This year’s conference is on the church and mission. And a fascinating conference it has been. Today is day two of the conference and we’ve heard several very stimulating lectures. The overall theme, I might deduce, is that mission needs to be understood in a Christ-centered way. And to be sure, Barth himself understood the mission of the church in such a way. As with all his theology, Christ must be at the center.

In fact, the lecture by John Flett made clear that the mission of the church needs to be understood in light of the mission of Christ as the eternal elected man and electing man who comes to us in humility but also in resurrection power. “Christ is Risen! He is risen indeed!” is the announcement of the church that Christ himself has accomplished the mission of God and has witnessed to God himself. In fact, Christ is himself THE witness of God.

So, what are we to make of this? To be sure, Christ is himself the prophetic voice of the church. Furthermore, and as such, there can be no false dichotomy between the church as institution and the church as mission. With this we cannot but help to agree.

However, some problems remain. First, there is an abiding nominalism here in Barth’s ecclesiology. It is Christological and Christocentric to a fault. The mission of the church loses any real meaning as mission if Christ is himself – as the incarnation God-Man from all eternity – the missio dei. If God in Christ is the mission and this mission takes place – along with reconciliation – in eternity past, then what exactly does the church need to do today? Witness to the witness? Or imitate the witness by being an agency of reconciliation with its neighbors through acts of mercy? If so, how is this really different from the older liberal view of missions? It was suggested in the conference that the best way to shut down a mission field is to write a book saying how missionaries are raping the indigenous cultures of the mission field. True that. However, a better explanation as to why missions is in such a poor state in the PCUSA is because of a lack of motivation. What I mean is this: if mission and reconciliation is already established by the being of God in Christ from all eternity, why do missions today? There is one thing that is not different between Barthian view of mission and a liberal view: missionaries are only to declare what is already the case with the indigenous people to whom they preach and never actually seek to convert them. After all, as we saw in last year’s conference on Barth and the Religions, Christianity is to seek dialogue with other religions and not confront or challenge them in their unbelief.

Rather, according to Scripture, we are to preach Christ and him crucified. We are to show the world’s religions that they worship idols, that they need to repent, and become Christians. This is not colonization, it is biblical evangelism. And with out it, mission can never truly have Christ at its center.

If you are interested in learning more about Barth, I can recommend this book, this book, and this book. His theology is still worth knowing and reading, even if you do not agree.

Now, I can understand how many scholars take 4:4-5 and perhaps even all of chapter 4 (in the English) to be a later addition, but I remain unpersuaded.  Many scholars, of course, see a redactor present throughout the entire book of Malachi, not simply at the end.  These scholars usually attempt to solve the difficulties of chapter 3 by chalking it up to the work of a redactor.  Verses 1-5 are confusing because they change voice from the first person, to the third and then back to the first person.  Malchow writes:

Several scholars suggest that it is more likely that all or large parts of vv 1b-4 are a later addition to the text.  It seems that this whole section is an addition.  This explains why v 1a and v 5 are in the first person, and vv 1b-4 are in the third.  Also, v 5 continues the discussion of general evildoers begun in 2:17, while 3:2-4 deals with purifying the Levites. (Malchow, 253)

My question is Would a redactor really be this stupid?  I’ve always struggled with these kinds of solutions.  I recall writing middle school “research” papers and my classmates were much more skilled at plagiarizing the Encyclopedia Britannica than this redactor was at combining his sources.  Junior high students can make their sources at least somewhat fit the rest of their paper.  Would a literate Hebrew really not be able to know that his work is so shoddy?  Does he not understand the difference between the first and third person?  It seems reasonable to me that a literate Hebrew would have smoothed these sorts of things out if he thought it was worthwhile to redact in the first place.  I realize my comments are not based on a very sophisticated understanding of redaction, but I think they are still worthy of consideration.

See Bruce V. Malchow, “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal. 3:1,” JBL 103 (1984) 252-55.

Eschatology precedes soteriology in the sense that God had a plan and a promise of eschatological life even before man fell into sin.  After Adam sinned, he and Eve were banished from the garden and the cherubim stepped in to protect the garden from the unholiness of sin.  As redemptive-history unfolds, Christ serves to secure the blessings that the first Adam failed to secure while at the same time undergoing the penalty and curse due to Adam and his progeny (Rom 5; Gal 3; 1 Tim 3; 2 Cor 5).  After dying and being raised, Christ secures the promised Holy Spirit who is then poured out to his people as a blessing and pledge (arrabwn) of consummated life that awaits at the second coming-consummation (parousia-sunteleia).  This is the redemptive-historical nature of Pentecost.  Given what it is it cannot be repeated.  There is no second Fall into sin, there is no second death and resurrection of Christ, and therefore there is no second Pentecost to be secured by Christ and given to his people, the Church.

