Posts Tagged ‘Michael Horton’

Video Posted: Horton at Saddleback

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 by Shane Rosenthal

AN UPDATE FROM MIKE HORTON:

I had a great time at the Lausanne “Global Conversation” held at Saddleback Church and hosted by its pastor, Rick Warren.  It was a privilege to be part of a distinguished panel of evangelical leaders from a wide variety of backgrounds.  Before the panel discussion, Rick Warren interviewed me for his Purpose-Driven network.  In the first interview he focused on my books and the work of White Horse Inn.  In the second, he focused on the question, “What is the Gospel?”  I appreciated the generous spirit in which Rick asked the questions and encouraged me to lay out the case we have for a new Reformation.  It’s great to be able to discuss our differences as well as our common convictions in a spirit of friendship as well as mutual challenge.  Our mission at White Horse Inn is to go to any forum that invites us where we have a chance to clarify what we are convinced is the proper message and mission of the church.  Thanks for your prayers—and for making such opportunities possible.  May God continue to open doors for an ever-wider hearing!

Michael Horton recently participated in a panel discussion on global evangelism at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif.  It was part of the 12 Cities / 12 Conversations tour sponsored by the Lausanne Movement, and a video of this conversation is now available online.   In addition to Horton, other panelists include Skye Jethani, Jim Belcher, Jena Lee Nardella, Miles McPhereson, Soon Chan Rah, and Kay Warren. FYI, the discussion doesn’t get rolling until around 16 minutes into the video (after all the introductory remarks).

lausanne-saddleback

Listen Live to Horton at Ligonier

Thursday, June 17th, 2010 by Eric Landry

Ligonier Ministries National Conference is in full swing. If you’re in Orlando for the conference, stop by the White Horse Inn booth and say hello to Michele Tedrick, our director of marketing, and Michael Kiledjian, our director of development.  Michele is giving away an iPad this weekend, so be sure to sign up for that!

Mike Horton will be speaking at 5:10 p.m. (eastern).  You can watch live via Ligonier’s webcast.

WHI Interviews Tullian Tchividjian

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010 by Eric Landry

surprised2-190x289Back at the end of May, Justin Taylor posted an interview with Tullian Tchividjian, the pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, on his new book, Surprised by Grace.

Last week, Mike Horton interviewed Tullian for an upcoming episode of White Horse Inn. Here’s a preview of that interview along with the interview Justin conducted below.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Is the gospel a middle ground between legalism and lawlessness?

This seems to be a common misunderstanding in the church today. I hear people say that there are two equal dangers Christians must avoid: legalism and lawlessness. Legalism, they say, happens when you focus too much on law, or rules. Lawlessness, they say, happens when you focus too much on grace. Therefore, in order to maintain spiritual equilibrium, you have to balance law and grace. Legalism and lawlessness are typically presented as two ditches on either side of the Gospel that we must avoid. If you start getting too much law, you need to balance it with grace. Too much grace, you need to balance it with law. But I’ve come to believe that this “balanced” way of framing the issue can unwittingly keep us from really understanding the gospel of grace in all of its depth and beauty.

How would you frame it instead?

I think it’s more theologically accurate to say that there is one primary enemy of the gospel—legalism—but it comes in two forms.

Some people avoid the gospel and try to “save” themselves by keeping the rules, doing what they’re told, maintaining the standards, and so on (you could call this “front door legalism”).

Other people avoid the gospel and try to “save” themselves by breaking the rules, doing whatever they want, developing their own autonomous standards, and so on (you could call this “back door legalism”).

So the choice is between submitting to the rule of Christ or submitting to self-rule?

Right. There are two “laws” we can choose to live by other than Christ: the law which says “I can find freedom and fullness of life if I keep the rules” or the law which says “I can find freedom and fullness of life if I break the rules.”

Both are legalistic in this sense: one “life rule” has as its goal the keeping of rules; the other “life rule” has as its goal the breaking of rules. But both are a rule of life you’re submitting to—a rule of life that is governing you—which is defined by you and your ability to perform. Success is determined by your capacity to break the rules or keep the rules. Either way you’re still trying to “save” yourself—which means both are legalistic because both are self-salvation projects.

If most people outside the church are guilty of “break the rules” legalism, most people inside the church are guilty of “keep the rules” legalism.

What do you say to folks who think we need to “keep grace in check” by giving out some law?

