MORALISM VS. CHRIST-CENTERED EXPOSITION (by Tim Keller)
March 14th, 2005We have said that you must preach the gospel every week–to edify and grow Christians and to convert non-Christians. But if that is the case, you cannot simply ‘instruct in Biblical principles.’ You have to ‘get to Jesus’ every week.
For example, look at the story of David and Goliath. What is the meaning of that narrative for us? Without reference to Christ, the story may be (usually is!) preached as: “The bigger they come, the harder they’ll fall, if you just go into your battles with faith in the Lord. You may not be real big and powerful in yourself, but with God on your side, you can overcome giants.” But as soon as we ask: “how is David foreshadowing the work of his greater Son”? We begin to see the same features of the story in a different light. The story is telling us that the Israelites can not go up against Goliath. They can’t do it. They need a substitute. When David goes in on their behalf, he is not a full-grown man, but a vulnerable and weak figure, a mere boy. He goes virtually as a sacrificial lamb. But God uses his apparent weakness as the means to destroy the giant, and David becomes Israel’s champion-redeemer, so that his victory will be imputed to them. They get all the fruit of having fought the battle themselves.
This is a fundamentally different meaning than the one that arises from the non-Christocentric reading. There is, in the end, only two ways to read the Bible: is it basically about me or basically about Jesus? In other words, is it basically about what I must do, or basically about what he has done? If I read David and Goliath as basically giving me an example, then the story is really about me. I must summons up the faith and courage to fight the giants in my life. But if I read David and Goliath as basically showing me salvation through Jesus, then the story is really about him. Until I see that Jesus fought the real giants (sin, law, death) for me, I will never have the courage to be able to fight ordinary giants in life (suffering, disappointment, failure, criticism, hardship). For example how can I ever fight the “giant” of failure, unless I have a deep security that God will not abandon me? If I see David as my example, the story will never help me fight the failure/giant. But if I see David/Jesus as my substitute, whose victory is imputed to me, then I can stand before the failure/giant. As another example, how can I ever fight the “giant” of persecution or criticism? Unless I can see him forgiving me on the cross, I won’t be able to forgive others. Unless I see him as forgiving me for falling asleep on him (Matt.27:45) I won’t be able to stay awake for him.
In the Old Testament we are continually told that our good works are not enough, that God has made a provision. This provision is pointed to at every place in the Old Testament. We see it in the clothes God makes Adam and Eve in Genesis, to the promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs, to the Tabernacle and the whole sacrificial system, to the innumerable references to a Messiah, a suffering servant, and so on. Therefore, to say that the Bible is about Christ is to say that the main theme of the Bible is the gospel–Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9).
So reading the Old Testament Christocentrically is not just a “additional” dimension. It is not something you can just tack on - to the end of a study and sermon. (”Oh, and by the way, this also points us to Christ”.) Rather, the Christocentric reading provides a fundamentally different application and meaning to the text. Without relating it to Christ, the story of Abraham and Isaac means: “You must be willing to even kill your own son for him.” Without relating it to Christ, the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel means: “You have to wrestle with God, even when he is inexplicable-even when he is crippling you. You must never give up.” These ‘morals-of-the-story’ are crushing because they essentially are read as being about us and what we must do.
A BASIC OUTLINE FOR CHRIST-CENTERED, GOSPEL-MOTIVATED SERMONS
The following may actually be four points in a presentation, or they may be treated very quickly as the last point of a sermon. But more generally, this is a foundational outline for the basic moral reasoning and argument that lies at the heart of the application.
The Plot winds up: WHAT YOU MUST DO.
“This is what you have to do! Here is what the text/narrative tells us that we must do or what we must be.”
The Plot thickens: WHY YOU CAN’T DO IT.
“But you can’t do it! Here are all the reasons that you will never become like this just by trying very hard.”
The Plot resolves: HOW HE DID IT.
“But there’s One who did. Perfectly. Wholly. Jesus the—. He has done this for us, in our place.”
The Plot winds down: HOW, THROUGH HIM, YOU CAN DO IT.
“Our failure to do it is due to our functional rejection of what he did. Remembering him frees our heart so we can change like this…”
a) In every text of the Scripture there is somehow a moral principle. It may grow out of because of what it shows us about the character of God or Christ, or out of either the good or bad example of characters in the text, or because of explicit commands, promises, and warnings. This moral principle must be distilled clearly. b) But then a crisis is created in the hearers as the preacher shows that his moral principle creates insurmountable problems. The sermon shows how this practical and moral obligation is impossible to meet. The hearers are led to a seemingly dead end. c) Then a hidden door opens and light comes in. The sermon moves both into worship and into Christ-application when it shows how only Jesus Christ has fulfilled this. If the text is a narrative, you can show how Christ is the ultimate example of a particular character. If the text is didactic, you can show how Christ is the ultimate embodiment of the principle. d) Finally, we show how our inability to live as we ought stems from our rejection of Christ as the Way, Truth, and Life (or whatever the theme is). The sermon points out how to repent and rejoice in Christ in such a way that we can live as we ought.
March 14th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
I love what Keller says in this context about learning to read the Bible as Jesus read it — as being all about Him! (John 5:39; Luke 24:44ff). It is helping me immensely to learn to read and apply and teach the Bible in this way. I used to know the stories of the Bibe…now I’m learning THE STORY of the Bible.
March 15th, 2005 at 8:58 am
Professor Cruver,
For the few weeks I have been following your blog I have been very encouraged by the material you have made available. The current post from Tim Keller is a homerun! Keller’s emphasis on a Christological hermeneutic solves (to me) two major problems. It addresses the problem of a classic Covenant Theology that fails to appreciate the progression of revelation and reduces all Scripture to the same level. This opens the door for bringing the believer back under the Law and a Jewish legalistic lifestyle. A Christological hermeneutic also addresses Dispensational Theology with its tendency to fragment revelation and make much of Scripture irrelavent to the believer. I realize that these are general statements and should be expanded further. I also realize that it is difficult to say much in a reply such as this. So I must be content to make these couple of general observations.
