Copyright © 2015 John Anthony Wind All Rights Reserved. the Southern
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright © 2015 John Anthony Wind All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction. DO GOOD TO ALL PEOPLE AS YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY: A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE GOOD DEEDS MISSION OF THE NEW COVENANT COMMUNITY A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by John Anthony Wind May 2015 APPROVAL SHEET DO GOOD TO ALL PEOPLE AS YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY: A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE GOOD DEEDS MISSION OF THE NEW COVENANT COMMUNITY John Anthony Wind Read and Approved by: __________________________________________ M. David Sills (Chair) __________________________________________ George H. Martin __________________________________________ Stephen J. Wellum Date______________________________ To Rachel, A wife whose life and character beautify the Gospel. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE . vi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 Debating the Mission of the Church . 1 Thesis . 9 Definitions . 11 Delimitations . 15 Presuppositions for Doing Biblical Theology . 16 Methodology . 30 Background . 31 2. REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE . 34 Relevant Literature since 1974: Equal Priority . 35 Relevant Literature since 1974: Evangelistic Priority . 54 Conclusion . 78 3. THE GOOD DEEDS RESPONSIBILTY OF HUMANITY . 81 Good Deeds Responsibility of Humanity in Genesis 1-2 . 82 Effect of Sin on Humanity’s Good Deeds Responsibility in Genesis 3-7 . 107 Good Deeds Responsibility of Humanity in Genesis 8-11 . 117 Conclusion . 139 iv Chapter Page 4. THE GOOD DEEDS MISSION OF THE OLD COVENANT COMMUNITY . 141 Good Deeds Mission of Abraham and His Descendants until Possession of the Covenant Land . 144 Good Deeds Mission of Abraham’s Descendants from Possession of the Covenant Land until the Exile . 160 Good Deeds Mission of Abraham’s Descendants from the Exile until Christ . 172 Interrelationship of the Israel’s Good Deeds Mission and Humanity’s Good Deeds Responsibility . 174 5. THE GOOD DEEDS MISSION IN THE GOSPELS BEFORE NEW COVENANT INAUGURATION . 176 Good Deeds Mission of Christ Pre-New Covenant . 181 Good Deeds Mission of the Disciples Pre-New Covenant . 199 Conclusion . 205 6. THE GOOD DEEDS MISSION IN THE NEW COVENANT . 207 Good Deeds Mission of Christ in the Inaugurated New Covenant . 207 Good Deeds Mission of Disciples in the Inaugurated New Covenant . 209 Good Deeds Responsibility of Christ and His Disciples in the Consummated New Covenant . 243 7. CONCLUSIONS . 244 Defining Debated Terms . 244 Biblical Dualism Requires Evangelistic Priority . 257 Doing Good through Macroeconomics and Politics . 264 Summary of the Good Deeds Mission of the New Covenant Community . 275 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 277 v PREFACE As I reflect on my dissertation journey, the dominant theme of my heart is thanksgiving. Thank you to David Sills, my supervisor, for seminars and colloquiums filled with both academic insight and the wisdom of his experience and for guiding this project to completion. Thank you to my other committee members, George Martin and Stephen Wellum, whose seminars, at the beginning and end, respectively, of my classroom program, providentially helped set me on the course of this dissertation and then brought my research to its final focus. Thank you to Timothy Beougher, Gregg Allison, and James Hamilton, each of whose seminars also left a significant mark on the argument of this dissertation. Thank you to Jonathan Pennington, whose leadership of the Ph.D. program, including the inauguration of the 1892 Club, the Doctoral Common Room, and the Ph.D. Book Club, has been a great personal blessing. Thank you to Ken Magnuson for his leadership of The Commonweal Project on Faith, Work, and Human Flourishing, which not only provided me a job, but which stimulated so much of my thinking as represented in the dissertation below. Thank you to Tom Schreiner for his generous encouragement of my writing and for his ongoing inspiration as a model of Christian scholarship. Thank you also to John Sailhamer for his foundational influence on how I both trust and interpret the Bible. Thank you to my fellow Ph.D. students who have shaped and sharpened my research considerably, both in the classroom and in informal conversation. In particular, thanks to Gary Steward, Michael Wilkinson, David Kotter, Michael Graham, Matt Pierce, Keith McKinley, and Trevor Yoakum. Thanks to Mike Settle, who though not (yet) a Ph.D. student, provided some of the most helpful critiques of my work. Thanks also to vi Josh and Rachel Carollo for their constant friendship and