Doing so proves that we don’t understand grace and we violate gospel advancement in our lives and in the church. A “yes, grace…but” disposition is the kind of posture that keeps moralism swirling around in the church. Some of us think the only way to keep licentious people in line is by giving them the law. But the fact is, the only way licentious people start to obey is when they get a taste of God’s radical acceptance of sinners. The more Jesus is held up as being sufficient for our justification and sanctification, the more we begin to die to ourselves and live to God. Those who end up obeying more are those who increasingly understand that their standing with God is not based on their obedience, but Christ’s.

But don’t Christians need to be shake out of their comfort zones?

Yes—but you don’t do it by giving them law; you do it by giving them gospel. The Apostle Paul never uses the law as a way to motivate obedience; he always uses the gospel. Paul always soaks gospel obligations in gospel declarations because God is not concerned with just any kind of obedience; he’s concerned with a certain kind of obedience (as Cain and Abel’s sacrifice illustrates). The obedience that pleases God is obedience that flows from faith—faith in what God has already done, and trust for what he will do in the future. And even though we need to obey even if we don’t feel like it, long-term, sustained, heart-felt, gospel motivated obedience can only come from faith and grace; not fear and guilt. Behavioral compliance without heart change, which only the gospel can do, will be shallow and short lived. Or, as I like to say, imperatives minus indicatives equal impossibilities.

So do you think the law no longer has—or should no longer have—a role in the Christian life?

No, I wouldn’t say that. While the law of God is good (Romans 7), it only has the power to reveal sin and to show the standard and image of righteous requirement—not remove sin. The law shows us what God commands (which of course is good) but the law does not possess the power to enable us to do what it says. The law guides us but it does not give us any power to do what it says. In other words, the law shows us what a sanctified life looks like, but it does not have sanctifying power—the law cannot change a human heart. It’s the gospel (what Jesus has done) that alone can give God-honoring animation to our obedience. The power to obey comes from being moved and motivated by the completed work of Jesus for us. The fuel to do good flows from what’s already been done. So, while the law directs us, only the gospel can drive us.

You’re the master of good word pictures. Got one for this?

Well, someone told me recently that the law is like a set of railroad tracks. The tracks provide no power for the train but the train must stay on the tracks in order to function. The law never gives any power to do what it commands. Only the gospel has power, as it were, to move the train.

But doesn’t Scripture motivate us by saying that if we love Jesus we’ll keep his commands?

When John (or Jesus) talks about keeping God’s commands as a way to know whether you love Jesus or not, he’s not using the law as a way to motivate. He’s simply stating a fact. Those who love God will keep on keeping his commands. The question is how do we keep God’s commands? What sustains a long obedience in the same direction? Where does the power come from to do what God commands? As every parent and teacher knows, behavioral compliance to rules without heart change will be shallow and short-lived. But shallow and short-lived is not what God wants (that’s not what it means to “keep God’s commands.”). God wants a sustained obedience from the heart. How is that possible? Long-term, sustained, gospel-motivated obedience can only come from faith in what Jesus has already done, not fear of what we must do. To paraphrase Ray Ortlund, any obedience not grounded in or motivated by the gospel is unsustainable.

Do you believe in the so-called “third use of the law”?

Yes. I’m a staunch believer in the three uses of the law (pedagogical, civil, and didactic). The law sends us to Christ for justification (the first use—which is correct), but some would also say that Christ sends us back to law for sanctification (a misunderstanding of the third use). In other words, there’s a common misunderstanding in the church that while the law cannot justify us, it can sanctify us—not true. In Romans 7 Paul is speaking as a justified, rescued, regenerated Christian and he’s saying, “The law doesn’t have the power to change me. The law guides but it does not give any power to do what it says.” So, I would caution people from concluding that the third use of the law implies that it has power to change you. To say the law has no power to change us in no way reduces its ongoing role in the life of the Christian. And it in no way minimizes the importance of the law’s third use. We just have to understand the precise role that it plays for us today: the law serves us by making us thankful for Jesus when we break it and serves us by showing how to love God and others.

How would you boil your concern down to one sentence?

We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone, and God sanctifies us by constantly bringing us back to the reality of our justification.

BFF

Friday, June 11th, 2010 by Eric Landry

Last night Mike Horton participated in the Lausanne Movement’s “12 Cities 12 Conversations” gathering at Saddleback Church. This is the second conversation Mike participated in; the first was at Fuller Seminary. The Lausanne Movement’s worldwide congress on missions is to be held in Cape Town, South Africa this October. These conversations are leading up to that congress and are taking up important issues of the church’s identity and mission.