I have found the following quotes to be very helpful and it will make the same point Keller is making. They are taken from Francis Watson’s TEXT,CHURCH AND WORLD.
March 15th, 2005 at 10:07 am
Please pardon the break in my post - I hit the wrong key when I went to type the quotes from Watson.
In keeping with Keller’s article Watson makes the same point. “The theological task is to explore, from within, the implications of this claim. Misapprehensions or one-sided views must be identified and corrected; for example, the belief that the relationship between the Old Testament and the New stands or falls with the demonstration that a small number of traditional messianic proof-texts refer unambiguously and soley to Jesus. If Old Testament interpretation is to be undertaken on the presupposition of the Lukan Jesus ‘that everthing written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled’ (Lk. 24:44), then this statement must be understood in a sense broad enough to accommodate the Matthean assertion that the law and the prophets are fulfilled in the command, ‘Whatever you wish that people would do to you, do so to them’(Mt. 7:12).To see Jesus Christ as the center of a single Christian canon, comprising an Old and a New Testament, is not necessarily to impose an artificial unity on an irreducibly heterogeneous body of writings.’ TCW, p.279
Watson notes how this hermeneutic is appropriated by the one confronted with the question, “Who is Jesus?” when he comments on the events recorded in Luke 24. “…there was no framework available within which the message of Jesus’ resurrection would make sense. It is for this reason that the two disciples on the way to Emmaus are represented as not recognizing the traveller who joined them on the road - not because he appeared to them ‘in another form’ (en hetera morphe)…but because the conditions were not yet in place within which faith becomes a possibility. The statement that ‘their eyes were kept from recognizing him’ (Lk. 24:16) stems ultimately not from the evangelists narrative artistry but from his understanding of faith. Faith in the risen Christ originated and originates not in unmediated experience but through the mediation of holy scripture. According to the earliest Christian preaching accessible to us, Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, was buried, and was raised on the third day - again, in accordance with the scriptures. Thus, in response to the two disciples’ expression of sorrowful perplixity, the unrecognized Jesus simply did not make himself recognizable but engaged in scriptural interpretation, saying to them,’ “O foolish people, slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself’ (24:25-26)… It was therefore the role of the unrecognized interpreter of holy scripture to show them that they already possessed, in the experiences of today, yesterday and the day before, the key to the renewal of their scripturally-grounded hope which would set that hope for the first time on a firm, unshakeable foundation…Having momentarily glimpsed the risen Christ, the disciples recall how their hearts burned within them ‘while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures’ (Lk. 24:32). The fire is the light and warmth of the dawning faithin the resurrection, understood not as an isolated marvel but within the comprehensive context established by holy scripture.”
Ah, I get excited when I read this kind of material! Perhaps our pats may cross someday and we can sit for an extended discussion of hermeneutics. I do hope the material from Watson adds to that presented by Keller and reinforces the validity of and necessity for a Christological approach in our understanding of the OT.
Yours by Grace,
Highlander (A Proud Scot who remains unalterably opposed to English Imperialism)
March 15th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Highlander,
Thank you for the Francis Watson quotations! I have not yet read him. I just found out that we carry “Text, Church and World” in our library. So I plan on checking it out today.
It’s funny…I make that same point about Luke 24:16 (”but their eyes were kept from recognizing him”) in my Principles of Bible Study class. So I am really looking forward to giving Watson a thoughtful read.
Tell me a little more about yourself, Highlander.
dan
March 18th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
I am a pretty big Keller fan, but I do not know if I am very comforatble with this interpreatation of the David-Goloiath narrative. I must admit much of it seems appealing to me because ot points me to Jesus. I wonder however if Isreal would have seen the account this way? To me better questions to ask about this account would be something like: how does this contribute to the story line of the book? What is the canonical understanding of this narrative? Well other thoughts are coming but they are still rambling around in my head. I love the gospel beacause it first loved me, but I am also concerned that we are sometimes guilty of illegitimate gospel-allegory.
March 18th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
2. Bomb,
I understand your lack of comfort with Keller’s take (which is my take as well) on David and Goliath. Yes, on one level I’m not sure if Israel would have understood it that way or at least as fully as Keller has stated it. But I think that we have a responsibility to look at both the micro and macro contexts of each text. I think how Israel would have understood that text is considering the text on the micro level. But when Jesus interprets the OT to his disciples in Luke 24, I think he’s interpreting each OT text from its macro context, that is, from the perspective of the text’s place in the climax of redemption. A major part of considering a text within it macro context is mining out all the text’s clues as to how salvation works. So I think we should always keep our eyes open for Gospel “pieces.” There are Gospel “pieces” all over the OT. And they only come together in the person of Christ. Sidney Greidanus defines preaching Christ “as preaching sermons which authentically integrate the message of the text with the climax of God’s revelation in the person, work, and teaching of Jesus Christ” (Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, p. 10). I don’t think that I am guilty of allegory when I say that God’s anointed, David, was Israel’s substitute pointing to his greater Son who is our substitute. I see it as recognizing a Gospel “piece” that indicates how it is that God saves or how salvation works.
It seems to me that one of the main things we learn from Luke 24 is that the entire OT with all its varied texts finds its cohesiveness within the person and work of Christ. I wouldn’t consider your list of questions (how does this contribute to the story line of the book? What is the canonical understanding of this narrative?) as better questions. I would guess that the disciples asked those same questions in their study of 1 Samuel but Luke presents them in Luke 24 as still not understanding how the 1 Samuel testified to Christ. The questions you list are absolutely essential in that we must ask those questions first, but they are not where we stop. I think Jesus was directing the disciples to ask additional questions like: “what does this text tell us about how salvation works?”
