RE: Think

Reformed Church Marketing

2010-07-20T18:19:00.005-04:00

My wife and I are a part of a newly forming team that is going to be planting a new church in Broadripple Village, a popular cultural center in Indianapolis. As we talk about the church and our focus, it's been very interesting how many of the accepted practices for church "marketing" and growth strategies seem to contradict Scripture. So, in my usual jovial style, I'd like to offer a few church marketing tag-lines that I'm proposing to our group.

If you're looking for a church where you'll feel comfortable? This ain't it!

Consider attending a church where you won't feel judged by other people. God, on the other hand...

Ever feel like you just can't do ANYTHING right? Come find out why.

What's wrong with tithing? It's a 90% off sale!

We can show you how to achieve incomparable health, wealth, and happiness. You'll just have to die first.

At our church, God-willing, executions performed weekly.

Now, effectiveness aside, is there anything theologically or even ecumenically wrong with any of these statements about the church? And, note, I'm actually asking. There may be. It's quite often that my wit out-runs my senses.

Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit: What is the Unforgivable Sin?

2010-02-21T17:02:00.003-05:00

I have a friend in prison who has recently come to know the Lord. As he studies his Bible alone in his cell, many questions come up. Via the mail, I am able to write responses to his many questions. What follows is one such response. I welcome any additional feedback that I may include in my next letter.

You've stumbled upon quite the brain teaser for any Biblical scholar. Over the centuries, Christians have disagreed sharply about what this text actually means. There is no shortage of different teachings you might hear about it. One such teaching that you've obviously heard is that to "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" means to say the words "God damn it." Let me start by saying: whatever blaspheming the Holy Spirit does mean, that isn't it.

How can I say that? Well, for three reasons. The first is simply context. One of the things we have to be careful about when reading the Bible is that the original authors weren't 21st century Americans writing to our culture. They were Jews living 2000 years ago under Roman rule where Greek was the universal language (like English is today). Their culture had its own unique set of moral problems, some the same as today (sexual immorality, greed, etc.) and some entirely different (pagan worship, child sacrifice, etc.).

So, if you consider their culture, the simple fact is that the expression "God damn it" didn't exist. People didn't walk around saying that whenever they were angry or surprised. So, it doesn't make any sense that Jesus would be referring to that phrase in 30 AD speaking to a crowd of people who would have no idea what he meant.

Second, the idea of saying "God damn it" is a very simple request: we are asking God to condemn some person or object to destruction because we are angry with it. You could argue that it is a prayer. Read Psalm 7:6, where David makes the same request of God in slightly different words: "Arise, O Lord, in your anger; rise up against the rage of my enemies. Awake, my God; decree justice" (Ps. 7:6). So, simply asking God to damn something is not a sin at all. However, what is a sin would be to do so "in vain"-meaning, for personal and selfish reasons rather than for reasons of God's glory. That is the meaning of the 4th commandment, "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God" (Exodus 20:7), which is, by the way, forgivable.

And the third reason that I can tell you "God damn it" is not the unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is because the text itself (Matthew 12) tells us what Jesus was referring to.

"Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, 'Could this be the Son of David?' But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" (Matthew 12:22-24)

Notice that all the people did not even consider that Jesus was himself a demon. In fact, they immediately began to consider that He might be the Messiah, the "son of David," whom Jews had been awaiting for a long time. However, the Pharisees-religious elite who were intent on discrediting Jesus altogether-made an audacious claim. They said that He did these works by the power of Satan.

Actually, they called it Beelzebub. Here again we have to understand cultural context of 2000 years ago. Beelzebub was the name that Jews assigned to the most evil and deplorable pagan god. It was for them a name which figuratively represented everything opposed to God. It could be compared to our concept of "the devil" with horns and a pitchfork. It was derived from the name of one of the pagan gods nearby, and suffice it to say that anything related to a pagan god was deplorable, sinful, and evil.

So, whereas the people who saw Jesus' works were quick to believe that He was not only doing these miracles by God, but that he may also be the Messiah, the Pharisees identified His miracles as demonic and something to be feared. And, so, Jesus said of those Pharisees:

"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:30-32).

It was the Holy Spirit, not Satan, who did the miracles that this crowd had seen. So, the ordinary sins of the people-"every sin and blasphemy"-could be forgiven. But for those who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit by saying that the Holy Spirit's works were actually evil and demonic, they could not be forgiven that sin.

The word "blasphemy" means to tell a slanderous lie, like spreading a vicious rumor. So, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was to lie to the people about the source of Jesus' power in order to persuade them not to follow Him. That is the sort of sin that won't be forgiven. But, Jesus goes on to explain that it was not that they had accidently misspoken and now were condemned forever. This was no simple mistake on the Pharisee's part. The Pharisees were deeply evil. Jesus was describing their real hearts:

"You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matthew 12:34-37).