The best report from last night’s gathering is that Rick Warren hugged White Horse Inn producer Shane Rosenthal, calling himself a “purpose driven hugger!”  Shane also got this pic of Mike Horton and Rick Warren, proving once again that nothing (not even Rick Warren) gets between Mike Horton and his Calvins.

photo1

Horton on Wright’s Latest

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010 by Eric Landry

UPDATE: Wright responds

Matthew Miller of Christianbook.com interviewed N. T. Wright recently and asked him about this review. Here is the exchange:

Matthew: In a recent review, Michael Horton, writing for Christianity Today, was generally supportive of your book. Yet, he took issue with your, at times, negative articulation of the Reformation and its impact on Christian ethics stating, “in addition to caricaturing Luther’s positions, [Wright’s] criticisms lack any nuance in distinguishing between Reformation traditions.” He argues that your critique is actually more characteristic of “Wesleyan” tradition, rather than the Reformed or Lutheran.

How do you respond to this critique?

Wright: I’m not a church historian and defer to those who are, from whom I hope to learn. I was fascinated by the critique of the medieval ‘virtue’ tradition I found in various sixteenth-century writers, and tried to note that as I went by. I wasn’t trying to give a systematic account of how the different post-Reformation traditions have understood virtue, but was hoping rather to show that the cultural pressures towards a romantic ‘spontaneity’ and an existentialist ‘authenticity’, both of which I see as radically undermining a proper appropriation of NT ethics, have gained (spurious) validation in many quarters by appearing to say what the Reformers say. Some have indeed argued that Luther paved the way for the Enlightenment.

There is a sense in which I think this is true – just as, more obviously, Luther paved the way for Rudolf Bultmann. But life is always more complicated than these over-simplifications. I am much, much more concerned by the fact – and it is a fact – that the Reformers, whom I love and revere, and their various would-be successors to this day, have caricatured St Paul and failed to distinguish different things in his thought. That’s a larger debate I suspect Michael Horton and I ought to have some day. I’ve never met him but I think we would have an interesting conversation.

Christianity Today has posted a review by Mike Horton of N. T. Wright’s newest book, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. Horton’s review of this latest book by Wright follows a similar trajectory to his reviews of his other recent books: there is much to be appreciated, especially the way in which Wright paints his word pictures; but Wright’s constant mischaracterization of the Reformers and the confessional traditions that emanated from them is frustrating.

In spite of a few quibbles, I was impressed by this book’s popular presentation of themes that I have come to appreciate in Reformed theology. The eschatological emphasis on cosmic renewal (resurrection, not escape) as the impetus for our lives here and now, the emphasis on the church—in fact, just about everything in After You Believe was a fresh way of exploring many familiar truths.

Hence my surprise at the jarring, frequent caricatures of the Reformation, even when the author articulates long-standing emphases in that tradition. As in his other works, indictments of the Reformation rarely come with footnotes. Wright seems to read the Reformers through the distorted lens of liberal existentialists (Rudolf Bultmann and company) or evangelical pietism. Oddly, he blames the Reformation for the romantic, spontaneous, and existentialist view of the Christian life.

In spite of the rich and varied discussions of virtue by the Reformers, the Puritans, and a host of Protestants since, Wright asserts, “Basically, the whole idea of virtue has been radically out of fashion in much of Western Christianity ever since the sixteenth-century Reformation.” Since we are justified through faith apart from works, “why bother with all this morality? … That, in fact, is more or less what Martin Luther declared, thumbing his nose at the long medieval tradition of virtue.” A footnote to Shakespeare’s Hamlet is brought in as a witness, but there is no footnote for Luther’s alleged proposal.

With many evangelicals, we appreciate Bishop Wright’s work on the historical Jesus but we remain perplexed by his refusal to deal substantively with the Reformation on its own terms in his books on Paul, justification, and now even ethics! At some point one wonders if it’s more than just a difference of opinion; is there an axe to grind?

Scary Horton Hair

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 by Eric Landry

Nathan Bingham sent this over to us this weekend, a series of videos of Mike Horton speaking about one of his earliest books, The Agony of Deceit.  That book still gets Horton invitations to speak to national news media about the likes of Benny Hinn. Thankfully, his hairstyle has changed!  (Around the office here we refer to that era as the “flock of seagulls” hair days!)

