Zach’s Theological Musings

  The church-growth movement, whether the domestic American version, or the exported, American-based missions version, has a tendency to cheapen beautiful, challenging, life-transforming Scriptural principles into corporate-like methodologies for “success”. A prime example I see of this is when I Cor 9:19-23 is brought down to the level of a mere contextualization strategy. I would propose instead that, in context, this passage at its core is about love, not strategy. Love and strategy at times do indeed overlap. But there is a huge difference between having genuine love at the core of your being versus having a strategic orientation.

  Here is the passage:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

Out of love Paul makes choices to sacrifice his own freedoms in order to “win” people to Christ. You might hear in that what sounds like a note of “strategy” as well, and if so I don’t completely disagree. But this passage does not cut down into us deeply enough unless we hear the note of love ringing louder than that of strategy.

  Consider, first, the context. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is largely a question and answer session, dealing with some issues that the Corinthians raised and some that Paul has raised and wants to remind them of. This letter is more topically structured than possibly any other book of the Bible, and there are several very clear transitions from one topic to the next (”now concerning…”). One way to outline the book as a whole would look like this:

  In particular, note that chapters 8-10 form one section. In verse 8:1 Paul takes up the topic, “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols,” and stays on that topic all the way to his summary comments at the end of chapter 10. Indeed, when Paul speaks in I Cor 10:31 of eating and drinking as activities which must be done for glory of God, he is not merely illustrating a general point by picking mundane daily activities at random to serve as an example. He specifically mentions eating and drinking for the glory of God because that is the specific topic he has been talking about. To supplement that specific case, he adds that of course whatever you do you should do for the glory of God.

  It is not hard to see that food sacrificed to idols is the specific topic behind chapters 8 and 10. But what happens in chapter 9? Ignoring the context, we might conjecture all sorts of ideas for what motivated chapter 9. But when we do look at the context, we see that the flow from chapter 8 to chapter 10 is not at all lost in chapter 9.

  The common thread is love. The Corinthians are asking Paul, “Paul, are Christians allowed to eat food sacrificed to idols or not?” As with the way that Jesus often responds to his questioners, Paul doesn’t answer their question directly because the heart attitude behind the question is wrong. A simple “yes” would give the wrong impression, and a simple “no” would give the wrong impression. Rather than give a simple (and misleading) answer to their question, he wants to retrain their thinking so that they learn to ask better questions.

  Paul’s response begins with this,

[W]e know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

The Corinthians’ question was knowledge-oriented. Paul wanted to turn them to a love focus. He goes on to say that, yes, we know that idols are nothing. Does that mean that Christians can eat food sacrificed to idols? Yes. Does it mean that Christians should eat food sacrificed to idols? Not necessarily. The bigger question is, “Am I behaving lovingly when I eat food sacrificed to idols?” Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.

  Are Christians allowed to eat food sacrificed to idols? Well, yes, all else being equal Christians do have freedom to eat food that was sacrificed to so-called idols. But Christians, unlike Americans, don’t focus on their rights. What I’m “allowed” to do is not my primary concern. The Christian criteria for a good decision is not, “I want it and I have the ability and freedom to get it,” but rather, “This is glorifying to God and loving to my neighbor.” Christians, unlike Americans, gladly sacrifice their rights and give up what they would otherwise be “allowed” to do, because doing something else is more loving to God and man.

  That is Paul’s point in chapters 8 and 10, and he illustrates this point in chapter 9 from his own example. First, Paul expounds the rights and priviledges he could hypothetically claim if he was inclined to:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?… Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?… If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

If he was not walking in the footsteps of His Lord, Paul theoretically could “lord it over” those entrusted to him, and demand his rights. But he doesn’t. He instead makes a powerful counterstatement that strikes against the core of our selfish beings, and against the core of American culture in particular:

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

  “But we did not use this right.” Oh how refreshing to hear those words! Yes, I have many rights, but it wouldn’t be beneficial for the kingdom of God for me to exert those rights. So I won’t. Hallelujah, how refreshing to hear!

  Now we reach the passage in question, I Cor 9:19-23, and it is clear that Paul’s heartbeat throughout this letter is love. Paul is tapping into something deeper than what you would find at a cross-cultural business ethics seminar. Yes, take your shoes off at the door, only shake with your right hand, and don’t show the bottom of your foot. Yes, do those things. Be respectable. Even a greedy businesman will show culturally appropriate outward acts of respect so as not to lose business. But he is probably not motivated by love. Likewise, Christians can display certain “social skills” and to outwardly spiritual acts without the motiviation of love. Paul says that such behavior gains us nothing (I Cor 13).

