BECOMING THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, part 3

²¹

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5.21 (NRSV)

Jan Lembrecht's Sacra Pagina commentary on 2 Corinthians sets the immediate context for 5.21 as 2 Cor 5.11-21, which begins with the word "Therefore..." and announces a conclusion in Paul's argument.

In this verse Paul returns to his self-defense and plea. No longer the future common destination of all Christians, but the actual situation—his strained relations with the Corinthians—will be treated.

"Self-defense and plea."
Lembrecht's observations answer a major weakness in N.T. Wright's interpretation of 2 Cor 5.21. Wright correctly identifies the primary theme of this portion of the letter as a defense and theological explanation of Paul's apostleship. What he does not emphasize is the APPEAL that Paul is making to the Corinthians on the basis of this defense. Wright therefore interprets 2 Cor 5.21 as a further element in Paul's description of his own apostolic ministry, when in fact it is more likely linked to the challenge he is delivering to the wayward church.

"We and you"
One way to grasp the flow of this passage is to note the interplay between "we" ("us"), and "you," and broader terms such as "the world" or "all" in the passage.

Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, WE try to persuade others; but WE ourselves are well known to God, and I hope that WE are also well known to YOUR consciences. WE are not commending ourselves to YOU again, but giving YOU an opportunity to boast about US, so that YOU may be able to answer those who boast in outward appearance and not in the heart. For if WE are beside ourselves, it is for God; if WE are in OUR right mind, it is for YOU.

For the love of Christ urges US on, because WE are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them. ^12131415

16From now on, therefore, WE regard no one from a human point of view; even though WE once knew Christ from a human point of view, WE know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled US to himself through Christ, and has given US the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to US.

So WE are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through US; WE entreat YOU on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him WE might become the righteousness of God.

^1718192021

Viewed like this, we can see that Paul's statements break down into three types:

1. Words about the apostles and their ministry
2. Words about what God has done for the world
3. Words about, and directed personally to, the Corinthians

In particular, the words in the first and final paragraphs are personal words about and to the Corinthian situation—they form PAUL'S APPEAL TO THE CHURCH. Note how the "you" texts are found only in these paragraphs.

That means that the final "we" in this passage (in 5.21) is different than all the other "we's" that come earlier. In every other instance, the "we" refers to the apostles and their ministry. But the final "we" grows out of Paul's personal appeal to the church and links them together. If the verse is a creedal statement or line from a hymn that Paul is quoting, as I believe it is, then this solidifies the idea that he is not narrowly referring to the apostles here, but to all Christians.

2Cor 5.21 functions as the REASON for Paul's appeal in v. 20—"We entreat you on behalf of Christ—be reconciled to God."

Next time, we'll sum up...

BECOMING THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, part 2

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5.21 (NRSV)

In his commentary on 2 Corinthians, Ralph Martin notes that, "the thought of Christians 'becoming the righteousness of God in him [Christ]' is not paralleled elsewhere in Paul." This and other observations lead him to conclude that Paul has included traditional materials about God's reconciliation into 1Cor 5.18-21.

Verse 21, in particular, may be a creedal statement or hymn fragment, which likely reflects Isaiah 53.10-11, about the Suffering Servant who would be made a sin offering, the Righteous One who would make many righteous by bearing their iniquities.

Further, he observes that the emphasis of 5.21 is not on the justification language, but rather on the simple idea of substitution and exchange. (Martin does say, however, that other aspects of the passage, which may indicate Paul's own hand interpreting and applying the traditional materials, cast a light on v. 21 that mirrors Paul's usage elsewhere.)

Yet another aspect of this passage is the way Paul uses evangelistic language to deal with a pastoral situation in a church. "The call [be reconciled to God] is issued with the Corinthian congregation and its pastoral problems in view, and should primarily be interpreted in that context." Paul uses language normally directed to call people to saving faith in Christ and applies it to believers, to impress upon them the ongoing implications of living as reconciled people in right relationship with God.

So, what we have in 2 Corinthians 5.21 is...

1. A creedal statement about Christ's substitutionary sacrifice that brings us righteousness,
2. In a context about being reconciled to God,
3. Which is addressed to a church, not those who need to come to initial faith in Christ.

More to come...

Comments always welcome!

