Calvin on the Relationship between Works and Justification by Faith

Kirk E. Miller

Calvin - Justification & WorksI first read the following a few months ago. It stood out to me as an excellent articulation of the relationship between works and justification by faith alone.

This passage exists within The Institutes of the Christian Religion’s third book entitled “The mode of obtaining the grace of Christ. The benefits it confers, and the effects resulting from it” (especially note the “benefits” and “effects” “resulting from” grace received). In this section Calvin seeks to refute the idea that the reformers “destroy good works, and give encouragement to sin” by their doctrine of justification by faith alone. On the contrary, Calvin desires to prove that “justification by faith establishes the necessity of good works” (emphasis mine).

Our last sentence may refute the impudent calumny of certain ungodly men, who charge us, first, with destroying good works and leading men away from the study of them, when we say, that men are not justified, and do not merit salvation by works; and, secondly, with making the means of justification too easy, when we say that it consists in the free remission of sins, and thus alluring men to sin to which they are already too much inclined. These calumnies, I say, are sufficiently refuted by that one sentence; however, I will briefly reply to both. The allegation is that justification by faith destroys good works. … They pretend to lament that when faith is so highly extolled, works are deprived of their proper place. But what if they are rather ennobled and established? We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. Continue reading →

Christian Living in a Post-Christendom America

Kirk E. Miller

The following is a modified manuscript/outline from a sermon I preached on 1 Peter 2:11-25 at Lake Drive Baptist Church in December 2013.
____________________

I’ve entitled my sermon, “Christian Living in a Post-Christendom America.” What do I mean by “christendom”? “Christendom” refers to the “Christian Empire,” where Christianity is associated with the state, promoted by the state, or the dominant religion within the state.

In a sense, one could have previously referred to America as a form of this Christendom. But now days, it’s quite clear that we live in a post-Christendom America. –Not only non-Christian, but even increasingly anti-Christian.

A mere casual awareness of the news makes one aware of the rapid pace of secularization in our country. For example, only 17 years after President Clinton signed DOMA into law, President Obama successfully pushed for its repeal. And keep in mind, he entered office opposed to gay marriage. And the rapidness of this shift only mirrors trends in the general population. Or again, it only takes a brief glance at recent headlines to demonstrate this:

  • “Starbucks Enters Same-Sex Marriage Boycott Wars.”
  • “Supreme Court Will Consider Hobby Lobby Contraception Mandate Case.”
  • Referring to Chick-Fil-A: “‘Eat More Ignorance’ Is More Like It.”
  • “Southern Baptists Convention Fighting ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal.”“Should the Boy Scouts of America Lift Its Ban on Gay Members?”
  • “New Mexico Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against Discriminating Anti-Gay Photographer.”
  • “Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings.”
  • “‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Suspended for Anti-Gay Remarks.”

And without necessarily endorsing any of the parties in these conflicts– And no matter what you think about these controversies on a political level, they nonetheless indicate an increasing hostility and threat to Christian thought and values. … We live in an ever-increasingly secular culture.

So, how are we as Christians to respond? What does Christian living look like in a post-Christendom America? 1 Peter has much to say about how Christians should live within a non-Christian and even anti-Christian society.

Continue reading →

“I desire hesed, not sacrifice”: What is the theological connection between Hosea 6:6 and similar OT statements?

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

In 6:6, YHWH says, חסד חפצתי ולא־זבח (lit. “I desire hesed and not sacrifice”). We find similar sentiments throughout the OT. Given the abundant occurrence of this theme, the interpreter and Biblical theologian do well to investigate this theme. In particular, we will examine the theological connection between these other Old Testament texts and Hosea 6:6. In so doing, we will arrive at a more holistic and Biblically-theologically informed position regarding Hosea’s statement, חסד חפצתי ולא־זבח.

In 1 Sam 15 Saul directly disobeyed God by saving the good livestock among the spoils of war rather than destroying everything as God had commanded. Saul defended himself by claiming that they were spared for the purpose of sacrificing them to YHWH. But Samuel responded that God has greater delight in obedience than sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22-23). In Ps 40:6-8 the Psalmist cries that God has not required sacrifices; but his (the Psalmist’s) desire is to obey God’s will. In Ps 50 God declares that He has not prescribed sacrifices as if He were in need. Therefore, He commands, cease making sacrifices the end and make the goal actual obedience. According to Ps 51:16-17, the sacrifice that God truly desires is a broken spirit, or in Prov 21:3, righteousness and justice (cf. Mic 6:6-8). It is not sacrifice ex opere operato that pleases God, for “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to YHWH” (Prov 15:8;). When abused, even those things that God prescribed have become the very thing God detests (Isa 11:11-17; 66:3; Amos 5:21-25). To abstain from sacrifice but seek YHWH earnestly and reverently is better than to make offerings foolishly (Ecc 5:1; cf. Isa 66:2). In Jer 7:21-23, God even states He did not command Israel’s ancestors concerning sacrifices (when in fact He did) in order to emphasize that His ultimate desire in redeeming Israel from Egypt was obedience and relationship.

