Testament Narrative Texts (Mentor 2006). Over the past few years, I've had a number of conversation that start like this, "Have you ever heard of Dale Ralph Davis? I'm going through his sermons on the Old Testament and they are amazing." Before this book, I'd never read anything by Davis. But his work has been recommended many times. I can see why. He is good writer and skilled exegete. Anyone who plans on teaching or preaching from the Old Testament would be helped by this book. You'll see connections and patterns and quirks you've never noticed in the Old Testament. Davis is particularly good at keeping his finger on the "theological jugular vein" of a text. He does not, however, think we must preach Christ from every text. Some OT sermons, he says, will be more theocentric than Christocentric. Even if you don't agree with that approach, his caution against forcing Christ into texts is warranted. All in all, an excellent resource–wise, short, easy to read, full of masterful illustrations and applications.

David Brooks. The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement (Random House 2011). In this new book, the New York Times columnists creates a fictional story about Harold and Erica. He pulls from the latest in brain research to explore how this composite couple makes decisions, grows up, and forms social bonds. Brooks is a terrific writer and the research is folded into an interesting narrative. But I must confess I did not make it through the book. In fact, I didn't make it very far (so take this "brief" with a generous grain of salt). There was enough material on the nature of sexual attraction to make me uncomfortable. It wasn't presented in a salacious way, but it wasn't what I needed to be reading. It's also hard to read a book that purports to explain why people are the way they are and why they relate to people as they do when the book does not see the world through Christian categories of creation, fall, and redemption. I skipped around and read lots of interesting facts and anecdotes. But at 400 pages, even with Brooks' talent, I couldn't plow through the whole thing.

Jonathan Edwards. Religious Affections (Yale University Press 2009). Just to be clear, I did not read this book in the last month. But I did finish it. Our church staff has been plugging away at J-Ed for the last two semesters. We finally finished (sort of limping through the tape). This was the second time I've read through the Religious Affections. I liked it more and less the second time around. I like it more because I understood it better, knew what was coming, and found so many wonderful passages that capture the heart of Christian virtue. I liked it less because after lots of good staff discussion I see that Edwards is not helpful to everyone. Religious Affections is a great piece of revival theology, making sense of the Awakening in New England and whether the new experiences were good, bad or indifferent. But as a manual on the Christian life, it is confusing. It can rob the sensitive soul of assurance. Like a good Puritan, Edwards can encourage too much introspection. I think this is one classic that may be better to read through quickly rather than slowly. On a macro level, Edwards' signs and non-signs make good sense and are full of wisdom. Down in the nitty-gritty, some of Edwards' distinctions get overly nuanced. Still, Religious Affections as a classic of evangelical theology can get you thinking and feeling more deeply and more biblically.

One More Time on Moral Equivalence

With the killing of Osama bin Laden this is probably as good a time as any to write a post I've been meaning to do for some time. I mentioned this yesterday, but permit me to go after this theme one more time.

Every sin is not the same in God's eyes.

This sentiment is popular with many Christians. For some it's a sign of genuine humility–"I deserve God's wrath too. So how can I judge someone else?" For others this is a way to dodge the hits that come when you dare to criticize trendy sins–"Yes, I do think mating with bovines is wrong, but it's not worse than any other sin." And for still others, it's simply a soft form of relativism–"Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you know."

Like many popular adages, this one about all sins being equal before God is not entirely wrong. Every sin is a breach of God's holy law. And whoever fails to keep the law in one point is guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). So any sin committed against an infinite God deserves punishment. We're all born sinners. We all sin. Every sin deserves death. That's why the truism is half-true.

But it's also a lot not true. Over and over the Bible teaches, either explicitly or implicitly, that some sins are worse than others.

God waited four hundred years before giving the Israelites the promised land because he the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet complete (Gen. 15:16). They were sinners all along, but eventually their sins merited drastic punishment.


The Mosaic legislation prescribes different penalties for different infractions and requires different sacrifices and payments to make restitution.


Numbers 15 recognizes the difference between unintentional sins and those done "with a high hand" (Num. 15:29-30). Dropping a four letter word when you hit your thumb with a hammer is not as bad as giving God the middle finger.


Some sins in Israel's history were more notorious than others. Judging from the Lord's outrage, sacrificing your child to Molech was probably worse than losing your patience (Jer. 32:35).


Jesus intimates that some peoples will be judged more severely on the day of judgment because they had more reason to believe (Matt. 10:15). We will all be judged according to the light we have.


Though not saved by his good works, Cornelius was nevertheless "a devout man who feared God" (Acts 10:2). Even among non-Christians there is a difference between being a decent human being and being a dirty, rotten scoundrel.


