Skip to main content

Judgment and Justification Part 3

Sorry for the long interlude in this series. I have been quite busy over the past month. Hopefully we will be able to work our way through the rest of the series reasonably soon.

As God's people we our desire should be to live in God's presence. In the Old Testament, God's presence was closely tied to the tabernacle or temple, which, after the conquest of Canaan and especially after the building of the temple, meant that God's presence was tied to the land of Israel. Only at the temple in Jerusalem could one experience the presence of God. This is why eschatalogical prophecies like Isaiah 66 picture the Gentiles coming to Jerusalem to worship in the temple.

This ties into a recurring pattern in the way that God metes out his punitive judgment. Sin leads to judgment which results in banishment from or the removal of God's presence. The very first punitive judgment in the Bible demonstrates this. When Adam and Even sin in Genesis 3 they are told that they will die and die they do, immediately. But it is not the physical death that one expects, it's a spiritual death of separation from God. This point is driven home poignantly when we are told about the flaming sword keeping them out of the Garden where God's presence resided. This construal of judgment fills the pages of the Old Testament. One could look to the judgment of Cain or the exile of Judah for a couple of rather obvious examples. Deuteronomy 28 is also a good example. There we read the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience. Many of the blessings and curses are tied to life in the land.

Why does judgment function that way? I believe it is because of the holiness of God. We could cite Leviticus 20 as one example to prove our point. In verse 22 God says that the land will vomit the people out if the people do not follow God's laws, and they must follow them because God is holy. In this chapter it is clear that an integral aspect of holiness is being separated from sin. Thus God's judgment is an expression of his holiness, both as punishment for sin and blessing for covenant keeping (as best I can tell blessing is only bestowed by God within a covenant relationship, while both those in and not in a covenant relationship with God feel his wrath). Thus being in God's place is both where we experience God's holy and loving presence and where we experience his blessing. In fact, I believe that we can tie that even tighter. Ezekiel 9-11 makes a clear tie between judgment and the departure of God from the temple, his removal of his own presence. Thus, it is through experiencing the presence of God that we experience blessing. The land served as a conduit for the Israelite's experience of God. This explains why in the New Testament, the people of God have no land until Christ returns. We the church have been given the Holy Spirit, and we the church are the temple of God. There is no more need for land.

On a closing aside, I think that this view at least lends modest support to one particular understanding of hell, as where God isn't. While any teaching on hell beyond a bare-boned sketch goes beyond what we can say about it without speculating, at least this particular speculation about hell is grounded in a thoroughly biblical notion of judgment. It doesn't necessarily make it the correct understanding of hell. It at least means it isn't unbiblical.

In our next post we will look more at the theme of 'living God's way.'

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

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

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