Becoming the Righteousness of God

Crucifixion
Giotto di Bondone, 1304-1306

I have been reading N.T. Wright’s new book, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. It is a well-written defense of certain aspects of the so-called “new perspective” on Paul, which has caused a great deal of controversy, especially among those who hold traditional (“old perspective”) Reformed and Lutheran views of justification by faith. More on that debate another time.

For this post, I want to focus on a verse that has become central to the controversy—2 Corinthians 5.21. This has always been a favorite verse of mine. I have considered it to be one of those great summary texts, which express the Gospel message in a nutshell.

Here it is in the NRSV translation:

For our sake he (God) made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The immediate context for this verse is the section that runs from verses 18-21. This passage has as its focus the ministry of Paul as a “minister of reconciliation,” and here is how he develops that focus:

• God reconciled the apostles to himself through Christ.
• God then gave them the ministry of reconciliation.
• Their message is that God reconciled the world to himself through Christ, that he did not count their trespasses against them, and that the apostles are the authorized proclaimers of this message.
• Therefore, the apostles are God’s ambassadors and God is making his appeal through them.
• And so, Paul appeals to them to be reconciled to God for Christ’s sake.

I think it best to interpret 2 Cor 5.21 as the CONCLUSION to this emphasis on Paul's ministry. It states the Gospel truth the apostles proclaim that leads to reconciliation with God.

2 Cor 5.21 is an expansion of what Paul introduced in v.19—that God reconciled the world to himself and did not count their trespasses against them. Some commentators think Paul may be quoting a creedal statement of the church that sums up what Christ has done for us. If so, this solidifies the interpretation that Paul's purpose here is to state the apostolic message in concise form.

The traditional interpretation of 2 Cor 5.21 is represented by this quote from Phil Johnson in his blog post, “The Great Exchange”:

Here is the apostle Paul's most succinct statement about the meaning of the cross. This could be the shortest, simplest verse among many in the Pauline epistles that make the meaning of justification inescapable: "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

That text is all about the atoning work of Christ. Its meaning can be summed up in a single principle: substitution. It describes an exchange that took place through the atonement that Christ offered—our sin for Christ's righteousness. He took the place of sinners so that they might stand in His place as a perfectly righteous man.

Notice the graphic language: He was made sin (that's the very epitome of all that is despicable and odious), so that we might be made righteousness (that's everything that is good and pure and acceptable in God's estimation). This was the exchange: our sin for His righteousness. Our sin charged to His account; His righteousness credited to our account....

Now, N.T. Wright takes a radically different approach in interpreting this text. Trying to remain faithful to the context, which focuses on Paul as a minister of reconciliation and an ambassador for Christ, he takes the phrase, “that we might become the righteousness of God,” as synonymous with these other vocational descriptions. So, it turns out something like this: “God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be made a sin-offering for us, so that we (the apostles) might become (representatives of) the covenant faithfulness (i.e. righteousness) of God.”

I understand Wright's concern to respect the context, but I don’t think his is the best reading of 5.21 in relation to its context. I believe it makes more sense to see it as a summary statement of the message that the apostles bring as God’s ambassadors. This interpretation fits the context just as well. Wright's view seems forced.

Even though I don't accept that position, nevertheless, on other grounds this verse does present problems for the traditional view. Most notably, what are we to make of the verb, “become” in the second half of the "great exchange" described here. What does it mean that, “in him we...BECOME the righteousness of God”?

The Lutheran and Reformed understanding, based on the economic concept of imputation, is that our sin is placed on Christ’s account and counted against him, and in exchange his righteousness (the merit earned by his sinless life) is reckoned to our account. This "double imputation" leads to a change in the believer's status. We are declared righteous; our legal position before God the Judge is changed from that of "sinner" to that of “righteous.” Imputation does not describe an actual change within us, but a change in our legal standing before the Divine Court. Justification is a forensic matter. We are acquitted of any charges of law-breaking, and furthermore, God declares us perfectly righteous.

This traditional Protestant view has been defended against other interpretations of justification, such as that of Roman Catholicism, which holds that justification consists of a real, interior change in a person—imparted righteousness or infused grace—rather than an external legal transaction.

It is at this point that 2 Corinthians 5.21 causes Protestants problems. Listen again to the text:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

If Paul wanted to describe justification as a declaration of righteousness based upon imputation, would he have said, “that in him we might become the righteousness of God”? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say something like, “that in him we might be declared righteous by God,” or “that in him we might receive righteousness (i.e. a righteous status) from God”?