The requirements for overseers presupposes that some men are actually godly. Some Christians have lives marked by general obedience to God's word. Some Christians are better examples than others.

Some day I want to write more about this subject because I think many Christians have lurched headlong down the slip-n-slide of moral equivalence. So the elder who battles the temptation to take a second look at the racy section of the Lands' End catalog shouldn't dare exercise church discipline on the 20-year old fornicating with every co-ed that moves. When we can no longer see the different gradations among sins and sinners and sinful nations, we have not succeeded in respecting our own badness, we've cheapened God's goodness. God knows that some sins are more grievous than others. We would do well to see the world with God's eyes as best we can.

Osama bin Laden and the Value of Justice

Christians are already beginning to weigh in on the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Not surprisingly, Justin Taylor has a quick roundup of the first couple of internet volleys–both of which are very good. I'm sure there is more serious reflection to come. But since I'm a blogger, I'll do what bloggers do, and that's add my thoughts to the mix.

There are really two questions to answer: 1) Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? 2) Did those who killed him have authority to do so? I believe the answer to both those questions is yes. Consequently, his death was a matter of justice for which we can be grateful.

1. Did Osama bin Laden deserve to die? Genesis 9:6 suggests he did: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." Capital punishment for murder is not an assault on the image of God, but a defense of it.  It is because human life is so precious, that the taking of human life needs to be punished so severely. The principle of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound" (Exod. 21:23-25) was not a matter cruel and unusual punishment, but of controlled retribution as a means of protecting the community and valuing the dignity of human life.

At this point, some earnest Christian will object, "But we will all deserve to die. If God should mark my iniquities, I would be a goner too." The objection makes sense on one level. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). And yet, even with this doctrine of total depravity the Bible never acts as if everyone deserves to die physically right now. Some have deserved immediate death, so God killed Nadab and Abihu and struck down Uzzah and inflicted judgment on the Egyptians, Amorites, Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians, and Babylonians. We all deserve condemnation apart from God's grace, but some deserve death now because some sins are worse than others and some sinners commit more egregious sins.

It is one of the half-truths of our day that every sin is the same in God's eyes. On the one hand, every sin renders us liable to God's judgment (James 2:10). On the other hand, not every bit of iniquity is equally offensive. Some sins are high-handed. Some are premeditated. Some are slip ups. Some are habitual. Some are contrary to nature. The Law did not demand the same penalty for every infraction. Neither did Jesus (Matt. 10:15). We do not promote the glory of the gospel by pretending that no one is more righteous or more wicked than anybody else. Some sins so destroy the image of God that those who commit them deserve destruction.

2. Did those who killed Osama bin Laden have the authority to do so? Only God has the authority to take human life. But God has ordained that he should exercise that right through the power of the state. Romans 13:4 says the governing authorities are God's servants to do good, "but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.  For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." The Navy SEALs that raided bin Laden's compound did not violate the sixth commandment because, as the Heidelberg Catechism says, "Prevention of murder is also why government is armed with the sword" (Q/A 105). Surely, this was an instance where the U.S. military, by killing bin Laden, was acting in an effort to prevent more American citizens from being murdered.

Obviously, Jesus condemned private retaliation, vigilante justice, and hatred (Matt. 5:38-48). But there is no indication the Gospels mean to overturn the centuries long Jewish understanding that some warfare was justified. When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they needed to do to repent, he could have easily said, "Resign from the evil Roman army.  You can't be a soldier and a part of the new people of God."  But instead he said, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:14). Jesus went so far as to hold up a Centurion as a model of faith (Luke 7:6). It reminds me of G.K. Chesterton's quip: "There is nothing that throws any particular light on Christ's attitude toward organized warfare, except that he seems to be rather fond of Roman soldiers."

In the end, though there are mixed emotions from last night's announcement, at least one of the attitudes should be thankfulness for the bravery of the men who, with proper authority in a just cause, killed a man who deserved to die. I thought President Obama's remarks last night struck the right tone. There was a sense of gratitude without gloating. The dominant theme was justice. In our every day lives in this squishy pomo world, we have a hard time with justice. As a nation we feel sorry for people better than we feel joy over justice. But sometimes we need to be reminded that we live in a moral universe where actions have consequences. And when deathly consequences are merited by despicable actions, we should be glad the world is working as God designed.

His Coming and Our Going

Former missionary and missiologist David J. Hesselgrave on the church's priority in mission:

We Christians constantly need to remind ourselves that "The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10). Amid all the good things that missionaries are called to do, they should never forget that their essential task is to seek out those who will humbly confess their sins and throw themselves upon the mercy of God available in Christ Jesus. And among all the needs for which missionary intercessors might pray, they should pray that missionaries will be successful in that search.