Maybe I write another article on a justification for this particular perspective. Great questions, Brad! (I typed the comments in a HURRY. So I hope they are intelligible.)
March 23rd, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Probably one of the most perplexing things yet I have read from Keller. Truly thought-provoking is the illustration of David and Goliath. I struggle with his understanding of David as a type of Christ here.
First, for me a standard text on understanding and preaching types has been Keach’s work, “Preaching from the Types and Metaphors,” and on pgs 977-78 out of nine ways David is type of Christ, there’s no ref. to Goliath episode.
Second, text of 1 Sam 17 with David’s own words makes clear that it is not so much that David is doing what the other Israelites cannot do (as Keller suggests) bu what the other Israelites will not do.
There was nothing inherent about the other soldiers in their abilities and skills that prevented them from going to battle Goliath, especially King Saul. The only thing inherent thinking lacking was faith. They chose not to believe in the promises of God, something only David was willing to do. Any one of the other soldiers could have stood up to Goliath and stated,
“I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israels, whom you have taunted. This day the Lord will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you…that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hands.”
That’s gospel talk. God already promised the victory way back in Joshua’s day. The problem was that no one chose to believe it and live in those promises.
So it seems that the story is a type of living by faith in the promises of the gospel of Christ. In the historical-redemptive scheme, the redemption act occurred at the Red Sea. And under a dozen generations later in 1 Sam 17 we are still finding the failure of God’s people to live in His promises.
I preached this text many weeks ago in a six or seven part series entitled “The Power of the Gospel.” It was a spin-off from Romans 1:16, the gospel is the power of God to save everyone who believes. In 1 Sam. 17 the gospel was the power of God to save the Israelites from Goliath and the Philistines. That powerful gospel was believing in the promises of God to do for them what they could not do for themselves. That theme is replete from Exodus 1 to 1 Sam. 17. The example of David is yet another in a string of similar events in redemptive history to prove that God delivers His people by His own power, not by His people’s weak and fleshly power, and that I does so to make His name and His power known throughout the earth.
I fear that it may be taking the analogy too far then to suggest that David is a type of Christ in this scene or that imputation is somehow theologically inherent in the story.
But maybe I’m just splitting hairs!
March 23rd, 2005 at 2:10 pm
This is a great discussion…very helpful. So thanks.
First, I would modify some of the conclusions that you make concerning the gospel as it relates to 1 Samuel 17. You wrote: “That powerful gospel was believing in the promises of God to do for them what they could not do for themselves.” I disagree with that statement. The gospel is not our “believing in the promises of God to do for us what we could not/cannot do for ourselves.” The Gospel is what God has done outside of ourselves to accomplish our salvation, period. The Gospel itself has nothing to do with our believing. What I mean by “the gospel has nothing to do with our believing” is that our belief, our faith in Christ/God is not good news. Our belief fails over and over again. If belief is an inherent part of the good news then we’re screwed. The gospel is that Christ offered God a vicarious belief and repentance, a belief and repentance in my place. So in that sense faith is an inherent part of the gospel, but it’s not my subjective faith. It’s the objective faith that Christ offered to God in my place. What the Gospel does is create and sustain my faith. I go back to Romans 1:16-17 where Paul says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation precisely because it reveals with saving and sanctifying effect the righteousness which God provides. It seems to me that Paul is not teaching that faith activates the revealing of this righteousness. Rather, the revealing of this righteousness creates and sustains faith. If my believing Christ is an inherent part of the Gospel, I’m in big trouble. Because like the Israelites in 1 Samuel 17, my faith in the promises will never be sufficient for my deliverance. What I need, like Israel in 1 Samuel 17, is for God to accomplish my deliverance through His Anointed One. I think what we learn from 1 Samuel 17 is not that the key to victory over our enemy is our believing. I don’t think the primary point of that account is to encourage us to believe like David and not fail to believe like the Israelites. I think what we learn from 1 Samuel 17 is that the key to victory over our enemy is found in the Anointed of God.
Second, I agree that every Israelite already possessed the promise of God for deliverance. I don’t think Keller would deny that. But what I see over and over is the people of God failing to believe and act upon the promises of God. Consequently, they were in desperate need. They needed God’s anointed. It is very significant to me that the account of David and Goliath is the first thing David did after being anointed of God. The first thing David did as God’s anointed was bring a very significant victory to the people of Israel. They needed God’s anointed because they did not have faith but were unbelieving. They needed something more than the promises of God. They needed one who would believe and act in their place. So I see the gospel as God accomplishing our salvation through one who lived and died in our place, one who offered to God a vicarious faith and repentance (the baptism and temptation of Jesus).
Third, I think Luke 24 requires us to see Christ as the Greater David of 1 Samuel 17. If 1 Samuel 17 is primarily a story that is “a type of living by faith in the promises of the gospel of Christ,” then it is mainly about me and not Christ. I think that it does teach us to live by faith in the promises of the gospel of Christ, but I think Luke 24 requires us to see more than that. I think that it is ultimately a story that tells us how it is that God saves an inept, helpless, rebellious, unbelieving people, namely, through His anointed. I don’t think the issue is what Israel would have understood 1 Samuel 17 to teach. I think the issue is what Israel should have understood 1 Samuel 17 to teach. In Luke 24, Jesus tells the disciples what they should have understood.
March 23rd, 2005 at 2:44 pm
This is a GREAT discussion. I’ve enjoyed it! I used to struggle with this same issue. One thing that helped my understanding is remembering that ALL other promises God provides rest solely on THE promise of a Savior Who lived and died in our place. Without this specific promise (and fulfillment thereof), all other promises are null and void and God is not God.
A study that I have begun is about Truth. All truth, in some way, points to Christ. Jesus Himself said, “I am the truth”. Truth is a person. Anything that is true points to Christ and our responsibility is to recognize this connection, otherwise, our understanding of “truth” is moralism at best.
Paul explains in Philippians 4:8 “Whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, and good report.. think on these things” - I think, ultimately, Paul is saying whatever we think on, tie to Christ because He is the ultimate for what is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, and good report.
I take this seemingly disconnected Pauline passage and tie it to the account of David. If we merely say, “have the faith as David” we talk moralism. If we point the account to Christ, as with other Scriptural accounts, we find what is really TRUE which is Christ Himself.
March 23rd, 2005 at 5:41 pm
I agree with Dan that the Gospel does not include the call to faith. That is God’s desired response to the Gospel, but as Dan said, the Gospel is what Christ has already done on our behalf, whether or not we believe it. Otherwise, we’ve just reduced the Gospel to faith in faith.
This paradigm of preaching the whole Bible as the presentation of Christ is the way Jesus himself understood and taught the Scriptures. So this paradigm comes with a caution: You can’t just go back to the OT stories and make Christ fit in however it seems to work best for you. I think that’s what Brad and Rob were maybe addressing in their words of caution. We can’t become wildly imaginative and innovative in the ways that we find Jesus in the OT. We’ve got to be true to revelation. But again, I think Dan’s right where he’s says there are a couple different kinds of context. You have the immediate context as the original hearers would have understood it in the flow of progressive revelation. But we also have all of God’s Word today, so we have the context of the whole. We can’t focus on either of these to the exclusion of the other. That being said, I think we typically fail to do BOTH, and that’s what leads us to shoddy exegesis and moralism.
Personally, I don’t think its a stretch to find parallels between David and the Son of David, between God’s anointed king and God’s Anointed King. I think if we worked out every detail of David’s life and conjectured how it pointed to Christ, we’d be dangerously speculative. But I don’t think this example of David and Goliath is speculative at all. David went in weakness and won victory for his entire people. Jesus came in weakness and won victory for His people.
March 24th, 2005 at 11:42 am
I must admit a certain degree of perplexity in my mind about the discussion. The reason has to do with the relationship of my belief with what Christ did. I think you addressed this a few weeks ago, but thanks to my depraved short term memory I forgot your response.
What Christ did for me, on my behalf, before the Father is the gospel. That is the good news, plain and simple. He did what I could not do (live perfectly obedient to the Father) and what I never would have been able to do (completely pay for my sinfulness). He did what I did not WANT to do (coming to the Father on my behalf when I was His enemy)!
But it is the appropriation of this good news that seems perplexing from the responses. My concern is that belief is becoming so separated from the gospel that we come dangerously close to contradicting Scriptures.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that, “The Gospel is what God has done outside of ourselves to accomplish our salvation, period.” And I agree with your statement and explanation about how our belief is not the good news. Amen to that.
But my disagreement surfaces with two particular statements.
First, you said, “The gospel is that Christ offered God a vicarious belief and repentance, a belief and repentance in my place.” To be sure, I don’t disagree with that statement so much as I do where it seems to go. It seems to lead to the denial of the Christian’s obligation to exercise the faith God has already given Him because of Christ.
According to Paul, the gospel is only the power of God for salvation to those who believe. That’s obligation talk, not vicarious atonement talk. Sure, inherent in the good news of the gospel is the recognition that Christ has performed a work on my behalf and given me the ability to believe in the first place. But I’ve got to exercise it. He plays on that theme again in Romans 10:9-10. IF we believe in our hearts then we will be saved. Then later on, those who haven’t heard can’t believe in the gospel because they haven’t heard it yet. That would seem to be the best text, by the way, for arguing a belief that is spawned out of the gospel.
So I agree that our faith is not inherent in the gospel. But Paul seems clear that it must come as our obligation toward the gospel. My focus, however is for the Christian who has been enabled to believe. The soldiers of Israel had already been recipients of God’s redemptive action towards His enemies. Their failure to believe and take God at His past word and action is what brought about their trembling and shaking at the sight of Goliath. David, however, remembered these things and fought valiantly out of those redemptive acts and promises.
So we cannot separate our obligation to believe in God’s promises from the power of the gospel which spawns those promises. Without a doubt, the failure to believe in them is what causes them to have no effect on a person’s heart and mind.
Also worthy of study is the writer of Hebrews with his constant warnings regarding unbelief. In 3:12 ff. the writer says, “Take care, brothers, les there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” As an example of this in living color, the writer reminds them of Israel’s problem in the wilderness. And in 4:2 my point seems confirmed. “For good news came to us just as it did to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.” Then again in verse 6, “those who formerly received teh good news failed to enter because of disobedience.”
Now comes the connection with the gospel at the end of chapter 4 and into chapter 5. Because of Jesus, our Great High Priest, we can enter into His throne room boldly and ask confidently for help, to believe. In verse 15, the implication is that Jesus believed without ever sinning, thus becoming our substitute. He believed for us when we could not. But since He has believed for us, now we can. And now that we can, we should. For if we do not then the original confidence the writer refers to in chapter 3 and 4 is shaky to say the least.
In chapter 6, at the end of the chapter, God’s promise to Abraham is made the foundation of the believer’s belief. In verse 19, “we have this as a sure and steafast anchor of the soul…” And the “this” refers to the promise of God. That promise is what enables us to continue to exercise belief by entering “into the inner place behind the curtain where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf…” (v. 20).
Later in chapter 10, the confidence we have to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus (v. 19) produces the obligation to “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.” There, in verse 23 is what the Irsaelites should have done, and what David did. They should have held fast to God’s past redemptive acts and words and promises without wavering because God is faithful. My belief is based on His promises. That’s part of what makes the good news good. It is good because of what God did for me that I could not do for myself. But it is also good because it comes from a good God who can be trusted, who is faithful, who keeps His promises. And when I come to Him in belief of Him and what Christ has has already done for me, I come believing that everything else He promised will come to me as well. That seems to be the apparent failure of the Israelites with respect to Goliath.
Gees! I hope this doesn’t sound like some polemic diatribe!
Second, you stated, “The gospel is that Christ offered God a vicarious belief and repentance, a belief and repentance in my place.” I agree with that on the surface. But the problem is that it could lead to this conclusion. If Christ offered His belief in my place, then why do I have to believe? Why does anyone have to believe?
Sure, He did it only for the elect, for His chosen. But that fact didn’t preclude responsibility and obligation to believe. So if there is no dividing line then either (a) all are already saved because Christ already offered His belief in their behalf, or (b) only the elect are saved and are not required to do anything to appropriate their salvation, or (c) everyone who believes the gospel will experience the power of God through the mesage of the gospel.
In the end, the righteousnes of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, which means that the gospel teaches that life for the justified person is about the faith God has given that person from beginning to end. God did it all already in Christ. But it is out of this truth that Paul says the just will live by faith. They live according to to the belief Christ already accomplished for them, but they also live otu of that belief, exercising it daily to vanquish foes, giants, temptations, sins, discouragement, failure, weakness.
Now, to conclude on a different note, I also wholeheartedly agree that one purpose of David and Goliath in the grand scheme of of redemptive history is to point to Israel’s need of an Anointed One to do what they cannot and will not do. But based on Paul and the writer of Hebrews another purpose must also be that in reading such a story we are exhorted and encouraged to exercise belief in the promises of God just like David did, for those promises are an inseparable part of the good news.
David and Goliath becomes moralistic when we emphasize our belief. But it becomes gospel-centered when we emphasize what God had already done for Israel and what He had consistently promised to do for them…if they believed in it.
Praise God for you Dan. I was up late last nite thinking and praying and meditating on the article you sent me by Tim Keller on the Centrality of the Gospel, and I was saying to my self, “Self, there’s no one else right now I’d rather be discussing this article with than Dan Cruver!” But I got scared when my self answered me back!
March 24th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
I liked Rob’s question, something like, If Christ believed in my place then it seems like we’re saying my faith isn’t important at all, yet it is.
First of all, kudos to Rob for tackling one of the mysteries of the Gospel!
Second, I agree with him that it can be confusing, especially if you’re not exposed regularly to a balanced perspective. Most believers are probably raised in an (unwittingly) moralistic church and home. The kids are taught ONLY that the story of David and Goliath means you should be brave like David and just suck it up and have faith because God is bigger than giants are.
But I think I agree with Rob (if I understand what he’s saying) that it’s not necessarily more balanced to ONLY present the idea that Jesus was the true Son of David who defeated the giants of sin and death on our behalf — at least if that is communicated in such a way that we’re saying, “Therefore I have no responsibility in the matter because Jesus already believed on my behalf.”
Biblically, I believe we have to conclude that faith is not inherent in the Gospel itself, or, as I said earlier, we’re left with faith in faith. But we’re not left without faith either. After Peter preached his sermon at Pentecost, which was basically a presentation of what Jesus had already done on their behalf (see Acts 2:22-36), the people immediately cried out in response, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter did NOT say, “Nothing! That’s the point — Jesus did it all!” Peter did say here and elsewhere that the necessary response to the Gospel was “Repent and believe.”
Our faith does not accomplish the Gospel. As Dan said in an earlier posting, our faith (or lack thereof) does not constitute a part of the “Good News.” Our faith (a gift of God, exercised in the power of God — but exercised nonetheless) simply is that which unites us to the perfect faith of Christ. This is the very reason that our quantity of faith and quality of faith are not the essential factors in our salvation — the OBJECT of our faith is what is crucial. If we believe in Jesus and believe in the good news concerning Him, then we are united to His perfect, sincere, unhypocritical faith.
My goal in preaching (or teaching a Bible study or discipling my little girl) is to present Christ in His glory. If I present the glorious Christ and what He has done and is doing — and if the Spirit of God is doing a work inside hearts that I cannot do — then the response of people will be (even if its an internal, unvoiced response), “What should we do?” And I will tell them, “Be repenting and believing.”
March 24th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
You’ve got to love written dialogue! It definitely keeps blogging from being boring. I don’t have much time here (we’re leaving for my parents in an hour) but here are my immediate thoughts.
I think our particular discussion here is most valuable and necessary. So thank you, Rob, for continuing it. Let me begin by stating where I must assuredly agree with you. (1) I agree that it is our obligation to exercise faith. Believing the gospel is the appropriate and absolutely necessary response to the gospel. (2) I do wholeheartedly agree that “based on Paul and the writer of Hebrews another purpose must also be that in reading such a story we are exhorted and encouraged to exercise belief in the promises of God just like David did, for those promises are an inseparable part of the good news.” So I’m not arguing against those biblical truth propositions. I guess my concern is to make it clear that those two points are not the gospel.
I believe that it is the preacher’s responsibility to study and preach/teach knowing that every text of Scripture finds its cohesiveness in the person and work of Christ, that is, in the gospel. I don’t think the preacher has gone far enough merely telling his people that the reason Israel failed to face Goliath was because they failed to believe the gospel, therefore we must believe the gospel in our daily spiritual battles or we will fail. Now I’m not saying that the previous statement is not true. I’m saying that it is absolutely true, but exhorting/encouraging our people to believe the gospel everyday is not the gospel. What I am saying is that coming in behind the call not to follow Israel’s example but rather believe the gospel everyday should be the declaration that our daily victory is not grounded in our exercise of belief. It’s grounded in what Christ has done in our place. We are assured of victory as we believe because where we have failed and fail to believe as we ought Jesus has succeeded in our room and stead. Where we have cowered in fear before the threats of the enemy, our Anointed one has not. His victory has become our victory. The triumph which he enjoys is ours to enjoy not because we have believed but because of what he has done for us vicariously.
This emphasis in 1 Samuel 17 is the only way to put Jesus at the center of the text as Savior. What we need to enable us to believe and follow David’s example is a Savior. The emphasis that I am arguing for is the gospel, and it is the gospel that is the power of God to exercising this absolutely necessary faith. So with that in mind let me address a few things in your most recent reply.
(1) In response to my statement that “the gospel is that Christ offered God a vicarious belief and repentance, a belief and repentance in my place,” you said, “To be sure, I don’t disagree with that statement so much as I do where it seems to go. It seems to lead to the denial of the Christian’s obligation to exercise the faith God has already given him because of Christ.” It seems to me that some argue that the teaching that where sin abounded grace did much more abound leads to the belief that we should sin that grace may abound. But if it leads to that it is due to the failure to understand the true nature of grace. So if my statement leads to the denial of the Christian’s obligation to exercise faith, it is due to the failure to understand the true nature of Christ’s vicarious life and death. Let me also add that I see the gospel of Christ’s vicarious life and death as the very power of God unto the fulfillment of my obligation to exercise faith.
(2) You said, “According to Paul, the gospel is only the power of God for salvation to those who believe. That’s obligation talk, not vicarious talk.” First, yes, it is absolutey true that the gospel is only the power of God for salvation to those who believe, but the gospel is this only for those who are believing precisely because of what it savingly reveals, namely, Christ’s vicarious life and death (Romans 1:17; 3:21ff). Second, I disagree that what Paul says in Romans 1:16 is obligation talk. It’s declarative talk not obligation talk. I would argue that as a declarative statement Romans 1:16 is vicarious talk because of its logical connection to Romans 1:17. The ability (i.e. power) to fulfill my obligation to believe is effected by the gospel which sanctifyingly (you’ve got to love that word!) reveals the righteousness which God provides for us in His Son. I don’t want to keep beating the same drum (okay, I really do) but the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe because the righteousness which it reveals actually effects salvation.
(3) You said, “So I agree that our faith is not inherent in the gospel. But Paul seems clear that it must come as our obligation toward the gospel. My focus however is for the Christian who has been enabled to believe.” I’m not disagreeing with this. I’m just saying that the gospel not only enables us to first believe but it also daily enables our continued belief. David’s fighting valiantly was not ultimately or mainly due to his remembering the gospel. I would say that his remembering was due to the power of the gospel at work in him.
Closing comments:
I think one of the main things we are wrestling with here is that the gospel is entirely counter intuitive. It does not work like we “think” it should work. This is one of the reasons I love the gospel. I would never have dreamed it up!
I’m certainly not disagreeing with the the book of Hebrews :-)! But what the writer does to spur us on to a persevering faith is not merely to tell us to believe the gospel but to actually give us the gospel. He doesn’t it merely outline Israel’s failure and then call us to persevere. No, he goes to great lengths to proclaim the gospel to us over and over again. Hebrews is actually more like a sermon than an epistle proper. As I study the book of Hebrews what I find happening in my experience is persevering, continuing faith being generated or created and sustained by the truth of the gospel as it is presented by the writer. This is what the gospel does. It causes that which it demands and requires from me, namely, faith. How awesome is that!
Well, I’ve got to go. I will be able to continue the discussion when I get to my parents. So feel free to respond one and all!
March 25th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Matt, it sounds like we should fellowship some more! You explained precisely what I was after. Thanks for the encouragement.
Dan, the key statement in all you wrote for me personally was this: “…but exhorting/encouraging our people to believe the gospel everyday is not the gospel.” Now I get your point, not because you didn’t explain it thoroughly before, but probably because I’m a meat head.
You’re saying you would tell the people both truths, while emphasizing the Anointed One as the only as well as necessary substitute for our victory over sin. Then in application, you would probably say, “Believe in this substitute, for it is only in believing Him and what He has already done that you will find daily victory over sin.”
Now, picking up in the very next two sentences is the statement, “What I am saying is that coming in behind the call not to follow Israel’s example but rather believe the gospel everyday should be the declaration that our daily victory is not grounded in our exercise of belief. It’s grounded in what Christ has done in our place.” I would simply respond by saying that in the redemptive-historical scheme, the Red Sea was that event. At the expense of the dead horse I am probably beating here (which is o.k. cause he won’t feel a thing) I could restate your sentences this way, spoken from a united-kingdom period Israelite,
“What I am saying is that coming in behind the call not to follow our army’s example but rather believe the Red Sea event everyday should be the declaration that our daily victory against the Philistines and especially Goliath is not grounded in our exercise of belief. It’s grounded in what God has done in our place at the Red Sea. We are assured of victory as we believe because where we have failed and fail to believe as we ought God has succeeded in our room and stead. Where we have cowered in fear before the threats of the Egyptians and Philistine and Goliath, our Yahweh has not. His victory has become our victory. The triumph which he enjoys is ours to enjoy not because we have believed but because of what he has done for us vicariously.”
Not one of the soldiers of Israel in facing Goliath day after day said this. In essence, I took your explanation and am simply showing its gospel foreshadow. Everything Christ did for us, God already did for the Israelites.
As I thought and thought more last night in this discussion, it appears to me that there is this fundamental element to any redemptive-historical discussion. That element is like an AM/FM bandwidth. On the smaller AM bandwidth is the David and Goliath scene itself. That scene by itself teaches that the armies of Israel refused to believe in the God who had delivered them from Egypt and planted them in the promised land. In gospel terms, they refused to believe the promises God had already made to them by virtue of His previous redemptive acts
On the larger FM bandwidth is the bigger picture, the fact that this scene is just another in four plus thousand year history of events showing that Israel, and all of mankind for that matter, needed an Anointed One to do for them what they continually were unable to do for themselves.
