From the category archives:

Leviticus

I want to introduce you to a very unusual book by Mark Driscoll and his writing buddy and professor, Gerry Breshears. I would go so far as to say that this is a unique book in that I have never seen anything quite like it.

If their first book together, Vintage Jesus, was a light cheerful book that offended some by its use of humor and at times edgy topics for illustrations, this new book by these two men is more of a grungy, almost dark book. The video over at the ReLit site leaves you in no doubt that this is a book that will wrestle with darkness, pain, and even demonization.

Certainly this book represents just a tiny sample of the ocean of pain that a pastor of a large church has to handle over the years. Some neoliberals argue that people who believe in penal substitutionary atonement do not engage with the real suffering found in the world. This book demonstrates emphatically that in Driscoll’s case this is simply not true. Such critics also argue that the evangelical’s gospel can become overly narrow, eventually focusing solely on the “felt need” of the feelings of guilt many still experience. Guilt, however, is far from the only reason people come to Christ. The New Testament is full of helpful ways we can understand what Jesus did on the cross.

Without in any way softening his commitment to the centrality of Jesus taking the punishment of sin in our understanding of the cross, Driscoll is far broader in his understanding of and application of the cross to hurting people’s lives today. From convicted child molesters, to cheating husbands and raped women, Driscoll shares pen outlines of the destruction manifest in the lives of specific people to whom he has ministered. He then shows in a letter written to each individual how a specific aspect of what Jesus has done on the cross can bring wholeness and salvation to them.

This is a vital book that should be read by every Christian who is serious about reaching out with the gospel into this dark and damaged world. I will share a video of Mark speaking about the book, followed by an excerpt from one of those letters that particularly struck me. You will have to buy the book to see exactly how Driscoll and Breshears apply the gospel to Bill and his violent, abusive father.

“As a little boy you rightly felt angry at your dad, and that anger rightly compelled you to confront his injustice and protect the rest of the family. Therefore, anger can be a righteous virtue, which explains why God gets angry at sin too. The Bible is full of examples of God getting angry at sinners. A few examples will illustrate my point clearly, but a reading of Leviticus 26:27-30, Numbers 11:1, and Deuteronomy 29:24 for starters, speak of God’s anger as being hostile, burning, and furious.

Flaccid church guys will often accept that in the Old Testament God did get angry, but they will say that Jesus was a nice, emotionless, flaccid church guy, just like them, who chose a hollow, fake smile over anger every day. But even Jesus got angry, furious, and enraged . . . [Here Driscoll cites Mark 3:5 and Revelation 19, but one could also add Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46, and John 2:13-17.]

In speaking of God’s anger, I want to be careful not to give permission for us to lose our temper and rage, because that is a sin—the very sin your father committed repeatedly. However, because God is perfect, his anger is perfect and, as such, is aroused slowly (Exodus 34:6-8), sometimes turned away (Deuteronomy 13:17), often delayed (Isaiah 48:9), and frequently held back (Psalm 78:38).

Furthermore, God feels angry because God hates sin (Proverbs 6:16-19, Zechariah 8:17). Sadly, it is commonly said among Christians that “God hates the sin but loves the sinner.” This is as stupid as saying that God loves rapists and hates rape, as if rape and rapists were two entirely different entities that could be separated from one another. Furthermore, it was not a divinely inspired author of Scripture but the Hindu, Gandhi, who coined the phrase, “Love the sinner but hate the sin” . . .

Regarding God’s anger and hatred, it is commonly protested that God cannot hate anyone because he is love. But the Bible speaks of God’s anger, wrath, and fury more than of his love, grace, and mercy. Furthermore, it is precisely because God is love that he must hate evil and all who do evil—evil is an assault on whom and what he loves.

Therefore, Bill, your anger toward and hatred of your father are justifiable and are the healthy response to seeing your dad beat the mother and siblings you love. However, in a mysterious conflict of deep emotions, you continued to love your father just as God continues to love unrepentant sinners whom he simultaneously hates . . .