Horton on Hannity.com

Monday, May 24th, 2010 by Eric Landry

Mike Horton made a surprise guest appearance on Hannity.com Sunday night. On the “forums” section of political commentator Sean Hannity’s website, a discussion about “Reasonable” Christianity vs. Revivalism in America broke out and someone posted a link to Horton’s Modern Reformation (Jan/Feb 1995) article, “The Legacy of Charles Finney.”

In addition to reading the article, listen to this 2007 White Horse Inn episode on “Charles Finney and American Revivalism.”

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

A former Presbyterian, Charles Finney is the godfather of American evangelicalism and his formative influence is felt today in churches across the denominational spectrum. Here’s how Mike Horton put it:

Finney’s one question for any given teaching was, “Is it fit to convert sinners with?” One result of Finney’s revivalism was the division of Presbyterians in Philadelphia and New York into Arminian and Calvinistic factions. His “New Measures” included the “anxious bench” (precursor of today’s altar call), emotional tactics that led to fainting and weeping, and other “excitements,” as Finney and his followers called them. Finney became increasingly hostile toward Presbyterian doctrine, referring in his introduction to his Systematic Theology to the Westminster Confession and its drafters rather critically, as if they had created, as he put it, a “paper pope,” and had “elevated their confession and catechism to the Papal throne and into the place of the Holy Ghost.” Remarkably, Finney demonstrates how close Arminian revivalism, in its naturalistic sentiments, tends to be to a less refined theological liberalism, as both caved into the Enlightenment and it’s enshrining of human reason and morality. Finney writes “that the instrument framed by that assembly (the Westminster Confession and Catechisms) should in the nineteenth century be regarded as the standard of the church, or of any intelligent branch of it, is not only amazing, but I must say that it is highly ridiculous. It is as absurd in theology as it would be in any other branch of science. It is better to have a living than a dead Pope.”

You can read the rest of Mike Horton’s opening commentary here.

Horton at the Resurgence

Friday, May 21st, 2010 by Eric Landry

We’re grateful to the folks at the Resurgence for hosting Mike Horton on their blog and video feed this spring.  If you missed any of it or want to bookmark it for further reading/viewing, here are the link:

Blog post on “Renewing the Great Commission”

Answer to questions regarding the balance of public, family, and private worship

Full video interview

The Lausanne Conversations

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010 by Eric Landry

Mike Horton has been invited to participate in two conversations leading up to the Lausanne global conference on evangelism in Cape Town this summer. The first of these conversations (part of the “12 Cities, 12 Conversations” campaign) is tonight in Pasadena at Fuller Theological Seminary.  The topic is “Culture Making: The Role of Christians in the World Today.”

Mike’s newest book (as yet untitled but part of his Christless Christianity and Gospel Driven Life series) takes on the issue of the relationship between Christians and culture. We’re posting a small snippet of the book below.  You’ll also find links to other White Horse Inn and Modern Reformation resources to stimulate your own thinking about Christ and culture.

There are two extremes in contemporary Christian interpretations of the kingdom. One extreme is to say that the kingdom is not present at all, but is an entirely future (millennial) reality.  In this future millennial kingdom the purpose is not only to dispense Christ’s gifts, which he has already won by his own trial, but “is the final form of moral testing.”  The other extreme is to say that it is present in its all-encompassing form, transforming the kingdoms of this age into the kingdom of Christ. In this perspective, the main calling of Christians and churches is to redeem the culture and extend Christ’s kingdom over politics, the arts, entertainment, sports, economics, law, and every other aspect of public and private life.  We’ve gone from “soul-winning-and-waiting-for-the-Rapture” to “kingdom transformation” in the blink of an eye.

The Great Commission is given to the church for this time between his first and second comings.  It is an intermission, between his accomplishment of redemption and his return to consummate its blessings.  However, this intermission isn’t a time for loitering in the lobby as consumers; it is a time of joyful activity on behalf of our neighbors: loving and serving them through our witness to Christ and also through our daily callings in the world.

This Great Commission is not the cultural mandate—the original commission to be fruitful and to multiply, ruling creation as God’s viceroys.  That is the covenant of creation, in which worship and cultural labors were fused in a vocation whose goal was nothing less than bringing all of creation into the everlasting Sabbath rest.  It was this covenant that was renewed as God took Israel to himself as a chosen nation.  “But like Adam they transgressed my covenant…” (Hos 6:7).  So once again, God cast his people out of his sanctuary, “east of Eden,” into captivity, where they languished in hope for the coming Redeemer promised through the prophets even in the people’s dire distress.  Nevertheless, God again promised the coming seed who would bring salvation to the ends of the earth.  It would be a new covenant, greater than the covenant that Israel swore at Mount Sinai.

