Skip to main content

Judgment and Justification Part 2

What is God up to in this world? What is his grand plan? Following my teacher, Graham Cole, I would suggest that the missio dei is to secure God's people in God's place under God's rule living God's way in God's holy and loving presence as worshippers. While we won't look at every single element of the missio dei, I want to use it as a guide for breaking up the discussion. In this post we will look at the relationship between judgment and 'God's place,' which is where we experience God's presence. This may not be the most intuitive place to start, but hopefully it will make sense by the end of the series (if not sooner).

First, though, we need to recognize that what we are doing in this sequence of posts is looking at how God's rule relates to all of the other elements of the God's plan. One of the key roles of a king is to judge. And judge God does, over and over in Scripture. I remember when I first put together a list of significant passages on judgment to try to incorporate into my paper, I had more than 50. Those were just the big ones! So, part of what we hope to gain from this exercise is a better understanding of God in one of the primary ways in which we are to relate to him, as our Lord.

Judgment has always been linked to the both the place where God's people live and how it is that the people get there. In fact the very first time that judgment appears in Scripture is in its neutral sense, where God is judging that his creation is good (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31, ). Within this creation, was a special area, the Garden of Eden, in which God put his people to live in his presence. Adam and Eve mess it up, though, through their sin. As a result, the ground, part of God's good creation, is judged and cursed (Gen. 3:17-19). Our sin has marred God's good creation.

That is not to say that all of creation is now 'bad' in God's eyes. The promised land of Canaan was also deemed by God to be good, 'So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey' (Ex. 3:8a - TNIV). The land of Israel was a good land in which the people were to live in the presence of God, with him as their king. Even though it lacks the splendor of creation prior to the fall, the land does possess relative goodness.

While God's people do not collectively reside in one land anymore, we do have a good place to look forward to. The new heavens and the new earth, the future place that God's people will possess, are never explicitly called good in Revelation 21-22, but they certainly are. The author of Revelation tries to show that the new heavens and new earth are a restoration of God's creation that if anything surpasses the original (there are at least a dozen allusions in Revelation 21-22 to Genesis 1-3). God will give us a good place where we can live enjoying his presence as his bride, in the process undoing all of the damage incurred on his creation through humanity's fall.

The key which ties this all together is the notion of the sacred space of a temple. Eden and the new heavens and the new earth are sacred spaces, the Garden of Eden is a temple (see Greg Beale's important book, The Temple and the Church's Mission). The land of Israel is the place where God builds his temple, which in its architecture and adornment harks back to Eden. The new heavens and new earth do not have a temple, 'because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple' (Rev 21:22b). Thus, tied up in the goodness of the place is God's presence. It was not coincidental that God gave the people a good land and that he had his temple built there. It is not only that God is creator that made Eden good. God's presence in them make them good and God's presence in them make them good for his people.

In the next post we will look at the theme of 'living God's way' and judgment and how that relationship affects being 'in God's place' and 'in God's holy and loving presence.'

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat