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

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 to share with you today rather than answer myself. I thought it would be an interesting challenge for you all.

Adrian:

I stop by your blog from time to time and have been greatly encouraged by your words, and have found the links to some incredibly helpful resources. I do have a question that I hope you can help me with.

I currently serve in a place in Asia where blood is cooked [and] eaten as food (not a staple, though!). By God’s grace, a friend and I are discipling some young men in a Bible study, and this week this issue of eating blood came up. I’m not sure what to make of it. Those who oppose the eating of blood argue from Acts 15:28-29 and Leviticus 17:10-14. But, in Mark 7:18-20, we’re told that Jesus declares all food clean. Of course, that only begs the question, “Is blood considered food?” Here, it most certainly is. In fact, this is often a dividing issue among believers here, most commonly between urban and rural believers.

Can you help shed any light on this issue? Are there any other implications of believing either side? In our Bible study group, we’ve agreed to disagree and hold to Paul’s exhortation about foregoing certain rights for the sake of others and out of humility. The tricky thing is that those against eating blood don’t see the practice as a “right” to be foregone. It’s seen as sin. From this perspective, applying Paul’s teaching of restraint is comparable to saying we have the right to gluttony, yet we should refrain from it. Is there a doctrine of reformed theology that addresses this issue? I’ve been staring at this issue for two days straight and feel even more confused than when I began . . . .”

Well, there it is . . . I hope that some of you will enjoy answering him.

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.

What is it with yeast?

I have blogged about my thoughts on Leviticus before. It seems to me it is in the bible almost as a test- if you can get through it, great its all relatively easy going from here – before you know it you will have reached the psalms. But if you can read and understand then you are well on the way to being a mature bible student.

My reader hits the nail on the head- the laws WERE impossible to keep. Which is why the Christian is not under the law. The law drives us to Christ, but Dave is right to ask which is harder to live under, becauase grace properly understood examines, challenges and changes us in ways we cannot imagine when we first hear the simple gospel.

Since the gospel gives us the power to change living under it should be an easy yoke and a light burden, but having said that the demands of grace and serving Christ are in fact greater than those of the law- we are called in the new testament to be perfect and to have a righteousness that exceeds that of the pharisees. I am no believer in a gospel that leaves us unchanged.

So what do you think of Leviticus?

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 is no doubt the lengthy descriptions of Leviticus that the writer to the Hebrews had in mind when he summarized that almost all things are by the law cleansed with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.’ (Heb 9:22.)

We could almost be excused for passing quickly over Leviticus, but as the bible points out, inspired scripture is profitable. What then is its use to us?

The expositor Gill in his commentary on Leviticus described it as worthy of diligent reading and consideration’ since many things in it.. give great light to several passages in the New Testament’. He also pointed out that many of its rituals foreshadow Christ’s sacrifice. In fact, R.K. Harrison in his introduction to this book goes further still and declares that a nineteenth century writer was quite correct to describe it as the seed-bed of New Testament Theology’. What is it about this book so many of us miss today?

Leviticus falls neatly into two sections. The first fifteen chapters deal with the sacrificial regulations of the Levitical priesthood, the last eleven with moral and ethical matters. In this, the book mirrors many new testament letters. For let us not forget that the sacrifices were the means by which the Israelites were to get right with God. First then, God takes the initiative in providing a means for forgiveness of sins. Secondly he provides us with the means to live a Godly life.

Leviticus teaches us about the nature of God. Realizing that this God who required such rituals is the same yesterday today and forever is important (Heb 13:8). If we are to take the bible seriously, we cannot overlook this book in its description of God’s character.

As we approach this book afresh in this essay, it clearly displays God as really rather different to a friendly, easy going Father Christmas’ figure. All too often we take our view of God in this superficial way. Leviticus will not allow us to do that.