After all, the reason for Jesus' coming is the reason for their going. (Paradigms in Conflict, 137-38).

Money and Possessions in Proverbs

The Bible says a lot about money and possessions. There are a lot of verses about wealth and poverty. With some topics, we can get off track because the Bible says so little. What should we think of tanning? Well, we don't have a lot of specific instructions, so there's not much to be dogmatic about.

But when it comes to money and possessions there's an opposite problem. Because the Bible says so much about money it is tempting to develop an imbalanced theology of money.

On the one hand, it's easy to see where Prosperity Theology comes from. Take a few promises of the Mosaic covenant out of their national context, take the promise in Malachi 3 about throwing open the storehouses of heaven, mix in some of Jesus' statements about receiving whatever you ask for in faith, and you can bake up a little health and wealth gospel.

On the other hand, it's possible to come up with an imbalanced Austerity Theology. Point out that Jesus had nowhere to lay his head, turn to the story of the rich young ruler, stir in the parable of the rich fool, and you'll have a theology that says money is bad and so are those who have it.

You could make a biblical argument that God loves rich guys. Just look at Abraham, Job, and Zacchaeus. Look at the way he blesses obedient kings. Look at the vision of cosmic delight in the garden and in the age to come.

You can just as easily make a biblical argument that God hates rich guys. Just look at the rich man and Lazarus. Look at the book of James. Look at Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount.

So how should we think of money and possessions? What biblical principles should we keep in mind as we see wealth and poverty, as we handle our own wealth or poverty? There are few things the Bible talks about more often. Which is good, because there are few things as relevant to all people everywhere as getting a good theology of money.

A Place to Start

Proverbs is a good place to start in developing a biblical theology of material possessions. For starters, there are a lot of verses on the subject. More important, there are several diverse strands of teaching on the subject. If you started with Genesis, you might conclude God always prospers his people. If you started with Amos, you might think all rich people are oppressors. But Proverbs looks at wealth and poverty from several angles. And because Proverbs is a book of general maxims, the principles in proverbs are more easily transferable to God's people at different times and places.

Last Sunday evening I gave my congregation ten principles from Proverbs on money and material possessions. I won't give you the whole sermon here, but I thought it might be worth at least listing the main points. Maybe I can go into more detail next week on specific points.

I'll give the points roughly in order of how much Proverbs says about a particular principle. That way we'll end with the most important themes.

Ten Principles on Money and Possessions from Proverbs

1. There are extremes of wealth and poverty that provide unique temptations to those who live in them (Prov. 30:7-9).

2. Don't worry about keeping up with the Jones' (Prov. 12:9; 13:7).

3. The rich and poor are more alike than they think (Prov. 22:2; 29:13).

4. You can't out give God (Prov. 3:9-10; 11:24; 22:9).

5. Poverty is not pretty (Prov. 10:15; 14:20; 19:4).

6. Money cannot give you ultimate security (Prov. 11:7; 11:28; 13:8).

7. The Lord hates those who get rich by injustice (Prov. 21:6; 22:16, 22-23).

8. The Lord loves those who are generous to the poor (Prov. 14:21, 31; 19:7; 28:21)

9. Hard work and good decision-making usually lead to increased prosperity (Prov. 6:6-11; 10:4; 13:11; 14:24;  21:17, 20; 22:4, 13; 27:23-27; 28:20

10. Money isn't everything. It does not satisfy (Prov. 23:4-5). It is inferior to wisdom (Prov. 8:10-11, 18-19; 24:3-4). It is inferior to righteousness (10:2; 11:4; 13:25; 16:8; 19:22; 20:17; 28:6). It is inferior to the fear of the Lord (Prov. 15:16). It is inferior to humility (Prov. 16:19). It is inferior to good relationships (Prov. 15:17; 17:1).

Reaching Delicate Conclusions and Finding Christ

You can't understand the biblical view of money unless you are prepared to accept a number of truths held in tension.

You'll probably acquire more money if you work hard and are full of wisdom. But if all you care about is getting more money, you are the biggest fool.
Money is a blessing from God, but you'll be more blessed if you give it away.
God gives you money because he is generous, but he is generous with you so that you can be generous with others. And if you are generous with your money, God will likely be more generous with you.
It is wise to save money, but don't ever think money gives you real security.
Wealth is more desirable than poverty, but wealth is not as good as righteousness, humility, wisdom, good relationships, and the fear of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 1:30-31 says that Christ is for us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." Money can't give you any of the things you ultimately need. It can't make you holy. It can't make you righteous. It can't save you from your sins. Wealth is a sign of blessing, but it's also one of your biggest temptations because it entices you to boast in yourself. It promises to be your self-worth and promises to make you self-sufficient. It invites you to boast in something or someone other than the Lord.

