Would
normally post this at my other blog… but this one relates to apologetics in general. And as you will see, is not specifically
relating to sex.
A response to an excellent apologetics site here. A site
where their apologists were afraid to provide some serious exegesis of the relevant text recently. Some Berean issues
there. But they have lots of good stuff
too.
Now, instead
of these apologists exegeting their volatile text (as apologists ought to do)-
I was sent elsewhere for exegesis. I was
referred to another well to ask for water- since these apologists were afraid to draw from theirs. For fear of drowning in the well, it seems. Yet, there is wealth in the well for those
unafraid. Fear not and prepare to be
blessed.
So… for
those of you not afraid of drowning in the well in your search for truth, those
of you not afraid of having your Pyro dampened- here is some
exegesis of the text in question. Overflowing exegesis. Profound
exegesis from Calvin. And a profound paradigm
as well.
A paradigm
that I have provided numerous times at my other blog. A not so novel paradigm that should resolve
this Driscoll/Pyro dispute. A
dispute between two very different paradigms.
So let’s
look at the Eph. 5:12 proof-text in question then. Let’s look at what the “Deeds of Darkness” really
are in their proper context. And let’s
look at what defines them as “deeds of darkness”.
To start
with- the text does not say, “deeds done in darkness”. How these apologists got that reading is
beyond me. It’s not in any reputable
translation.
Not only
that, but “deeds done” is redundant. And
“deeds done in” is repetitive. Tripping
at the starting line. Not a good start.
Now, a lot of
this dispute revolves around Grace Driscoll’s revealing of her “deed done in
darkness”. About this being “disgraceful”. Well, I don’t really know if Grace Driscoll’s
deed was actually done in
darkness. I haven’t read the book. And I’m not disputing that. But it is irrelevant anyway. Because the biblical text actually says, “deeds
of darkness”. And it indisputably was a deed of darkness. It is also indisputable that Grace wants to
bring her deed of darkness to light. As did Paul with his deeds of darkness.
And I am
convinced that this bringing of her
darkness to light is clearly permissible- since she is not actually bringing
the “deeds of darkness” of others to
light. The actual prohibition of this proof-text.
A bringing
that would be just as permissible as it would be for someone who had obtained
an abortion… to bring their own abortion to light. In order to encourage others not to obtain abortions. An illumination of greater import… albeit
less “titillating”.
But let’s
bring Calvin in on this text. Let’s see
what he has to say on this “darkness”.
As Calvin
comments on verse 8:
“Darkness
[italics in the original] is
the name here given to the whole nature [not just the sexual nature] of man before
regeneration”.
Also, Calvin comments that, ‘Paul is actually speaking of “unbelievers”
and their darkness’. A continuation of
the “darkness” and the “impurity” spoken of the “Gentiles” in the previous
chapter.
And somehow
I doubt that Calvin believes that Paul is changing the sense of “darkness” a
mere three verses later. That Paul is changing the sense to ‘night-time’. But rather, Calvin shows that this is a far
larger category than mere sex-in-the night-time in his commentary on verse 3, 4
and 5.
And Calvin goes out of his way to define this “particular type” of darkness as well. Goes out of his way to bless us big-time.
Goes out of his way by criticizing his primary source (The Latin
Vulgate) for obscuring the definition of “darkness”. Obscuring it with an “unhappy chapter
division”. A division which drops the
first verse of this chapter out of the picture.
A division which drops “love” out of the picture. As do some apologists.
For it is clear to Calvin that this darkness is… the darkness of “not
walking in love” (v.1).
And the paradigm that Calvin presents is? Walking in Love.
Of “love”
determining whether something is light or darkness. Of “love” determining whether something is
right or wrong. And of “love” being
defined as… “an offering and a sacrifice” (v.2). Of which darkness
has nothing to offer. And light has much
to sacrifice (v.8).
A sacrifice
of your glory for the glory of others. A
sacrifice of your glory... for the glory of God. A sacrifice not unlike the sacrifice that
Grace Driscoll made. A sacrifice that we
are instructed to imitate (v.1)!
And as such,
I would contend that it is not
“disgraceful for Grace to speak of her
deeds of darkness” (v.12). Not to speak
of her disgrace so that others might not
be disgraced. So that others might not commit similar deeds of darkness.
And why is
that instructed by Paul? So that the “aroma”
of others might be pleasing to God as well (v.2).
And such is
the overwhelming smell of this chapter.
The overwhelming smell of Calvin.
The overwhelming smell of Paul. And
the overwhelming smell of Scripture.
To love God...
and love your neighbor as yourself.
A pleasing smell.