I know this will be difficult for you to comprehend, Bill, but Jesus has fully experienced what you have, and much more. Jesus was mocked and beaten, though he was without sin. He willingly substituted himself for those he loved and wanted to save . . . ”

From Death By Love by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, copyright 2008, pages 127-129. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.com.

Last week, as you may know, I preached on Jacob. During my preparation I was, not surprisingly, taken once more to the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called “TULIP.” Jacob is used in Romans as a supreme example of God’s free grace.

This post is part of a mini-series highlighting quotes from others on each of these five points of Calvinism. It will also provide links to some old posts I wrote on Calvinism. We began the series with a quote that claims the doctrine of total depravity helps your marriage.

To some degree the doctrines of grace, or rather one aspect of them, Unconditional Election, came up in my sermon last week (although I didn’t use the words). One quote I have been meaning to share with you, but the baptism debate got in the way, has been the following from Simeon, whose works are now available from Logos Bible Software.

Like Spurgeon and myself, Simeon is adamant that there is no such thing as what some call “double-predestination.” Thus, people are wholly to blame for their own damnation, while God is wholly credited with saving us. God does not foreordain that some go to hell in the same way he foreordains that some will be saved. This might sound illogical, but it is, I believe, biblical and a great mystery we cannot fully fathom.

Charles Simeon puts it like this in a quote that should whet your appetite for the rest of his works, which are proving to me to be as useful as Spurgeon’s:

“If, as the Apostle says, ‘there is a remnant according to the election of grace,’ we are ready to suppose that those who are not of that number are not accountable for their sins, and that their final ruin is to be imputed rather to God’s decrees than to their own fault. But this is a perversion of the doctrine. It is a consequence which our proud reason is prone to draw from the decrees of God: but it is a consequence which the inspired volume totally disavows. There is not in the whole sacred writings one single word that fairly admits of such a construction. The glory of man’s salvation is invariably ascribed to the free, the sovereign, the efficacious grace of God: but the condemnation of men is invariably charged upon their own wilful sins and obstinate impenitence. If, because we know not how to reconcile these things, men will controvert and deny them, we shall content ourselves with the answer which St. Paul himself made to all such cavillers and objectors; ‘Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?’ And if neither the truth nor the authority of God will awe them into submission, we can only say with the fore-mentioned apostle, ‘If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.’ As for those, if such are to be found, who acknowledge the sovereignty of God, and take occasion from it to live in sin, we would warn them with all possible earnestness to cease from their fatal delusions. In comparison of such characters, the people who deny the sovereignty of God are innocent. We believe there are many persons in other respects excellent, who, from not being able to separate the idea of absolute reprobation from the doctrine of unconditional election, are led to reject both together: but what excellence can he have, who ‘turns the very grace of God into licentiousness,’ and ‘continues in sin that grace may abound?’ A man that can justify such a procedure, is beyond the reach of argument: we must leave him, as St. Paul does, with that awful warning, ‘His damnation is just.’”

Simeon, Charles: Horae Homileticae Vol. 1: Genesis to Leviticus. London, 1832-63, S. 210

A Question From a Reader on Eating Blood

May 5, 2007

Every now and then a reader will send in a question for me. In the past some of them have led to months of blogging — I think in particular of the reader who asked, “What does a reformed charismatic church look like?”
I now have received a question asked by a reader which I’ve decided [...]

Read the full article →

What is it with yeast? A reader asks about Leviticus

December 5, 2005

I received this email this morning from a friend:
I thought I would give you a progress report on my Bible reading . I have now completed Leviticus, and to be perfectly honest I found it a bit hard going. Here are some thoughts I would appreciate your brief comments on.
The laws must have been imposssible [...]

Read the full article →

Leviticus – so what?

May 15, 2005

Leviticus at first sight can appear a challenge to any serious bible student. It is often remarked that those who embark on reading the bible through all to often fall at this hurdle. It is full of elaborate rituals for the priesthood and descriptions of sacrifices involving quite gory detail of blood being shed. It [...]

Read the full article →