What does it mean to “BECOME the righteousness of God”?

Please share your thoughts and the insights you have gained from your own study as I work through this text in the days ahead and try to grasp Paul's meaning.

The Preschooler and the Pistol

Recently, here in Indianapolis, a four-year-old was taken by emergency personnel to the hospital with a gunshot wound. At first, it was not clear what had happened. The family told police the child had shot himself. The police weren't sure that the preschooler was strong enough to have pulled the trigger of the suspected weapon by himself, and so they wondered if someone else had done it, perhaps a family member.

It turned out the family was correct. The little boy lived in a home with other relatives, at least one of whom had several guns. This uncle left one of his pistols on a bedside table and the child discovered it there. The preschooler picked up, played with it, and shot himself in the hand. Fortunately, his injuries were not life-threatening, though he did nearly sever one of his fingers. All in all, the whole family was lucky, including the little boy's two siblings, neither of whom were hurt.

In evangelicalism, pastors too often play the part of the preschooler with the pistol. The Bible is a powerful, explosive tool. When its power is used with wisdom and love, it brings healing, comfort, direction, and salvation. It forms people and congregations into the image of Christ. When its power is used recklessly and without discernment, the Bible can hurt, divide, and destroy. You can blow your own hand off, or someone else's head.

A friend told me a sad story this week about her small-town church, an independent Bible-believing congregation that prides itself for standing on the Scriptures and not the doctrines of men. They have a young pastor who has been with them a few years now. A while ago, he came to the "Biblical conviction" that they were not running their congregation according to what the Bible teaches about church polity.

At the time, they had a joint board of elders and deacons, which included women deaconesses as well. The board made decisions together as leaders of the church. The pastor did a study and concluded that elders alone should rule the church, that deacons should not be included in the decision-making process, and that in any case, women should not be allowed a vote as leaders on church matters. So, he put the congregation through an extended process to change this, and ultimately got his way through a congregational vote to alter the bylaws.

My friend was one of the vocal minority who spoke against this, and the pastor let her know that her lack of support had been noted. She didn't tell me much about how others felt, or whether this situation threatened to divide the church. However, it was clear that she was troubled and concerned about the health of the church. And then she told me the kicker—while all this was going on, the pastor has been actively pursuing a position in another congregation. He will be leaving soon, right after taking my friend's church through this controversial process and forcing a change in the way they've done things for years.

I was reminded of the preschooler and the pistol. Here is a pastor who believes in the Bible, but does not appreciate its power, nor comprehend its wise use. His reckless application of God's Word has wounded rather than healed God's people. Now he's going to walk away and leave it to someone else to stop the bleeding.

Let me be clear—I am not criticizing the decision this church made. People of faith can differ on church polity and women in leadership and a thousand other matters, and have for centuries. No, my complaint is about a minister who does not understand Biblical priorities, who showed his lack of wisdom in elevating a matter that was of minor significance in the church so that it became a leading issue that now threatens to divide them.

This is another aspect of the authority problem in the evangelical world. We subscribe to Sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone") as our source of authority for faith and practice, but we have far too little appreciation for proper interpretation and wise application of the Bible's teaching. And too many churches and pastors, especially in the nondenominational or independent Christian world have little or no guidance in the process.

• In that autonomous congregation, which eschews "tradition," what theologically sound and historically proven practices were there to provide perspective, structure, and guidance to this pastor and the members of the congregation?

• In that small-town congregation, what pastoral mentor or overseer was available to tell the young minister, "Look, you may think you've discovered something in the Bible, but with regard to scriptural priorities, this is way down the list of things for a minister in your setting and situation to be concerned about."

• In that nondenominational congregation, what experience or counsel from the larger community of faith was available to help them work through an issue that other churches have dealt with already?

"Scripture Alone" does not mean "My Bible and Me Alone." Scripture is meant to be studied, interpreted, and applied within a community of faith that honors and respects history and tradition, the larger Body of Christ, and the wise counsel of respected spiritual overseers. Instead, we have too many maverick ministers recklessly taking what they find on the bedside table and firing into the crowd each Sunday.

GOOD TEACHING...

While in Chicago, we attended two classes in Biblical studies that were wonderfully stimulating to both mind and spirit.