Furthermore, the Trinitarian design of Pentecost also suggests the once-for-all nature of the event.  It is important to situation this event economically as it relates to redemptive-history and the divine decrees.  The eternal Son of God humiliated himself to redeem his people (Phil 2:6-11).  He did this at the appointment of the Father.  He was anointed with the Holy Spirit for his Messianic work (Lk 3) and continued his ministry in teh Spirit’s power and guidance (Lk 4).  Having died obediently, he was raised since it was impossible for death to hold him (Acts 2:24).  The Father made him Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and he was declared such in the power of the Spirit (Rom 1:3-4).  The Triune-God was at work at Pentecost in redemptive-history.  Christ has since finished his work and there need be no second Pentecost.

Moreover, Pentecost had a uniquely ecclesiological character.  This era is unique because it is the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the people of God (Rom 9-11).  This ingrafting is again a unique event that marks the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (Gen 12) wherein the nations are blessed through him in his seed (Gal 4).  The dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has since been torn down (Eph 2:16) and there is no longer any distinction between them (Gal 3:29; Acts 11).  Pentecost testifies to this fact as the Spirit is poured out on Gentiles.  Since the hostility has been removed and the Spirit has been poured out, Pentecost need not occur for a 2^nd, 3^rd or x^th time.  Rather, the repetitions you find in subsequent portions of Acts should be seen as reverberations or waves of a singular outpouring.  This massive eschatological event occurs in stages to Jews, then Gentiles, and then spreads.

Finally, the declarative nature of Pentecost is not conducive to repetitions.  Pentecost was a once-for-all forensic event in which God sealed his people with the Spirit and made them eschatologically citizens of glory.  They were redemptively transferred to a new order as the church was raised – eschatologically – into the heavenlies (Eph 1) to reign with Jesus, the LORD and Christ (Acts 2:36).  This unique event stands in relation to other unique events and should not be – yea cannot be – repeated any more than the Fall into sin or Christ’s death and resurrection.

—

I am incredibly indebted to the writings and teaching of Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. on this topic.  This post is largely a reflection on the notes from his class Acts & Paul at Westminster Theological Seminary.  You can purchase the recordings of these lectures from wtsbooks.com.  Dr. Gaffin’s insights on this subject may also be found in his book Perspectives on Pentecost.

Much of the clean/unclean and holy/unholy aspects in Leviticus can be viewed in order and spatial categories. For instance, abnormalities are generally viewed as unclean. Any natural defects or things out of the ordinary were considered unclean.  For instance, animals were typically unclean for not being consistent or orderly.  Consider that Israelites could not eat monkeys because they walked on their hands and feet (Waltke, 467).  We can extend this idiom to other areas of attention in Leviticus.  Certainly diseases are unclean for health reasons, but there is an added dimension regarding leprosy and other skin diseases. These types of diseases caused the skin to turn different colors – a visual indication of abnormality.  Any spots that came up would have to be inspected.  Once declared unclean, a person was not clean again until the spot went away and the subject became normal or orderly again.

This same principle sheds light on the laws against mixing different types of fabric, mating different kinds of species [read: non-human] or planting with various types of seeds (cf Lev. 19:19).  Mixing fabric or seeds is not an inherently unholy activity.  The idea was to embed an illustration of purity within the everyday life of an Israelite.  Just as the Israelites were set apart as a holy people to remain distinct from the world, they were to keep the holy and unholy – the clean and unclean – distinct and separate.  We can see how right order is the general principle since deviations were unclean or unholy.  In his commentary, R. Laird Harris quotes Mary Douglas “holiness requires that different classes of things shall not be confused… all the rules of sexual morality exemplify the holy. Incest and adultery are against holiness, in the simple sense of right order.” (Harris, 527)

The “right order” dimension certainly starts to remove the veil from much of Leviticus for the contemporary reader, but there is another dimension.  We must consider a spatial dimension in terms of who or what is closest to God.  This spatial aspect is demonstrated in the levels of access within the tabernacle and temple. The Holy of Holies was most closely identified with God’s presence. Certainly God is omnipresent, but there is a special presence, a special holiness to the innermost part of the temple. We may then proceed out into lesser and lesser degrees of holiness. We move to the inner court, then to the outer court – then even to the city of Jerusalem. Finally we move to outside the city.  This was the worst place to be for it was the farthest from God.

This spatial dimension can also be applied to people.  We begin with the priests, then the ceremonially clean Jews (particularly men). Further down the chain are the ceremonially clean women, then Gentiles and the ceremonially unclean.  Each class had varying degrees of access to God and consequently possessed varying levels of holiness.  The spatial dimension encompasses much of what is not covered under the heading of orderliness.

Keeping in mind these two categories can certainly help today’s reader appreciate much more of Leviticus.  Once these basic ideas are grasped, the typological and redemptive dimensions of the book begin to open up.  The inclusion of the Gentiles, the sacrifice of the Messiah, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and many other themes are seen with greater appreciation.

Works Cited

Listen to the interview