I think Dan, you and I are communicating both bandwidths. And I also think that biblical exposition is emphasizing the FM bandwidth, the bigger picture of the redemption we so desperately needed. That is what it means to preach Christ. Heck! that’s what my blogs have been all about for the past few weeks! (www.mymiscellanies.blogspot.com)
Further, I was severely and theologically and logically body slammed by one of my own favorite arguments, and one that I even used yesterday to discuss the charismatic issue with one of our deacons! You stated, “if my statement leads to the denial of the Christian’s obligation to exercise faith, it is due to the failure to understand the true nature of Christ’s vicarious life and death.” I’m feeling the back pain on that one! That is an excellent argument. The slippery-slope argument is one of the worst arguing methods in all of theology. Thanks for that reminder bro.
Next, you argued against my statement that Romans 1:16 is obligation talk. You said it was both vicarious and declarative. I should have said it is declarative with implied obligatory. The exegesis demands it is a declarative, no doubt about that. Paul is declaring and preaching truth here, not calling for a response yet. But I was just arguing the implied obligatory which you agreed with. However, based on the connection of verse 17 with verse 16, did you agree with my other statement?
“the righteousnes of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, which means that the gospel teaches that life for the justified person is about the faith God has given that person from beginning to end. God did it all already in Christ. But it is out of this truth that Paul says the just will live by faith. They live according to to the belief Christ already accomplished for them, but they also live otu of that belief, exercising it daily to vanquish foes, giants, temptations, sins, discouragement, failure, weakness.”
I believe you also said it best when you stated, ” I’m just saying that the gospel not only enables us to first believe but it also daily enables our continued belief. David’s fighting valiantly was not ultimately or mainly due to his remembering the gospel. I would say that his remembering was due to the power of the gospel at work in him.”
In that same vein, you wrote about Hebrews, “It causes that which it demands and requires from me, namely, faith. How awesome is that!” Really, really, really, reeeellyyyy awesome (as my kids say Spongebob would say it)! And again, in this statement, that’s where I am. The Gospel is clearly an upward spiral likened to a tornado. It comes down out of heaven and catches me up in it. So any thrill I get in riding it, any victories I experience, a foes I vanquish is all attributed to the tornado itself, just carrying me along, enabling me to do it all.
I’m tracking with you baby…it’s all you man!
March 25th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
First, let me commend all involved in this discussion for the spirit in which your perspectives are communicated. Clearly, there is a desire to know the Truth in its purity. I especially appreciate questions that are not merely argumentative in nature, but humble and sincere expressions of disconnected understandings. May God grant generous wisdom for our asking.
My comments are likely to be a whole lot less erudite, but perhaps a simple man’s explanation may help some of the fringe readers who hesitate to contribute. Then again… maybe not.
The Gospel is by definition “good news”. Very simple, but extremely important. A gospel that imposes “obligation” on me that I am incapable of consistently and persistently performing is not good news. Experience affirms doctrine in exposing my inability to believe and to continue believing without Divine intervention. Do we not tend to look at the “gift of faith” as a one-time, deistic initiation of process? “I give you the gift, you exercise it.” On the contrary, Rom 8:29-30 and Phil 1:6 teach that the good news is not merely what God does at regeneration, but what He continues to do in me. The Gospel enables and therefore assures “obligation”.
I am not encouraged (its not good news) when I am reminded to “just believe” because all the bootstrap pulling thus far has only brought frustration. I am divinely inclined (II Cor 5:17), even driven to believe when I am pointed to a Christ who has performed and is performing perfectly for me and in me. I love Dan’s “It causes that which it demands and requires from me, namely, faith [believing].” In my simple mind, this is the difference between “religion” and Christianity (in its biblical purity). Religion sometimes starts with good news, but in time, obligation obliterates it. The true Gospel comes in joy and that joy persistently grows. Each return to the cross and the vicarious work of Christ restores reality to our thinking. Predestination without an unthwartable sanctification is meaningless.
Regarding: “The gospel is entirely counter intuitive. It does not work like we “think” it should work.” Believe because you are believing. Live holily because you are holy. Be blessed because you are blessed. Trust because you are trusting. Confess because you are forgiven. Do it because Christ has done it for you. I’m not sure that I can fully grasp it – yet.
Without the Gospel hermeneutic, David’s killing Goliath can logically be reduced to an adrenaline-charged act of war-time heroism. Without the Gospel, it can be explained moralistically, but it doesn’t really have to be even that. It can even be much less than that. Without the Gospel, even the most liberal (theologically) explanations are viable.
March 25th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Rob: this has been a pleasure. Discussing things with you sharpens me (in a very good way). Let me just say that I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts on “My Miscellanies on the Gospel”! I knew that ultimately we were not disagreeing. But discussions like this help all involved to understand the issues better. I can honestly say that I have grown in my understanding through this discussion. I have grown to see a little more of the depth and profundity of Scripture. It is truly an amazing Book !
I may try to take our discussion and write a serious of articles on it for my blog. I think it is such a necessary discussion. I know that my bent is to jump to the Gospel as the hermeneutical key too quickly. So this discussion has been helpful to remind me not to jump the gun. So thanks again for the discussion.
Also, thanks to Matt, Dave, and Rudy for jumping in as well. This is the kind of thing I would like to see happen more often on blogs like this.
More latter!
March 25th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
This is the most salivating discussion on the gospel I’ve had in months! So if this discussion makes me salivate, then Randy’s following comment had me foaming at the mouth for my Savior!