So through and through money is an issue of faith. Believe that doing things God's way is the best way for you. Believe that if you give your money away, he can give it back. Believe that money can be good. But don't you dare believe it is everything. Money is a gift from God, but the gifts you really need can only be found in God.

A Resurrection Postscript: Saved by Justice

Though few would put it this way, it's easy for Christians to think the cross is where love overcame holiness. Or to put it more prosaically: God saved us because he loves us so much he decided to look past our sins.  God is love and he loves to forgive our sins.

But that's not exactly how justification works. We are not justified because God's mercy triumphed over God's justice. We are justified because in divine mercy, God sent his Son to the cross to satisfy divine justice. Mercy triumphs over judgment, but it does not remove the need for justice. We were saved not by the removal of justice, but by the satisfaction of it.

A Loud Declaration

The resurrection, then, is the loud declaration that there is nothing left to pay (cf. Rom. 4:25). Peter says in Acts 2:24, "God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." Why was it impossible for Jesus to remain dead? Because God is more powerful than death and the devil? That's certainly true, but there's another reason. The grave could not hold the Son of Man because it had no claim on him. The wages of sin is death. So when sin is paid for, there is no obligation to pay the wages of sin.

Here's how Charles Hodge puts it:

Our sins were the judicial ground of the sufferings of Christ, so that they were a satisfaction of justice; and his righteousness is the judicial ground of our acceptance with God, so that our pardon is an act of justice.

Think about that.  Our justification is not an act of legal fiction, but an act of justice.  God would be unjust if he did not pardon those who belong to Christ.  It would be a denial of his name, his character, his own justice.

I believe many of us have not begun to grasp just how good the good news is, just how secure our salvation is, just how completely and unalterably justified we are through faith in Christ. Mark this: God did not set aside the law in judging us; he fulfilled it.  Christ bore the curse of the law so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.  Not because we possess this righteousness, but because God credits it to our account.  So that, in one sense, at the moment when Christ died, it was what he deserved (by imputation).  And now by faith, blessing and mercy and favor are what we deserve (by imputation).

Justice is shot through the entire plan of redemption. People go to hell because God is just, and people go to heaven because God is just. We are not forgiven and justified because God waved his magic wand and decided to whitewash your faults. He has not overlooked the smallest speck of your sin. He demands justice for all of your iniquities. He demands justice for every last lustful look and proud thought and spiteful word. He demands justice for all of it. But praise God: the resurrection of the crucified Son of God assures us the demands of justice have been met.

The Resurrection Gospel

The resurrection is not a sentimental story about never giving up, or the possibility of good coming from evil. It is not first of all a story about how suffering can be sanctified, or a story of how Jesus suffered for all of humanity so we can suffer with the rest of humanity. The resurrection is the loud declaration that Jesus is enough–enough to atone for your sins, enough to reconcile you to God, enough to present you holy in God's presence, enough to free you from the curse of the law, enough to promise you there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Something objectively happened on the cross, and that objective work was broadcast to the whole world by an empty tomb. The good news is not a generic message of love for everyone or hope for all. The gospel is the theological interpretation of historical fact. You might put the good news like this: Faith will be counted to us as righteousness when we believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification (Rom. 4:24-25).

Your Humility Should Be Hardly Discerned

Jonathan Edwards:

An eminent saint is not apt to think himself eminent in any thing; all his graces and experiences are ready to appear to him to be comparatively small; but especially his humility. There is nothing that appertains to Christian experience, and true piety, that is so much out of his sight as his humility. He is a thousand times more quick-sighted to discern his pride, than his humility: that he easily discerns, and is apt to take much notice of, but hardly discerns his humility. (Religious Affections, 334-35)

Are you often aware of your own humility? Then you're probably not humble.

Have you noticed your pride? Then you may be more humble than you realize.

Here are two signs of Christian maturity: a keen eye to discern your sins and blessed self-forgetfulness.

Father, make me humble. Make me love the Lord with all my heart and love my neighbor as myself. Give me that glorious paradox: the ability to see my sin and at the same time look away from myself. And when I am tempted to posture and position as the world does, remind me that the meek will inherit the earth.

There Must Be a Sermon Illustration Here Somewhere

"Love Wins" and the Heidelberg Catechism Loses

Yes, I know. This is one more post on Rob Bell. But most of you can ignore this one.