  Consider, now, the application to the modern missions movement. We often hear that much of what happened in the name of (Western) Christians missions in recent centuries came in the form of a colonialism where people were called to conform to Western culture rather than to the image of Christ. True. But here’s the thing. Say that we had a colonialist missionary here in our living room and we had the chance to share with him an exhortation regarding what our generation has learned from I Cor 9:19-23. What would we say?

  The wrong thing to say would be this, “Oh colonialist missionary, don’t you realize that your colonialist approach is not strategic? Your extraction evangelism methodology is removing people from their natural socio-ethno-linguistic networks. Your only chance to trigger a self-propogating church planting movement is if you train people how to follow Jesus while maintaining their culturally-defined religious identities…”.

  No, that would not be helpful. Contextualization as a strategy is not the cure for colonialism. Compassion is. Again, the central problem with colonialism is not that it is unstrategic, but that it is unloving. A better direction for discussion with the colonialist missionary might be to ask whether his demands for the “natives” to take on Western habits is genuinely motivated by love. And if he thinks that imposing Western clothing, music, and architecture is an act of love, then again the central problem is a greatly distorted view of “love” more than anything else.

  Finally, consider Paul’s words, “To the weak I became weak.” Paul didn’t “become weak” by pretending to be weaker than he really was when he was around weak people. Rather, he became weak by loving the weak, not setting himself above them, and by using his strength to bless the weak for their sake rather than to manipulate them for his own sake. And that is the same way he “became” a Jew and “became” a Gentile (one not under the law). The concept of a follower of Christ calling themself a “Muslim” or “Hindu” and acting like a Muslim, Hindu, or pagan was the furthest thing from Paul’s mind in this passage. It doesn’t at all fit the context of this letter, or the context of Paul’s life. Loving the Muslim, Hindu, and pagan by sacrificing one’s own rights and desires in order to build them up in the faith is much more the direction of Paul’s emphasis in the context of I Corinthians and in the example of his entire life and ministry.

  The minute we reduce people to the objects upon whom our methodology is to be implemented we have missed the whole point, whether we do it as a colonialist or as a hyper-contextualist. As we listen to I Corinthians 8-10, and especially 9:19-23, we need to step out of our corporate America strategic-planning mindset, and instead pray that we might absorb a heart of loving self-sacrifice that is ever ready to say, “I have not used any of these rights…. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law… To those not having the law I became like one not having the law… To the weak I became weak….”

  Whenever I talk about gender related issues, I’m primarily interested in addressing men. One reason is because I am a man. Another reason is because men are responsible for how they relate to women and the issues women face (see, e.g., http://menaretheproblem.info). The Biblical topic of head coverings is no exception. So men, keep reading, this post is first of all for you. Even still, I hope the ladies will benefit from this post as well.

  Have you always been told that Paul’s instructions about women’s head coverings in I Cor 11 were culturally induced and thus not necessary to be directly applied today? I disagree. Consider the following:

  #1) The section header. I’m not talking about the section headers in bold type that various Bible translations add to the text. I’m talking about the section headers that Paul himself wrote. First Corinthians is probably the easiest book in the Bible to outline because it was actually written in very much of an outline form. The Corinthians have written to Paul with a list of questions about the Christian life (I Cor 7:1), and Paul has his own list of issues in the Corinthian church that he wants to address. So systematically he moves from one issue to the next throughout this letter, and there are a number of very clear “section headings” that mark the transitions (”Now as for…”).

  In chapters 8-10 Paul was answering the church’s question about food sacrificed to idols. Now I Cor 11:2 marks the beginning of a new topic, in fact a new series of topics:

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Paul is about to talk about THE TRADITIONS HE DELIVERED TO THEM, in particular the tradition of head coverings and that of the Lord’s Supper. Throughout the NT, there is a clear distinction between the “traditions of men” (Matt 15:2-6, Mark 7:3-13, Gal 1:14, Col 2:8) which neither Paul nor Jesus have a favorable taste for, and the traditions passed down verbally and in writing by the apostles which the saints are firmly commanded to hold to (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6). The above are all of the NT occurences of this word “tradition” (Gr. paradosis).