The first, at North Park University, was taught by Dr. Boaz Johnson. Dr. Johnson is from New Delhi, India, and we have mutual friends in the Christian community there so we were anxious to meet him. He was teaching an introduction to the Bible class, and was dealing with the Book of Joshua. To set the stage for Joshua, he reviewed the Torah and the structure of the early prophetic books (Joshua through Kings). Dr. Johnson gave a breathtaking overview of the First Testament and its message. This is the kind of teaching I received in seminary, which put together so much for me in my understanding of Scripture. How wonderful to know that now college students have access to such rich insights.

The second Biblical class we attended was at Wheaton College, taught by John Walton. I have greatly benefited from Dr. Walton's commentary on Genesis, and was anxious to hear him teach. His lesson was on 1-2 Samuel. His instruction was winsome and insightful, aided by multimedia. Once again, the level of the teaching was extraordinary, the instruction profitable.

It was heartening to see the quality of Biblical instruction being taught at both of these fine evangelical schools.

What I Like about Lutheran Baptism

One issue that I am sure many will ask about with regard to our joining a Lutheran church is, "Yes, but what about baptism?"

The churches I have served all practiced believer's baptism—we baptized those who professed faith by means of immersion. Baptism was a public testimony of faith in Christ; a sign, a visual demonstration of dying to the old life, and rising to walk in newness of life. Some of the churches theoretically accepted the idea of infant baptism as well, but never performed the rite in public worship. I myself was open to the idea of infant baptism, particularly as it was explained in the reformed tradition.

When we joined the Lutheran church, we didn't spend much time discussing the subject of baptism, considering it a lesser issue than some of the other ecclesiological matters that drew us there. However, as I have taken part in the congregation and have read and thought about this subject, I have become more and more impressed with the Lutheran understanding.

First, let's define what Lutherans believe. Here is Luther's Smaller Catechism on holy baptism...

What is Baptism?

Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God's command and connected with God's Word.
Which is that word of God?
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

What does Baptism give or profit?
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Which are such words and promises of God?
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

How can water do such great things?
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

What does such baptizing with water signify?
It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.
Where is this written?
St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

I like the Lutheran view because it understands baptism as God's act, not a human act. It's primarily about grace, not faith. It is done to us in God's name (that is, as an act of God performed by his representative), we do not do it ourselves. It is not the sign of my response to God, it is the sign and seal of what God has done for me.

I like the Lutheran view because it emphasizes the Word of God. When God's Word of promise and salvation is spoken at baptism, ordinary water becomes a means of grace to sinners. Lutherans do not emphasize the water apart from the Word, nor do they worry so much about how much water is used, or by what method the water is applied. The key is that the simple, ordinary element of water is combined with the all-important Word of salvation.

I like the Lutheran view because it appropriately broadens our understanding of the Great Commission. Many who argue against baptizing infants appeal to the Book of Acts, where believer's baptism is the common practice. However, they forget that Acts describes only first-generation believers. Lutherans have no problem with baptizing believers who have received the Gospel (nor does any Christian denomination that practices baptism). What the N.T. does not exemplify so clearly is what should happen with second-generation believers. When does the child of Christian parents start becoming a disciple of Christ? That process begins when the child is born, and therefore it is appropriate to baptize the child and begin teaching him/her to obey what Christ has commanded from the beginning of life.

I like the Lutheran view because it enlightens us about the true nature of faith. In evangelicalism, faith is usually described as my decision, my willful choice to follow Christ. Lutherans understand that faith is more mysterious and often less conscious than that. Infants exemplify this broader understanding. Does an infant choose to be conceived or born? Does an infant decide to bond in trustful repose upon its mother's breast? Does the infant intelligently weigh its options and determine to choose life and love? No, a new life begins when others come together in an act of love. Then the incomprehensible life force one day moves the baby to enter the world, breathe, and respond to those who love her. Even so, God, through Word and Sacrament works faith and spiritual life into those who receive his promise.

I like the Lutheran view because it emphasizes the ongoing significance of baptism. Since evangelicalism views baptism as a one-time initiatory act that communicates a singular message about conversion, those who practice believer's baptism don't bring up the subject again in the course of the Christian life. However, Lutherans (following Luther himself) see baptism as an ongoing object lesson of the Christian life that we must remember and reenact every day. We practice our baptism daily by repenting (dying to the old life) and rising to walk in new life.