care over the last twelve years. As well, thank you to the elders and members of Clifton Baptist Church, a body of believers who has supported, molded, and shepherded me and my family for fourteen years and has been a significant means of grace during my Ph.D. studies. Thank you to my father and mother, Charles (1924-1994) and Ann Wind, whose foundational love, training, and example is intimately connected to all I have ever accomplished, including this dissertation. Thank you to my parents-in-law, Jim and Jan Roelofs, for their love and kind support over the last twenty years (and for allowing me to marry their daughter!). To my dear wife, Rachel, and our four daughters, Clara Anne, Chloe, Christin, and Charis, I owe a whole different level of gratitude. Each has happily borne the impact of my research and writing upon our family these last four years, providing unfailing encouragement and faithful love. Each is woven into the fabric of this dissertation in a way more profound than the words on the page or the arguments presented. Finally, I offer up this dissertation to my Lord Jesus Christ as a sacrifice of praise: may it serve your church and glorify your name. John Anthony Wind Louisville, Kentucky May 2015 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Debating the Mission of the Church Evangelicals1 have debated the relative priority of the responsibilities of verbal proclamation and social action in the church’s mission for centuries.2 In the 1800s, urban poverty in Europe and America (accompanying the onset of the Industrial Revolution and rapid urbanization), as well as Protestant missions expansion into impoverished lands abroad, prompted evangelicals to debate this question with new intensity. Some in missions, like Rufus Anderson (1796-1880), head of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions for forty years, believed that the church’s primary 1The term “evangelical” is an increasingly disputed designation today. See Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen, eds., Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011). Traditionally, the term “evangelical” was used to describe those who (among other things) shared a commitment to the centrality of the Scripture, the importance of proclaiming the gospel message in evangelism, and the necessity of individuals being born again by the Spirit. This dissertation presupposes these “evangelical” convictions and speaks primarily to those who share them. See Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 49, for a slightly expanded list of six evangelical core doctrines. 2One early, post-Reformation individual who might (anachronistically) be labeled an “evangelical” missionary is seventeenth-century New England pastor and missionary to the Algonquian Indians, John Eliot (1604-1690). He generally followed the understanding of his day that the Native Americans first needed to be “civilized” before they could be “Christianized.” Though different in many ways from the present verbal proclamation versus social action debate, in other ways the debate over the relative priority of the civilizing mission versus the Christianizing mission is the analogous debate within that time and place. Jon Hinkson, “Mission among Puritans and Pietists,” in The Great Commission: Evangelicals and the History of World Missions, ed. Martin I. Klauber and Scott M. Manetsch (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008), 25-29. During the eighteenth century, the revivals of the First Great Awakening challenged the chronological priority of the civilizing mission over the Christianizing mission, with “the flames of revivalism demonstrat[ing] that‘civilization’ need not precede salvation, but rather could proceed out of it,” (ibid., 32). This same debate continued within the Scottish church between the years 1750 to 1835. Ian Douglas Maxwell, “Civilization or Christianity? The Scottish Debate on Mission Method, 1750- 1835,” in Christian Missions and the Enlightenment, ed. Brian Stanley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 123–40. 1 responsibility is verbal proclamation and the planting of churches.3 Others, like John R. Mott (1865-1955), a leader in the Student Volunteer Movement and a national secretary for the YMCA for fifty years, held that the church has a more equal responsibility for both verbal proclamation and social action.4 With the growing prominence of the “social gospel” in the early 1900s, followed by the outbreak of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the 1920s, the evangelistic priority side of the debate became solidly fundamentalist in its theology and the equal priority side increasingly embraced the modernist theology of the social gospel. After World War II, theologian Carl F. H. Henry, in his book The Uneasy Conscience of