  The occurences of the word “delivered” (Gr. paradidomi) are too many to list out. They generally refer to either a person (e.g. I Cor 5:5) or a doctrine/teaching/report (e.g. Luke 1:2) being “delivered up”. Consider especially the usage of “paradidomi” in these passages [emphasis added]:

the customs which Moses delivered us. Acts 6:14 KJV
that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Rom 6:17 KJV
keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.  1 Cor 11:2 KJV
I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread… 1 Cor 11:23 KJV
I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures… 1 Cor 15:3 NAS
For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2 Peter 2:21 NAS
contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints… Jude 3 NAS.

These passages are all talking about revelation that God, through His prophets and apostles, delivered unto His people. Although historical insights can be interesting and helpful sometimes, we must always let the Bible interpret the Bible. Paul himself said here that he is going to talk about the traditions that HE DELIVERED to the Corinthians. It appears to me from the text itself that the Corinthian church learned about the practice of wearing head coverings (at least in the Christian context) from Paul, not from their culture.

  #2) It is often said, “A tradition like women wearing head coverings is not part of our culture today.” PRECISELY! Precisely! That is precisely why it is so important! Our culture today doesn’t have the first clue that the whole meaning of marriage is an earthly, physical dramatization of the relationship between Christ and His church (Eph 5:22-33). It is precisely our role as Christians to provide meaning, truth, and insight where our culture is absolutely clueless.

  Back to verse 2. Paul says, “I praise you because you remember…”. Put that up against the next section header in Paul’s letter, “But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you…” (I Cor 11:17). The subsection on head coverings and the subsection on the Lord’s Supper are tied together as one larger section on “the traditions I delivered unto you”. Paul is saying, “I praise you for how you are following the tradition of head coverings that I passed on to you, but I don’t praise you for how you are fouling up the tradition of the Lord’s Supper that I passed on to you.”

  I bring up this connection in order to point out that eating bread and drinking wine don’t symbolize “eating the flesh and drinking the blood and being united together in covenant” with someone (except to the extent that Christianity has provided this meaning). Likewise, being dunked under water doesn’t refer to death, rebirth, and cleasing from sin in our culture. Still we follow the tradition of the Lord’s Supper and baptism which the apostles taught us, and we teach the God-given meaning. We supply the God-given meaning to a culture that is famished for lack of hearing the Word of the Lord.

  The entire Christian impetus is not one of conformity to the pattern of the world but transformation (Rom 12:2). Of course head covering don’t have meaning in our culture! Head coverings, in the Christian context, are a symbol of submission. Ultimately they symbolize the submission of God’s people to God. Our culture HATES that meaning with a violent, brooding, bitter passion. Of course there is no such meaning in our culture at large, and there never will be! But we as Christians have the opportunity to display a counter-cultural attitude toward authority and submission.

  Likewise in Corinth. Let’s think about this for a moment, could Paul really have been affirming a continuation of an existing cultural practice with its associated meaning? Perhaps pagan women in Corinth covered their heads, I honestly don’t know. But if they did, what was the reason? If pagan men refrained from covering their heads, what was the reason? Was it to display the message that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of the wife, and God is the head of Christ (vs 3)? Was it to display that man is the image and reflection (or glory) of God and woman is the reflection (glory) of man (vs 8)? Was it to display that man was not made from woman but woman from man (vs 8)? Was it to display that man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake (vs 9)? Was it to avoid offending the angels (vs 10)? No, certainly at least it couldn’t have been for all of those reasons. At the very least, if female head covering was a cultural practice in Corinth, Paul came along and attached new meaning to it. New meaning which indeed would certainly be contrary to the local culture.

  Someone will ask, “But didn’t Paul just talk about `contextualizing’ to our culture in chapter 10?” No, he didn’t. I’ll have to leave the more complete discussion of I Cor 8-10 for another time, but here’s the upshot. In reference to issues like food sacrificed to idols, Paul’s point is to emphasize love, not cultural conformity. He says, don’t trample on someone else’s tender faith just so you can enjoy a tender steak! But I think Paul would be horrified to hear his teachings taken to mean, “Become as much like the world around you as possible, while still remaining in the Christian faith.” No, Paul is not passionate about encouraging Christians to act like pagans, he is passionate about love (I Cor 13). Refraining from eating meat sacrificed to idols is a way to be loving in some contexts. A brother or sister in the faith is worth going vegetarian over. But is anyone really worried that upholding the practice of head coverings will cause a weak brother/sister in the faith to stumble into sin? If you are truly worried about that, please talk to me, I would like to hear your reasoning. But that’s really not the issue for most of us.

  #3) The internal cues in the passage. In verse 3-9 Paul places the grounding of the practice of head coverings in the Old Testament Scripture and tops it off with, “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” in 10a. The force of his argument is Scriptural, not cultural.

  Then there is the reference to Angels in 10b. This is admittedly hard to understand. But at least it certainly seems to me to again put the issue beyond a mere cultural one. It is not merely about the Corinthian context or our modern context, it is also about the angels. And apparently the angels are pleased with this symbol.

  Verses 11-12 are a check to keep overbearing men in line. In the marriage relationship men have a special role in reflecting the role of God and women have a special role in reflecting the role of God’s submissive people. Now God is not dependent on His people at all. However God has made man to be dependent on woman, lest man think too highly of himself in the role he has been assigned. God always “shakes up” His analogies in this way to show that the symbol is only just a symbol, and not the real thing. Still, there is nothing here to cancel out the tradition of head coverings.

  “Judge for yourselves” in verse 13 does not seem to be an open-ended question in light of the following verses (I Cor 11:13-15). Again, there are some things here that are not clear. But the most natural reading to me seems to indicate that Paul expects all of his readers to come to the same conclusion about following this tradition.

  Again, the reference to those who are “contentious” in verse 16 sounds to me like this is not a matter of personal conviction. I don’t think that Paul is treating the tradition of head coverings as something that Christians can choose for themselves whether to accept or not. It appears quite clear that he is saying that those who reject it are being contentious. No one in our churches says, “I don’t feel convicted right now that the practice of the Lord’s Supper is really a thing for me or my family.” And Paul doesn’t want anyone to say that about head coverings either. (Note: I’m not pulling the comparison between the tradition of head coverings and the tradition of the Lord’s Supper out of the air in order to make my point. The two are already connected in the context as the traditions that Paul delivered unto the churches —  see section #1.)

  #4) The context/placement of this passage. This teaching on head coverings is an extended passage (not just a single verse or clause) in the main body (not the introductory or closing remarks) of a letter to a Gentile Christian church (not to Jews living under the Law). Don’t misunderstand me; a single verse in the closing remarks of a letter to Jews is important if it is in the Bible. How much more then is this passage worthy of at least due consideration! Where else do we treat such a large section of the epistles so lightly and dismiss so quickly? [Perhaps in many churches the hard-hitting doctrine of election in Romans 9 can compete with I Cor 11 in terms of neglect. Even James 2, although it disturbs many evangelicals, at least gets attention. But I Cor 11:2-16 is largely just dismissed.]

  In the evangelicalism that I personally have been a part of, you can easily find large representatives of Calvinists and Arminians, cessationists and charismatics, covenentalists and dispensationalists, egalitarians and complementarians, believer-baptists and paedo-baptists, and Christians who think such categories are helpful and Christians who think such categories are divisive. But in my experience it is very rare to find people who take I Cor 11:2-16 in a straightforward manner. Why is there not at the very least a significant representation of evangelical Christians who follow the practice of head coverings, say 5 or 10%? Is it because solid Biblical exegesis compels us to view this passage as clearly and unmistakably culturally conditioned? I for one don’t think so; am I really that shallow of an exegete? Even if I acknowledge that there are some interpretive challenges in this passage, and yes there are a few textual points which I can see might lean more towards a “cultural” interpretation, are there not also some points which should give a person serious pause before confidently declaring, “Clearly this passage IS just about already existing cultural practices”. I find something very suspicious about how easily this passage gets dismissed without due consideration in so many circles. [Credit to groups like the Mennonites who do follow the practice of head coverings, but I expect that most of my readers don’t have any contact with Mennonites.]

  #5) Some people might genuinely feel some hesitation to accept what seems to be the clear, staightforward, culture transcending understanding of this text because so many modern preachers and commentators dismiss it as merely owing to the Corinthian cultural context. Of course, we need to listen to God and not to man, but it is also right to humble ourselves enough to realize that other Christians are also seeking to listen to God and not to man. So if you are struggling with the fact that teachers you respect are saying that head coverings were a cultural phenomenon, then let me reassure you that the matter clears up very quickly when we start listening to respected Christian voices beyond modern times. Finding a pre-19th century Biblical commentary that ascribes head coverings merely to Corinthian culture seems to be even more difficult than finding a modern commentary that doesn’t. If it helps to reassure you that following the practice of head coverings doesn’t mean someone has gone off the deep end theologically, then allow me to drop the name of R. C. Sproul into the mix:

“I’m persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect because it was built into creation. And even though it’s not culturally accepted anymore in our society, I still believe its priniciple. I don’t think it matters one bit whether it’s a babushka, a veil, or a hat, but I think that the symbol should remain intact as a sign of our obedience to God.” R.C. Sproul, “Now, That’s a Good Question”, Pages 347-348

“The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1Ti 3:15)?” [This quote is attributed to Sproul on several internet sites, but I haven’t been able to track down the reference for it. If anyone knows where this quote comes from, please let me know.]