The march toward the kingdom continued, even though its typological sign—the land and the Temple—lay in ruins.  The land of Israel was no longer holy, but common.  The Spirit had evacuated the Temple and Judah joined its northern sister in exile.  Yet even in Babylonian captivity, the people received the letter from the prophet Jeremiah:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce.  Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease.  But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.  For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, declares the LORD (Jer 29:4-9).

Living like our exiled parents (Adam and Eve), “east of Eden,” the children of Judah are to participate in the common life—its burdens and joys—of the secular city.  They find their welfare in the city’s welfare and are therefore to pray for the commonwealth.  Yet they are also to increase the size of the covenant community during this period and the greatest threat is not persecution by the ungodly, but the internal deceptions of unauthorized prophets.  (As we will see, this is precisely the situation of the new covenant church in its exile and Jeremiah’s exhortations bear striking resemblance to those of the apostles in their letters.)

Although a remnant returned to Jerusalem and sought to rebuild the walls and rededicate itself to the covenant they made with God at Sinai, they realized that they were still in exile.  Ruled by a series of oppressive Gentile regimes, punctuated by false messiahs and attempts to bring in the kingdom by force, the City of Peace was in perpetual turmoil.  It was into this scene that John the Baptist stepped as the forerunner of the Messiah.

It is this new covenant that forms the basis for the Great Commission: a holy task of bringing the Good News to the world.  It is an unshakable kingdom—incapable of being thwarted by our own unfaithfulness—precisely because it is not a kingdom that we are building, but one that we are receiving (Heb 12:28).  It is God’s work.  Everything that we will be exploring in the rest of this book presupposes the view of the kingdom that is summarized here.

Stay tuned to the White Horse Inn blog for more information on the title and release date of this book.
If you’d like to explore this issue in greater depth, be sure to check out some of these resources from White Horse Inn and Modern Reformation:

Risen Indeed!

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010 by Eric Landry

heaven-cu02-vl-verticalEvery Christmas and Easter you can count on national periodicals to carry cover stories on “the search for the sacred,” “the Jesus quest,” and heaven.  This Easter proves to be no exception, with Newsweek’s Lisa Miller contributing an April 5, 2010 piece, “Far From Heaven.”  It is based on her new book, Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination with the Afterlife.

The Afterlife Hype: Going to Heaven

According to Miller, “while 80 percent of Americans say they believe in heaven, few of us have the slightest clue about what we mean.”  “Heaven, everyone agrees, is the good place you go after death, a reward for struggle and faithfulness on earth.”  Yet most are confused.  On one hand, they talk about meeting up with loved ones and picking up where they left off on earth.  On the other hand, they view of heaven as an ethereal place where spirits or souls are freed from embodiment.  Yet bodies seem pretty crucial to hanging out with Grandma and Uncle Ed.  As Miller puts it, “If you don’t have a body in heaven, then what kind of heaven are you hoping for?”  Great question.

Miller writes,

Despite the insistence of the most conservative branches of all three Western religions on resurrection as an incontrovertible fact, most of us are circumspect. The number of Americans who say they believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ has dropped 10 points since 2003 to 70 percent, according to the most recent Harris poll; only 26 percent of Americans think that they’ll have bodies in heaven, according to a 1997 Time/CNN poll. Thanks to the growth here of Eastern religions, reincarnation—the belief that after death a soul returns to earth in another body—is gaining adherents. Nearly 30 percent of 2003 Harris poll respondents said they believed in reincarnation; of self-professed Christians, that number was 21 percent. Reincarnation and resurrection have, traditionally, been mutually exclusive.

The article quotes Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero: “It seems fantastic and irrational that we’re going to have a body in heaven.”

Miller points out that while orthodox Jews, Christians, and Muslims hold to a bodily resurrection, alternatives have always been near at hand.  She mentions “the immortality of the soul.”  “Embraced by Plato and popular today especially among progressive believers (Reform Jews and liberal Protestants, for example) and people who call themselves ‘spiritual but not religious,’ the immortality of the soul is easier to swallow than the resurrection.  After death, the soul—unique and indestructible—ascends to heaven to be with God while the corpse, the locus of our senses and all our low human desires, stays behind to rot.”  In this perspective, we are saved from our bodies, not with our bodies.  “This more reasonable view, perhaps, has a serious defect: a disembodied soul attaching itself to God in heaven offers no more comfort or inspiration than an escaped balloon….Rationalistic visions of heaven fail to satisfy.”