So hear ye all, and well perceive
What God doth call baptism,
And what a Christian should believe
Who error shuns and schism:
That we should water use, the Lord
Declareth it his pleasure;
Not simple water, but the Word
And Spirit without measure;
He is the true Baptizer.

Hymn XXXIV from "The Hymns of Martin Luther"

The "Big Picture" of the Gospel

It has been a slow week with regard to blogging—what with sickness and all—but I'm slowly finding my way back to the computer.

Let me start tonight by recommending a good summary of the Gospel, written by Derrick Olliff.

We tend to make the Gospel into an individualistic matter, when the real point is that God, through the Gospel, is calling us to participate in his program of transforming all creation through the Lord Jesus Christ. We also divorce the Gospel message from its First Testament roots, turning it into a strictly personal transaction rather than part of a continuing story.

Olliff overturns these notions and gives a good overview of the full Gospel message.

THURSDAY THINGAMAJIG: Christmas Book List I

Here's part one of my annual Christmas wish list for books. We'll start today with the realm of Biblical studies.

Here are ten books about the Bible and biblical theology, any of which I would love to find under the tree on Christmas morning...

• Psalms, 3 vols. (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), by John Goldingay

• Old Testament Theology: Israel's Gospel (vol. 1), by John Goldingay

• Old Testament Theology: Israel's Faith (vol. 2), by John Goldingay

• Psalms 1-59 (Continental Commentaries), by Hans-Joachim Kraus

• Psalms 60-150 (Continental Commentaries), by Hans-Joachim Kraus

• The New Testament and the People of God, by N.T. Wright

• Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, by Pelikan, Lull and Russell

• Reading the Psalms with Luther, Martin Luther

• Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions—A Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord, by Paul Timothy McCain

• A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, by Kim Riddlebarger
  

That's a good start!

WEDNESDAY QWOTE: Of Money and Neighbors

Economics has been leading the news and preoccupying our minds in recent days. This is one of those subjects that, especially on the broad scale, goes far beyond my comprehension and expertise. Others will have to speak to that. As an individual Christian, chaplain and Bible teacher, I have always been more interested in money matters at the level of the "widow's mite."

I like the following quote from Walter Brueggemann, because it looks at society and economics from this grassroots level. He reminds us that good stewardship of our resources is a matter of sustaining community and treating our neighbors with respect and dignity.

The Deuteronomic tradition presents society as a neighborhood and enjoins attitudes and policies that enhance neighborliness. Deuteronomy insists that economic life must be organized to ensure the well-being of widows, orphans and immigrants. This response to dislocation insists that maintaining a public economy of compassion and justice is a way to move beyond despair. "You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice. You shall not take a widow’s garment in pledge. Remember you were a slave in Egypt ...," Deuteronomy commands. A society that cannot be generous to those in need will not be blessed. The book instructs, "Every seventh year you shall grant a remission of debts.... Do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You shall rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be."

This is perhaps the most astonishing command in the Bible. It was the practice in that ancient world, as it is now, that anyone who owed money to another had to work it off. The more owed, the more work required. And if one owed enough, one might eventually belong to the "company store." But ancient Israel set a limit to such debt-related work, in order to prevent the formation of a permanent underclass. No matter how great the debt, it was to be worked off for six years and no longer. Then whatever debt remained was canceled. Deuteronomy makes clear that economic practice is a form of neighborliness and that economic provision must be adjusted to sustain community.

MONDAY MUSINGS: Politics week on otium sanctum

I am just about the most non-political person I know. I avoid talking about the subject because whenever I do, I get in way over my head and that always leads to trouble. I don’t think in political terms, I detest what it often takes to be successful in politics, and I fear the temptations that politics bring to those that choose to participate. If you were to ask me where I stand on the political spectrum, I would have to say that my positions at times reflect a libertarian streak, sometimes I’m more conservative than a far right Republican, at other times I’m more liberal than a far left Democrat, and then often I hold non-participatory convictions reflecting the Anabaptist tradition. No party would have me, and to be honest, I probably wouldn't have them either.

With that out of the way, this is an important realm of life and Christ-followers cannot simply stick their heads in the sand. It's election season in the USA and so I will devote my blog this week to the subject of politics, particularly the Presidential race.