“A gospel that imposes “obligation” on me that I am incapable of consistently and persistently performing is not good news. Experience affirms doctrine in exposing my inability to believe and to continue believing without Divine intervention.”
Oh, my word! I jumped up out of my chair at that one! Well said, brother. Well said. Oh how I want more of Him everyday!
March 30th, 2005 at 11:07 am
I’ve enjoyed reading through the 17(!) comments on your blog post about David & Goliath. I’ve reduced “the points of disagreement” down to this (and maybe I’ve OVERsimplified it, but here’s my best take):
Person A says: The Gospel hermeneutic is the key. David is a picture of Christ going forth on behalf of the cowering soldiers and triumphing over evil. He won their battle for them and they conquered through him.
Person B says: This interpretation is going too far because is seems to imply that Christ somehow believes for his people also. We should be careful about applying the Gospel hermeneutic here, but rather take this as a story about having faith in God’s promises.
My perspective is twofold:
I think it is okay for a passage like this to be both/and. Thus I can heartily teach/preach the perspective of both Person A and Person B.
But I still lean toward Person A’s Gospel hermeneutic, and here’s why: the discussion seems to have ended at David and Goliath, but have we taken is far enough? In other words, maybe the way Person A and Person B can be reconciled is NOT by pulling back from the Gospel hermeneutic, but by taking it EVEN FARTHER in the story!
It is BECAUSE of what David did that the faith and courage of the Israelite soldiers was lit aflame and they went forth and pursued the Philistines to devastating ends. In that sense David secured for them the enablement of faith that resulted in their going forth, full of the promises of God, to route the enemy. David dealt the decisive blow, but the Israelites had to fight the battles. In that same way Christ dealt Satan and death the decisive blow (“crushing the head of the serpent” hmmmm, sound like David and Goliath) at the Cross and won the battle. It was accomplished/finished at that point. And we now go forth, in full assurance of faith, to fight the battles of the Christian life and the “gates of Hell shall not prevail against us.”
So it’s not about me doing nothing. Christ, my David, did for me what I could not do myself; he won the battle when he killed the Goliath of my sin. Yet (and here is the great mystery of the gospel) I must believe his Word and work out my own salvation with fear and trembling and fight the battles of sin and temptation daily. But ONLY because He first went forth in battle before me.
March 30th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Thanks to Scott for taking the story beyond the point where we had stopped! I appreciate the points he made and affirm them with him. I agree that the Gospel is both/and rather than either/or. Before being killed by the Nazis, isn’t this the point that Bonhoeffer labored to communicate in “The Cost of Discipleship?” As he said, the solution to a “cheap grace” way of thinking is still grace!
Going back to the root of this discussion, we’re looking at the difference between a moralistic and Christ-centered understanding of Scripture. Moralism is the direct result of forgetting that grace is FREE and we did nothing to earn it. We don’t DO the Gospel — we BELIEVE it! On the other hand, let’s not forget the Gospel in our Christ-centered exposition of the Bible.
Maybe that sounds like an oxymoron…”forgetting the Gospel in Christ-centered exposition,” but it is not. We can easily reduce the life of Christ to a pattern of exemplary thoughts and behaviors that we should follow. Christ is our example, but He’s not JUST our example. He did not come and die and rise again just to show us how to live and die. That’s not the Gospel. It’s certainly not good news, because we can’t measure up to that example! He came to live the life we did not and could not live, and He came to die in our place as our Saviour. He came to seek and save the lost…he came to give his life as a ransom for many…he came to take away the sins of the world as the Lamb of God who must die so that others could live.
As Bonhoeffer put it, this is “costly grace.” By God’s grace, we will always remember what it cost God in order to offer us free grace — it cost him the life of his son. As we guard our hearts from moralism by remembering that grace is free IN Christ, let’s also guard our hearts from apathy and stagnation by remembering that grace was costly TO Christ. While we do nothing to earn or preserve our own salvation, the remembrance of the Gospel motivates and empowers us to pursue the Philistines and participate in Christ’s victory over them!
March 30th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
As always, Scott, you have ably deciphered the problem. And I agree. It is a both/and issue, and I would join with everyone in preaching and teaching it as such.
Perhaps part of my confusion, as you well know, is the sorting out of the details of the redemptive-historical hermeneutic I so long to study in-depth. Perhaps my feeble grasp on it has contributed to the confusion which occurred. Thanks again for helping clear it up.
March 31st, 2005 at 5:06 pm
a friend of mine recently listened to Tim Keller’s sermon on David and Goliath. Here is his synopsis of Keller’s sermon:
He addresses the question of “Where can I find courage?”
Saul/Army – Missing Courage
Goliath – Counterfeit Courage
David – True Courage
But his final point on David is brilliant. “This story is NOT about ‘if you have enough faith, then courage will come.’”
It’s not about David as an example or as an inspiration.
Don’t put yourself in David’s shoes, that’s just a spiritual version of the counterfeit courage of Goliath.
David was a savior of cowards not an example for cowards to follow.
Per Goliath’s invitation (“send me a man . . .” and whoever wins/loses acts on behalf of the people!), David is the legal representative of his people. He was fighting FOR them. He was their representative. They were saved through imputation. If he won, they won. The victory or lose would be imputed.
He then goes to Hebrews 11 and the Hall of Faith, where David is listed. But the reminder to remember Jesus (12:2), the (and he quotes the greek, “arche”something) Champion, of our faith.
Jesus, God’s champion who came in weakness and who won the battle by giving up his life etc. etc.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
[...] MORALISM VS. CHRIST-CENTERED EXPOSITION (by Tim Keller)– eucatastrophe Give me Jesus! This is good instruction for preachers and will also instruct listeners how to discern what constitutes a good sermon. (tags: Tim-Keller gospel sermons) [...]