I am writing specifically to all those with some background in the Reformed Church in America or in the Christian Reformed Church who are enamored with, intrigued by, or confused over Love Wins. Maybe you have long sense bolted from the RCA or CRC. Maybe for good reason. Maybe you left one of the hundreds of RCA/CRC churches in West Michigan and found your way to Mars Hill. Maybe you are still in an RCA or CRC church, but your friends and family love Bell's new book and you aren't quite sure what to think. Maybe one of the small groups in your old Dutch church is reading through Love Wins. Maybe you like the RCA or CRC and like the idea that all people will eventually be saved. Whatever the scenario, I want to address those who have a foot in two worlds: the world of the Reformed church and the world of Love Wins.

If you have a pinky toe in the RCA or CRC world you should know about the Heidelberg Catechism. Our ministers must subscribe to it. Our children learn it in their Sunday school classes (or used to). Our churches are required to teach its doctrines. Even if you're long gone from the Dutch Reformed world (and perhaps you say "good riddance"), I bet you can recall a funeral where the first question and answer were read ("What is your only comfort in life and in death?"). You may remember that "true faith is not only a knowledge and conviction" but "a deep-rooted assurance" (Q/A 21). You probably haven't forgotten the outline of the Catechism: guilt, grace, gratitude. In fact, even if you were hurt by your Dutch Reformed church (or more likely, bored by it); even if you transferred your membership years ago; even if you wish your RCA or CRC church could be more "progressive," I imagine you're still hesitant to throw the Catechism under the bus. It's meant too much to too many people you love. It's been too precious at too many gravesides.

A Modest Goal

My aim is not prove the Heidelberg Catechism is right and Rob Bell is wrong. I wrote a book on the Catechism and a long critical review of Love Wins, so you don't have to guess where I land. But that's not the point here. My aim is simpler. I don't want to show you which is wrong–the Catechism or Love Wins. I only want to show they can't both be right.

Take a good hard look at Love Wins. Study it; underline it; search the Scriptures. And then consider the Catechism. Does the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism fit in the world of Love Wins? Or is the Catechism an example of the traditional view that Bell labels "toxic" and "misguided"?

I submit to you that with Love Wins, the Heidelberg Catechism loses.

A Closer Look

Perhaps you've forgotten the language of the Catechism. According to your church's (or former church's doctrine), we are "born sinners–corrupt from conception on" (Q/A 7), unable to do any good and inclined toward all evil unless born again by the Spirit of God (Q/A 8). Because of our disobedience and rebellion, God "is terribly angry about the sin we are born with as well as the sins we personally commit. As a just judge he punishes them now and in eternity" (Q/A 10). God is merciful, but he is also just. And his "justice demands that sin, committed against his supreme majesty, be punished with the supreme penalty–eternal punishment of body and soul" (Q/A 11). Does this theology make sense if The Gods Aren't Angry?

Love Wins asks a lot of questions. But does it ever ask one like this–"According to God's righteous judgment we deserve punishment both in this world and forever after: how then can we escape this punishment and return to God's favor" (Q/A 12)? When it comes to the cross, is the logic of Love Wins the logic of Heidelberg? Christ had to be man, the Catechism says, because "God's justice demands that human nature, which has sinned, must pay for its sin, but a sinner could never pay for others" (Q/A 16). But Christ also had to be God, "so that by the power of his divinity, he might bear the weight of God's anger in his humanity" (Q/A 17). Does this view of the atonement ever come through in Love Wins, or is it caricatured and derided?

Opposites Cannot be Equal

There's more than could be said. We've only gone through 17 of the 129 questions. But I trust you get the point. If Rob Bell is right, your grandparents were dead wrong. The Catechism and Love Wins have radically different views of God, different understandings of the atonement, and different beliefs about heaven and hell. Try as you might to embrace both, if the law of non-contradiction has not gone completely out of style, you have to admit that's it pretty difficult to keep your feet resting comfortably in both worlds. If you like Love Wins you really should appalled by the Heidelberg Catechism.

Let me close with a final quotation and then a closing thought:

Q. How does Christ's return "to judge the living and the dead" comfort you?

A. In all my distress and persecution I turn my eyes to the heavens and confidently await as judge the very One who has already stood trial in my place before God and so has removed the whole curse from me. All his enemies and mine he will condemn to everlasting punishment: but me and all his chosen ones he will take along with him into the joy and glory of heaven.

Read over the question again and you'll notice Heidelberg's theme shining through: comfort. The trouble is, the theology the Catechism finds comforting, Love Wins castigates. They can't both be right.

Monday Morning Humor

Yet another reason not to bother with Easter bunnies.

[image error]

Yeah, this could freak you out.

[image error]