For your own musing today, I will direct you to the websites of two political action committees that recommend voting for a certain candidate based on their own evangelical Christian convictions.

• Evangelicals for McCain. This PAC touts McCain's "common sense conservatism" and lists where McCain stands on such issues as the Ten Commandments, sanctity of life, fiscal responsibility in Washington, the Middle East, border security, and enviro-stewardship. Here you can find videos of McCain interviews on Christian networks like TBN.

• Matthew 25 Network. Taking their name from the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25, this PAC endorses Obama. Their mission is to endorse candidates that they think embody the values expressed in that parable: promoting life with dignity, caring for the least of these, strengthening and supporting families, stewardship of God’s Creation, working for peace and justice at home and abroad, and promoting the common good.

From what I can ascertain, both of these web sites offer good information and a positive spirit of advocacy for their candidates without veering into the excesses of negative, attack campaigning.

Think on these things.

MONDAY MUSINGS: Blue Parakeet, part 5

FROM MIKE: Check out this post at Jesus Creed about the release of The Blue Parakeet.

This will be my final post on the book, and then I will put a review on Amazon.com. This book will be highly recommended.


The final part of Scot McKnight's helpful new book is a case study about the subject of women in ministry. Entire denominations have dealt with this contentious issue by appealing to the Bible. While Scot does not claim to give an exhaustive study of the matter in this book, he does outline an approach to reading the Bible that can help us approach controversial questions like this.

First, he gives personal background and stories to show how the issue of women in ministry has been a matter of disagreement in evangelical circles. He also sketches the main positions people have taken. These stances boil down to whether we are reading the Bible through the tradition (various forms of patriarchalism) or with the tradition (mutuality or evangelical egalitarianism). He advises the latter as the way that best understands this issue in the light of the whole Biblical story.

It knows the story of the Bible in which Jesus Christ makes men and women one again, in Christ and in marriage. And, in conscious dependence on the Spirit in the context of a community of faith that seeks to live out that oneness, it gives to women the freedom to discern what God has called them to do—whatever it might be, including preaching, teaching, and leading in the church. (p.161)

Secondly, in order to flesh this out, Scot looks at the Biblical material itself and discusses stories and texts concerning women in both Testaments, looking most intently at those passages that restrict women from exercising ministry in the church (1Cor 14, 1Tim 2, etc.). I think he argues convincingly that these restrictive passages must be read both in light of the whole story and in the closer contexts of the epistles in which they are found, and that when we do that, it becomes clear that Paul's restrictions in particular were based on situations in the early church that made limiting women's public ministries advisable.

He concludes:

...we are given a pattern of discernment in the Bible, a pattern that flows directly out of the Story, to listen to what God said in that world so we can know what God is saying to us through our world. (p.212)

Helpful Way to Tell the Story

I found something helpful in Bruce Waltke's An Old Testment Theology, something I will use in my teaching and talking about the Bible (the First Testament in particular). I have adapted it somewhat already, but at the heart of what I say here is Waltke's analysis.

When discussing whether there is a "center" to the Bible's message--a core summarizing theme--Waltke points to the petition in the Lord's Prayer, "Thy kingdom come." For Waltke, the center of the Biblical message is God establishing his rule in the universe he created. This central message is played out via five components:

1. God's people
2. In God's land
3. With God's laws
4. Under the rule of God's king
5. In order to bring God's blessing to all the earth

All these themes are present from the beginning of the Bible, and they run concurrently with varying emphasis throughout. For example, in the "Primary History" (Genesis-Kings):

• Genesis 1-11 introduces all these themes.
  
• The primary function of Genesis 12-Exodus 19 is to identify God's people.
• The primary function of Exodus 20-Deuteronomy is to prepare them for life in the land with God's laws.
• The primary function of Joshua-Kings is to tell the story of their life in the land with God's laws under the rule of God's king.
• All this took place in order that Israel might be God's priests to the other nations of the world (Exodus 19.5-6).
  

Unfortunately, the First Testament ends with failure.

• Israel failed to live up to their calling as God's people.
  
• They failed to keep God's laws.
  
• Their failures led to exile from the land, and though they physically returned, they never regained their former glory or standing.
  
• God's kings had been almost unqualified disasters, leading the nation to ruin.
• Instead of a light, they became a laughingstock among the nations.

What Israel failed to do, the One True Israelite, Jesus Christ did. More to come on that.