Another popular way out of the Easter conundrum—”I want to believe in heaven but can’t get my head around the revivification of human flesh”—is to imagine “resurrection” as a metaphor for something else: an inexplicable event, a new kind of life, the birth of the Christian community on earth, the renewal of a people, an individual’s spiritual rebirth, a bodiless ascension to God. Progressives frequently fall back on resurrection-as-metaphor, for it allows them to celebrate Easter while also expressing a reasonable agnosticism. They quote that great theological cop-out: “We cannot know what God has in store for us.”

For her own part, although open to mystery, Miller finds the resurrection hope “unbelievable.”

Ever since Christianity conquered the Greco-Roman world, Western civilization has been a little schizophrenic.  On one hand, there’s the traditional pagan view of “the afterlife”: Plato’s “upper world” of eternal souls or intellects liberated from the “lower world” of material and historical embodiment.  On the other hand, there’s the radical eschatology of the prophets and the New Testament, where the contrast isn’t between two worlds but between two ages: this age, under sin and death, and the age to come, under righteousness and everlasting life.  Although our souls are dispatched to God’s safe-keeping upon death, Christians confess their faith in “the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.”  The whole creation will be renewed, not destroyed, says Paul in Romans 8, so we wait for this final resurrection with patience.

So why do so many people today—including “Bible-believing” Christians—talk about their loved ones “passing away” instead of “dying”?  (The former phrase was coined by Christian Science founder, Mary Baker Eddy.  She denied the reality of sickness and death as well as bodily resurrection as an error of the mind when it is attached to the mere appearances of the “lower world.”)  Even the term “afterlife” smacks of pagan overtones, when Christ promises everlasting life.  People aren’t even allowed to die anymore.  It’s too dirty.  Funerals, focusing on “dust to dust, ashes to ashes,” but in the hope of final resurrection in Jesus Christ, have been replaced with celebration of the deceased and the hope that he or she lives on in our memories or hearts—perhaps even looking down on us, smiling, from a happy place.

The Resurrection Hope: 1 Corinthians 15

But before we are too hard on our own time and place, it’s of some comfort that the gospel has always suffered this kind of rip tide, drawing our hopes from Christ out to the ocean of vague spirituality.  Responding to some questions raised by the church in Corinth, the Apostle Paul knew how hard it was to transplant Greeks into biblical soil.  In 1 Corinthians 15, he addresses the resurrection head-on.

Paul begins with the fact of Christ’s resurrection—and ours with him.  Nothing less than the gospel is at stake (v 1-2); the Corinthian believers were not only saved (past tense) by this gospel, but are being saved by it—if they continue to stand in it.  If they no longer stand in it, they “believed in vain.”  Writing from Ephesus between the years 53-55, Paul says that he is passing on what he had received from earlier tradition (vv 3-7).  Only 20 years after the event, the empty tomb was already a settled Christian conviction.  And by apostolic authority, the death and resurrection of Christ are delivered “as of first importance.”

Paul could have appealed merely to his own eye-witness testimony of the risen Christ on the Damascus road, but here he bases it on the evidence of the Scriptures (the Old Testament) and the eye-witness reports of the apostles.  No doubt, Isaiah 53 came easily to mind, prophesying the Suffering Servant who would bear the iniquities of his people and be exalted with them in justification and glory.  Jesus appeared to Peter (Cephas) and the Twelve, then “to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive….”  The assumption here is that the empty tomb is not a recent legend, but the original claim of the eye-witnesses.  If you were to interview one of these living witnesses, they would not talk merely about the difference that Jesus made in their life today.  They would be able to relate what they saw and heard.

The “that” clauses show the inseparable connection between faith in Jesus Christ and the faith concerning Jesus Christ.  You can believe that Jesus died and was raised without believing in Jesus, but you can’t believe in Jesus without believing that he “was crucified for our sins and was raised for our justification.”

Paul’s argument is tight and simple (vv 12-34).  Jesus Christ “has been raised.”  The verb (egēgertai) is in the perfect tense, which connotes a past action with continuing effects.  Paul uses this verb form seven times—all in reference to Christ, while he speaks of “the resurrection of the dead” more generally in the present tense as a fact that now obtains because of Christ’s resurrection.  Paul offers five conclusions from the denial of Christ’s resurrection: (1) Christ is not raised; (2) the preaching of the gospel is useless; (3) your faith is useless; (4) Paul is bearing false witness; (5) “you are still in your sins” and believers who have already died “are lost.”  In summary, “If we have hope in Christ in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (v 19).