We see first how seriously God views sin. Forgiveness is only achieved with the shedding of blood. Even approaching the presence of God requires great care and caution. The shedding of blood is a condition of God accepting a worshipper’s presence and yet there is no absolute promise of forgiveness here outlined. Indeed it is quite reasonable for the writer to the Hebrews to come to the conclusion that it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.’ Heb 10:4. Indeed as the writer points out the very repetition of these offerings each year seem to show precisely that. We see God as a God who is infinitely pure and makes strong demands on his people. The bloodshed goes some way to appeasing his wrath, but does not remove sin.

God is therefore portrayed as unapproachable by sinful man. He is holy, which means that his is entirely separate from his creation. His holiness is not just a negative fact in that in him there is no sin, but positively means that he is so very different to us in every way.

Reading Leviticus instills a sense of this awe. It is much as a monarch might impose certain restrictions on the way their subjects can approach them. When we violate these restrictions, the consequences are most severe. The death of the sons of Aaron when they offered ‘strange fire’ to God highlights this. God responds in what is no doubt the central verse of the book I will be sanctified in them that come near me, and before all the people I will be glorified.’ (Lev. 10:3.)

From our perspective of a free and open way into God’s presence all this can seem rather unnecessary. God intended however that these graphic descriptions remain for all time to allow us to realize the significance of the change provided for us in Jesus.

We are no longer bound to observe these traditions, for as prophesied by Daniel the time would come when God himself would cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease’. Dan 9:27. In Daniel this prophecy is clearly linked with the death of the prince….but not for himself’. So although the destruction of the temple was the cause humanly for the fact that the Jews no longer sacrifice, from God’s perspective we do not need to sacrifice because Jesus has. This unknowing fulfilment of a prophecy by Jews is surely a strong evidence of Jesus messiahship.

It is in understanding these rituals and the need for blood to be shed that we can understand the need for the crucifixion. Indeed, if we do not understand the extent of God’s purity and hatred for sin as revealed here, how can we understand his grace?

God tells twice us in Leviticus that the people of God are to be holy, for I am holy’. ( Lev. 11:44 Lev. 19:2). This phrase is repeated in the New Testament it is because of God’s holiness he expects holiness from us.
The legislation of Leviticus shows us that all life is lived under the watchful eye of God’ (Harrison). This eliminates any hint of a secular/spiritual divide. The Lord is concerned with menstruating women with mouldy linen and murderers. Although not directly bound by this law we too need to realize that life as a Christian involves ALL our lives. The modern compartmentalization of life is not to be found in the bible.

The concept of rest found in the Sabbath could teach us much in this hurried age. Also many sacrifices involved the whole community and seemed to be an excuse for a party. We to need to learn how to fellowship. The concept of tithing shows us we should care financially for those who lead us.
Leviticus may seem an unlikely inspiration for a modern social justice movement, but the idea of Jubilee has inspired a worldwide campaign. Entirely in keeping with the notion of cancelling debts to give the poor another chance is their campaign to cancel poor countries’ debt in the year 2000. The official campaign web site makes no secret of the source of their ideas – so we could recently see a relevant practical application of this book on the television news.

It is in Leviticus (chapter 19 verse 18) that we find the second half of Jesus summary of the law love your neighbour as yourself’. (The first half is in Deuteronomy). In the context of these words the writer has worked out and applied out the phrase in a way that is as morally sophisticated as you can get.

Not taking advantage of the disadvantaged and the disabled, rebuking sin where it is seen, not slandering, not avenging sin are all sophisticated concepts we tend to associate with new testament morality – yet they are to be found right here in Leviticus. How strange those words must have sounded when they were first uttered. How wonderfully they reflect the gentle compassionate nature of God. How impossible have they been to fulfill without the help of God. How they convict and rebuke us even today.

Do you love your brother enough not to leave him in sin? Do you carry grudges? Do you stand out against exploitation as it exists in our world today? No? Then you fall short of the standards of this holy God and stand in need of a sacrifice for sin. The necessity for a sacrifice for sin if we as unworthy people are to approach the holy God is the message of Leviticus. It exposes our failure, and drives us to Christ who is the sacrifice for sin.

More blogging and sermons on Leviticus