  #6) For a moment forget all of the arguments above and let’s look at the issue from an entirely different angle. What attitude to we come to the reading and studying of this text with? Do we come saying, “Unless you can convince me beyond all doubt that this passage directly applies today, then no way there are going to be any head coverings around here”?

  Allow me to suggest a different attitude. How about this: say we begin by reading passages like Eph 5:22-33 and saying, “Oh isn’t is glorious! Our human lives down here on earth are not so empty and devoid of transcendent meaning as our existentialist culture teaches us. Marriage is not merely about a man and a woman trying to keep loving each other or remaining committed to each other or taking advantage of tax benefits together. Ultimately it is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His people being played out between actors and actresses on a billion stages all over the world at the same time! Hallelujah!” And then we come to read about head coverings and their meaning in I Cor 11 and say, “Oh wow! What a great symbol! God is giving us yet another way to feed His truth and meaning into our culture that so desperately needs it. Hallelujah! Let’s milk this symbol for all it’s worth!”

  I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that head coverings are forbidden. At the very least, head coverings are a Biblically endorsed and approved symbol, aren’t they? We could almost say, what does it matter whether they are Biblically mandated or not? I believe they are Biblically mandated, but even if they weren’t the bigger question is: why would anyone want to miss out on such a great opportunity?

  Thus head coverings are a respectable and admirable thing which should not be mocked. I have told my wife what I think about this passage and she has graciously and submissively agreed to wearing them although she is still considering her own understanding of this passage. Reader take note, you do have my permission to encourage and affirm my wife for her godly response in this. You do not have my permission to say anything to discourage, belittle, or embarrass her in this regard, or in any other regard, and if you dare to then you will need to answer to me for that.

  Application to men: Men — you are accountable for what you do or don’t say to your wife and other women on this and other matters. First Corinthians 11:10 does say, “the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.” If you tell the women in your life, “Well, that is actually not necessary today,” then you better be very well convinced. You do not want to be found as Adam standing by while the woman is led to believe that the commandments of God are not so important after all. To do so is not loving to her, and is destructive to both of you.

  Yes, it is true that we should not read every sentence in the Bible and necessarily apply it directly to ourselves if it wasn’t intended to be applied directly to us. For example, as a Gentile there are many ceremonial laws in the Torah which I do not follow, and I can explain clearly why I believe it would not be proper to put myself under such laws (see this article for example). But I don’t just read a commandment in the Old Testament against wearing clothing made from different fabrics and say, “Haha! That’s silly. Of course it doesn’t apply to us.” Rather I come humbly before God and say, “Lord, if this commandment is for me, I want to obey it whole-heartedly. Please teach me to reverence and apply your word properly. And if it is not something meant to be applied to me directly, what is it that you do want me to get from this — how can it shape my thinking and my feeling?”

  If there is any place in the Bible in which the intended audience is most like us, the integrated church of Jew and Gentile in the age subsequent to the resurrection of Christ, then it is in the epistles. If there is a tradition Paul passed on as applicable to all the saints in Corinth, I would not dismiss it without some very serious consideration. We’re not very different from the Corinthians. Indeed, some commentators on this passge will say that I Cor 11 was written because of gross sexual immorality in Corinth as if that was a reason not to apply the passage directly to us today. What!?! Huh!?! You think America today is any better!?! The New American Dream is to experience every form of sexual immorality that ever existed in Corinth, double it, and then put it on TV. If indeed the sexual immorality in Corinth conditioned this section of Paul’s letter, then all the more reason that the passage applies directly to us!

  Also, men, there is also a deeper issue here regarding our relationships with women and with God. The more that a woman’s submissiveness is displayed, the more clearly it highlights our responsibility to be loving, godly, strong (willing to take risks and suffer consequences) leaders. Furthermore, if a woman is able to joyfully wear a symbol that says, “I was made for the man’s sake” (I Cor 11:9), then how much more should a man’s life display a joyful acceptance that everything he has, all of his time, and everything about him was made for glory of God alone, and not for himself. My body is not my own, I was bought at a price. The chief end of man is to glorify God forever, not vice versa.