From this we learn that the gospel is not about “your best life now.”  It is not “come to Christ and all your troubles will be over.”  It is not an invitation to better marriages and families, health, wealth, and social transformation.  The gospel, rather, is that God became flesh, fulfilled all righteousness, bore our curse, and rose triumphant on the third day.

There is no consolation prize for those who placed their hope in a lie.  Paul doesn’t say, “Even if it didn’t happen, haven’t you lived a happier, more fulfilling life?”  He didn’t back up the claim with pragmatic and therapeutic benefits, like, “The family that prays together stays together.”  Paul doesn’t believe in faith.  He’s not an apostle of spirituality, moral uplift, and positive thinking.  If it isn’t true, Paul says, your faith is meaningless (kenos) and fruitless (mataios).  If Jesus is not risen, it doesn’t matter how many “testimonials” we can give about improved relationships, joy, inner peace, practical guidance, and cultural benefits.  It’s all for nothing.

If Jesus Christ is risen, then the age to come has already dawned and this age of sin and death is fading away.  Everyone must hear this Good News and embrace it for their salvation.  If Jesus Christ is not risen, then we are still under God’s judgment and there is no meaning at all to be sought in Christianity.  It is a dead religion: not only hopelessly irrelevant to us, but a vicious lie that has misled millions.  Why?  Because the gospel is not a promise to make our lives happier and healthier.  It is the announcement that our guilt and death have been dealt with finally and forever.  If it isn’t true, then it isn’t helpful.  It’s deranged.

Second, Paul explains the inseparable connection between the resurrection of Christ and believers.  There are not two resurrections, but one.  Jesus is the “firstfruit” of a vast harvest.  When you taste the new wine, you know what kind of vintage it’s going to be.  Or when you examine the first sheath of the new wheat, you know what to expect for the whole field.  Jesus begins the end-time resurrection of the dead, passing through this age of sin and death into the age to come.  He is the engine that has already pulled into the station, guaranteeing that the rest of the train will arrive in due course.

In the meantime, it is a period of proclaiming the gospel.  After all, death has a legal claim on us.  “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law” (v 56).  We are dead in Adam.  Unless the guilt and curse for our sin is lifted, not even God can raise us from the dead.  Why?  Because it is his own righteousness and justice that has imposed the sentence.  Yet “God set forth Christ as a propitiation by his blood through faith that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:26). So now is the intermission between Christ’s two advents, when we are justified through faith in Christ.  “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).  We will die, but not under the curse.  Death can no longer hold us in its grip.  It has to let us go, just as it had to let Jesus go.  And the result is not resuscitation of a corpse, but resurrection.

Back to 1 Corinthians.  In this contrast between the two covenantal heads, Paul explains that Adam became “a living being” at creation.  However, our first representative never completed his commission.  Instead of fulfilling all righteousness and winning for himself and his posterity the right to eat from the Tree of Life, he chose his own path of spiritual ascent.  The Last Adam was different.  He fulfilled the trial, bore the curse, and rose again as the source of immortality for his people.  He is not just alive again, picking up where he left off before Good Friday; he is immortal and the source of everlasting life for all who embrace him.  Jesus Christ is the Tree of Life.

So the resurrection that awaits us is not just the continuation of natural existence as a “living being,” but the entrance into a new kind of existence that human beings have never experienced before until their risen Head entered the age to come.  For now, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians, we are being forgiven and renewed inwardly by the Spirit.

“Then comes the end…”  What is this?  The end of the world?  The end of time?  No, it’s the end of the reign of sin and death: “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.  For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”  When he returns, we will be like him: confirmed in everlasting glory, righteousness, beauty, and life.  Death is not natural.  It is not part of the cycle of life.  It’s a sentence for sin, as Paul also says in Romans 6:23.  Yet it is the last enemy and it will be destroyed when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:26-28).

Young people have no reason to come to church for dating tips, abstinence training, moving summer camp experiences, or a positive circle of friends.  There’s no point in getting dressed every Sunday for therapeutic moralism or for hearing about how you can have your best life now.  Again Paul reiterates the point that if the resurrection isn’t true, then there’s no point in being religious, spiritual, or even moral.  His fall-back isn’t, “Well, at least I was courageous” or “At least I lived a better life than most people.”  Rather, his alternative to the resurrection faith is hedonism—what we often call “nihilism” today.  Apart from this truth, Paul says that there is no saving knowledge of God (v 34).