In sum, when God states, חסד חפצתי ולא־זבח, God is not condemning sacrifice as if He is somehow self-conflicting, for God Himself demanded sacrifices. Rather, He condemns the abuse of such prescribed worship, which then is no true worship at all. [1] Worshiping God apart from sincere reverence (cf. וְדַ֥עַת אֱלֹהִ֖ים) and allowing such reverence to pervade one’s lifestyle is worthless and totally misses what God truly desires (חָפַ֖צְתִּי). No sacrifice or burnt offering can substitute a sincere pursuit of God, both genuinely knowing Him (וְדַ֥עַת אֱלֹהִ֖ים) and its corresponding obedience (חֶסֶד).[2] The sacrifices and offerings were never an end in and of themselves. God’s desire was for relationship with His people—a relationship initiated by God with means provided by God. The sacrifices were a provision towards that end. They made provision for God to dwell amidst a sinful people. Therefore, to make these sacrifices the end in themselves was to short-circuit their entire purpose and fail to achieve God’s true desire.

[1] As Calvin (231) says, we could paraphrase this, “Mercy pleases me more than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God pleases me more than burnt-offerings” (emphasis added). He says, “When the Prophet says that sacrifice does not please God, he speaks, no doubt, comparatively; for God does not positively repudiate sacrifices enjoined in his own law; but he prefers faith [וְדַ֥עַת אֱלֹהִ֖ים] and love [חֶסֶד] to them… It then appears that God is not inconsistent with himself, as though he rejected sacrifices which he himself had appointed; but that he condemns the preposterous abuse of them, in which hypocrites gloried.”

[2] Interestingly, this passage combines what Jesus would later argue are the two greatest commandments—love of God (וְדַ֥עַת אֱלֹהִ֖ים) and love of man (חֶסֶד).

The Meaning of “Cult Prostitutes” (קדשה) in Hosea 4:14

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

Already (chs.1-4) we have seen that Hosea is quite accustomed to using the verb זָנָה (to prostitute) and the noun זֹנָה (prostitute). But here in 4:14 Hosea employs the word קדשה. If this word refers to some sort of religious or cultic prostitute, as many commentators think (e.g., Wolff, Garrett, Stuart, Dearman), then 4:14 would contain one of the most explicit references to cultic prostitution in the entire book. As such, the use of קדשה in 4:14 is a rather significant exegetical issue for the interpreter. It may provide him or her with significant information about the religious backdrop into which Hosea presents his accusations throughout the book. Therefore, it is the goal of this paper to present a brief study of קדשה.

Etymologically, קָדֵשׁ is related to קָדַשׁ (“to be holy”) and likely carries the idea of sacredness. Hence many present the gloss, “sacred prostitute,” “temple prostitute,” or “cult prostitute.” Wolff (88) notes parallel words in other ANE languages (e.g. Ugarit—qdsm; the Syrian goddess qades who was involved in sexual activity) that relate to some form of cultic prostitution. In other words, קדשה (feminine) would be a female prostitute that had some sort of relationship with the cult. In terms of Biblical usage, in Gen 38:21 Judah asked, “Where is the קדשה?” to which the men of the city replied, “No קדשה has been here” (v.22) But interestingly, according to Gen 38:15, קדשה appears to be used interchangeably with זֹנָה (Dearman, 166). Both the feminine and the masculine form occur in Deut 23:17. Deut 23:17 forbids any Israelite from being a קדשה(feminine) or a קדש(masculine). In 1 Kings 14:23, the inhabitants of Judah, under the reign of Rehoboam, built for themselves idolatrous places of worship. And also, the narrator notes, קדש were in the land. This collection of קדש along with idolatrous practices is noteworthy. In 1 Kings 15:12, Asa, king of Judah, did what was right by putting away the קדשים and removing the idols. With close proximity to idols, this reference may indicate a religious tone to קדשים. 1 Kings 22:47 mentions how Jehoshaphat eliminated any קדש who remained from his father Asa’s reign. In 2 Kings 23, Josiah executed reforms, purging idolatrous activity from Judah’s worship. This included removing קדשים who were in the house of YHWH. The relationship of קדש to religious reform and the fact that the author describes them as those “who were in the house of YHWH” suggests religious connotations if not denotations. Finally, in Hosea 4:14, קדשה is parallel to הַזֹּנ֣וֹת (participle; “those who prostitute”). This observation taken by itself could suggest the terms are meant to be understood as nearly synonymous. But also significant is v.13’s various references to idolatrous religious practices. Note especially עַל־כֵּ֗ן (“therefore,” v.13), which connects these idolatrous practices to the daughters’ prostituting (זָנָה), the same prostituting parallel to קדשה in v.14.

Therefore, in light of this evidence, it is best to conclude that קדשה refers to a female cult prostitute of some kind. Based on the etymological relationship between קָדֵשׁ and קָדַשׁ, קדשה seems to refer to some sort of priestess (Miller, 503). And based on its Biblical usage, it has clear sexual denotations and rather likely religious connotations if not denotations.