  You see, what I’m saying is that if we as men endorse the practice of head coverings, then it cranks up our own responsibility to be godly men by one, or two, or three notches. And just as women are inclined to be contentious (see Proverbs), so men are inclined to forsake responsibility (see Genesis). By saying, “Oh head coverings aren’t for today,” are we as men really trying to promote the value and equality of women, or are we trying to do ourselves a “favor” and cut some slack on our own side?

  These days I feel refreshed by the simplicity of the gospel as presented in I Cor 15:3-4:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

The simplicity that I am referring to at present is not the fact that this message can be understood, with a minimal amount of explanatory background, by children and adults, educated and uneducated, from all backgrounds and walks of life. And the simplicity that I am referring to is not the fact that this gospel is received simply by persevering faith (I Cor 15:1-2) apart from any works of man or complicated systems. There is a lot to be said about the hope and joy that comes from these aspects of gospel simplicity, but what I have in mind right now is another way in which the gospel is simple.

  I’m talking about the simplicity of what is given to us in the gospel: Christ died for our sins. Of course, this simple statement can be greatly expanded in accordance with the Scriptures. In Christ’s death for our sins we are simultaneously given justification, reconciliation, peace, and friendship with God, cleansing of guilt, covering of shame, redemption from slavery, adoption as sons, salvation from wrath, and so on and on. At another time I might take particular delight in the profundity, the depth, and the breadth of what the gospel offers. But right now I’m especially refreshed in the fact that it can all be summarized so succinctly as: Christ died for our sins.

  But it is a bit strange, isn’t it, to get excited about the simplicity of something given to you? I’ve been searching for a job recently, and clearly it is better to receive a job offer with a multitude of benefits rather than a job offer with just one benefit. The analogy isn’t perfect, but it suffices to make the point that everyone wants to receive more, not less. So why should anyone get excited about the “simplicity” of a gift received?

  To answer that, let me first clarify what the gospel is not. Don Carson made some good comments on this at a Bible conference here this weekend. Here is a paraphrase, as best I can remember it, of something he said in passing, “If we are talking amongst ourselves as Christians with a Biblically-saturated mindset, then `God has a wonderful plan for your life’ can potentially be understood with a thoroughly Biblical and gospel-laden meaning. But tell the secularist or pagan that God has a wonderful plan for his life, and what is he thinking? `Fantastic! Better sex! A good job! More money! Safety and security in this life!’” [See also my article on “God’s Wonderful Plan” in which I made the same point.]

  The gospel is not an offer for your own worldly, fleshly concept of “a wonderful life” to be fulfilled in Jesus. The gospel is not an offer to become God’s friend so that your prayers about winning the lottery and marrying the person of your dreams will finally come true. To put it in sharper contrast, the cross is not the place to go if you are looking for a life of ease, comfort, and removal of the pains and stresses of this world.

  What the gospel sets before us is Jesus’ death for our sins. The very name of Jesus was given with the meaning that He would save His people from their sins (Matt 1:21). Salvation from sin is what the gospel is all about.

  Now why is it exciting and refreshing to be reminded that the gospel is all about Jesus’ death for my sins, and not about any of those other things? Wouldn’t it be even better if the gospel promised salvation from sins and lots of great sex, a thrilling job, plenty of money, and protection from all or at least most of life’s dangers? I say no! The gospel that simply says “Christ died for our sins” is far better than a false gospel that says, “Christ died for our sins and He also died to give us a bunch of earthly treasures.” You see, the reality of Christ’s death for my sin is an infinite treasure. When this infinite treasure is stated all by itself, in pure simplicity, then my heart and my mind are refreshed by the reminder that nothing in this world can compare to the value of having Christ die for my sins. On the other hand, for Bob Barker to announce, “Christ died for your sins, AND YOU ALSO WIN A BRAND NEW CAR!”, would be to take the refreshing transcendency of the gospel and suck it dry.

  Sometimes less is more. For example, in a jewelry display case. If there are so many rings and watches that it requires a bucket to hold them all, then we are probably at Uncle Marv’s Pawn Shop. If the diamond rings are spaced out a little bit more then it is probably because each one has more to offer. But if one gem is resting all by itself in an enclosed glass box atop a raised, guarded pedestal, then you can bet that that one solitary piece is worth more than all the others combined.

  The gospel of Jesus Christ doesn’t promise us better sex, earthly riches, safety, comfort, or whatever else a pagan would define as a “wonderful life” precisely because all of those things are rubbish compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus our Lord. Christ died for our sins. If you simply have that, then you have all you’ll ever need.