In the Greek (Platonic) scheme, our true self (the soul or mind) is raised from the body to heavenly bliss.  In Paul’s scheme, our whole person is raised from sin and death, following in Christ’s wake, as we enter the Promised Land.  The Greek—and average Westerner today—is looking for inner light and going to heaven when they die.  The Christian is looking to Jesus and “the resurrection of the body and the life of the age to come.”  In 2 Corinthians, Paul says that we are presently “groaning” in our “earthly tent.”  Yet this refers to our body in its mortal and sinful condition.  In fact, he adds, “For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (v 4).  In verse 3 he says that we don’t want to be found “naked”—that is, bodiless, as Plato imagined.  Our burden is not our flesh, but our mortality and sin.  In the resurrection, we will be “further clothed.”

So just as Christ is our clothing of righteousness in justification, he is our garment of glorification.  Resurrection and glorification are the same event.  By nature, we bear the image of the first Adam, but by rebirth we bear the image of the Last Adam.  The new birth—spiritual resurrection—has already occurred, as the guarantee of the final resurrection not only of our bodies but of a renewed creation, as Paul highlights in Romans 8.

Paul Pulls Back the Curtain

Paul concludes his argument in 1 Corinthians 15 by drawing back the curtain just enough to anticipate what lies ahead for us (vv 50-58).  “Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom,” Paul says, echoing Jesus’ remarks to Nicodemus in John 3.  One must be “born from above.”  There is nothing in us or in this present age that has the power to give this new life.  Free will is impotent before sin and death.  Our best works are filthy rags before God and our best intentions are a stubborn refusal of God’s gift in his Son.  There is no hope for world peace, justice, and righteousness through the powers that already exist in nature and history.  Apart from Christ, we are existing for the moment, but devoid of real life.  The Spirit does not come to make the old Adam a little better, but to kill him and make him alive in Christ.  Jesus did not to come to earth to make the world better, but to make it new.  He did not come merely to provide a model and to show us how to complete his work of building his kingdom.  He came to save the world and we will come again to judge the world and consummate his everlasting reign.

Paul lets us in on a “mystery”: “We shall not all sleep [die], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.  For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed” (51-52).  He says nothing of a secret rapture.  On the contrary, the whole harvest will be raised together when the first-fruit appears again in the flesh.

The unrighteous cannot become righteous; they must “put on Christ,” who is “our righteousness, holiness, and redemption.”  The mortal cannot become immortal; it must “put on immortality.”  We don’t have this suit in our wardrobe.  We have to get it from someone else and we have it already in Christ.  Because “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” every believer is guaranteed this final clothing of his or her faded, decayed, and decomposed flesh with immortal glory (vv 53-55).

If we conceive of the future basically as an escape from history, our bodies, and God’s creation, we will reduce salvation to “going to heaven when we die.”  I’m not denying the precious truth that upon death our souls are received into God’s safe-keeping.  However, there’s a good reason why we call that the intermediate state.  Our blessed hope is the resurrection.

This orients our lives in this present age.  God never has given up on his creation and he never will.  He will not throw it away and start from scratch.  The Christian hope has nothing to do with visions of “the late great planet earth,” but with the expectation that we find in the Book of Revelation.  In that vision, the City of God descends from heaven to the earth.  In fact, not only are all walls removed between Jew and Gentile; even the vertical demarcations of heaven and earth are dissolved.  At long last, God’s dwelling will be with us forever.

Justified and renewed by the power of the Spirit, united to Christ, we struggle against indwelling sin, groaning for our release not from embodiedness but from sinfulness. Because Christ has been raised, our hope is not in vain—and neither are our labors in this age (v 58).  As the gospel is proclaimed to the ends of the earth, those dead in trespasses and sins are raised, justified, seated with Christ in heavenly places, are being conformed to his image, and will one day be glorified together with us.  Even when we go about our daily callings, working in our garden or our cubicle, volunteering at a homeless shelter, falling in love, raising children, and loving and serving our neighbors, we are “steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord,” because of the vista he has placed before us.  Christ has died.  Christ is risen.  Christ will come again!

-Michael Horton


Special Offer
sign-guestbook

 

E-Newsletter

CLICK HERE to sign up
for our weekly
newsletter in your email.
Receive each week's
program commentary and
"Term to Learn"


Extended Editions!

Sample the May 18, 2008
Extended Edition!

There is more to the
discussion than what you
hear on the radio! Listen
to what our Architect and
Reformer partners
receive each month.