Dekker's "Thr3e" - Pelagianism Alive and Well

2009-12-06T14:51:00.004-05:00

I have to admit it: I'm a junky for the psycho-thrillers. Movies, that is, not books. I can tell you that watching "The Ring" in 2002 marked a coming of age for me and my movie-going experiences. So, when a friend told me about this Christian fellow, Ted Dekker, whose novel was made into a nail-biting thriller, I was intrigued.

The movie, Thr3e, was released in 2006. I recently had the opportunity to watch the film with friends on home video. Not that I'm a movie critic (nor is this blog devoted to such content), but I will tell you that from a purely entertainment standpoint, it's well worth the view. Low-budget, for sure, but behind the lackluster cinematography and screenplay, the plot alone is enough to keep one's attention. I have no doubt the book is equally worthy.

But, while the film is entertaining, the undertones presented by an outspoken Christian author are cause for viewer discretion to be advised. As the plot unfolds, we find seminary student Kevin Parson entangled in classic predicaments which force him to face his own sins and deepest secrets. Meanwhile, Parson is struggling to complete his doctoral thesis--a work on the nature of evil within man--which contains the theological message that viewers (whether aware of it or not) are asked to believe based on the story presented.

What the student, Parson, posits in his thesis soon becomes the reality of his life. (Warning: if you haven't watched the film and plan to, what follows may be a spoiler for you). The three main characters--Parson, his warm-hearted friend Sam, and the evil antagonist Slater--are eventually exposed as mere alter-egos of the skitzophrenic Parson. In the dramatic scene where the mystery is revealed, Parson's thesis is cited regarding the three (hence the title) natures that he argues every man contains: the evil, the good, and the moral creature struggling in between.

Had I not known of the author's professed faith, I would not have given the plot a second thought. It cannot be overlooked, however, that the Christian author Tim Dekker is offering his audience more than just an exciting plot. He is offering a statement on philosophy with deep theological implications.

Is man really entangled in such an epic battle? Are we torn within ourselves between the good nature and the evil? Scripture, church fathers, and historic doctrine all say no--and I humbly submit that I, too, deny an ounce of "good" in unredeemed Man. Man, outside of the redemption which comes through Christ, is not torn at all. There is no struggle. There is no epic battle of moral disposition. Man is, and has been since the fall, full of sin. "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Though Pelagius' heresy was identified and condemned at its outset in the 4th century, his teaching has permeated the Church, both pre and post reformation. Not only so, but his notions of a morally-torn man struggling against and capable to overcome evil has been the tune of countless religions in every culture throughout history. Indeed, the Spirit's work in the world is not merely to reveal Christ as perfect and good, it is also to convict men that they, contrary to popular belief, are quite the opposite.

Who do you think you are?

2009-10-15T19:54:00.003-04:00

A little over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson penned a statement (amid a much longer document) that stated his belief that all men are created equal. 55 other men put their signatures on the document, affirming that they, too, believed this and the accompanying statements that it supported. Do you know what was so equal about these 55 men? They were all white males who owned black people because they didn't see them as equal--which meant, in turn, they didn't see them as men.

The problem with the perspective of our founding fathers was not their self-image. They knew they were white. They knew they were males. The problem was the inherent value that they placed on these qualities.

In the last few verses of Galatians 3, we find Paul charging something very similar. His opponents, the judaisers, were not incorrect in their self assessment. They were indeed Jews. They were indeed freemen. They were indeed male. And, as an interesting tidbit of historical context, those three attributes comprised a common prayer for the Jewish member of a synagogue in the 1st century--not unlike (though not identical to) the haughty prayer of the Pharisee in Luke 18.

The Judaisers were not wrong, however, in that they were Jews. They were male. They were freemen. They were wrong, however, in the ultimate relevance of these facts to the matter of their own righteousness.

However, this topic burrows far deeper into the theological and doctrinal realms than mere social justice and racial equality. In the verses that follow, the first 7 verses of Galatians 4, Paul goes on to describe exactly what sort of equal playing field "we"--both Jews and Gentiles--are all on. Paul describes all of God's sons as once being children, and as children, likened to slaves. Under the guide of masters, children are held prisoner to the most basic of rules--such as the Law.

But Christ, born of a woman under the Law, redeemed us. The language is very reminiscent of Exodus 13, where firstborn sons belong to God and must be killed, that is unless redeemed by the blood of a spotless lamb. So, then, having been redeemed in similar fashion we are spared from death and reinstated our "full rights" as sons--nay, even heirs, as if to say firstborn sons. As a deposit of this inheritance--since, after all, we are sons--God sent the Spirit of His Son.

So, up to this point you may be thinking that all this amount to the very familiar doctrine of the atonement. Where does all that "burrowing far deeper into the theological and doctrinal realms" come from? Well, ask yourself this. In the description Paul gives in this text, is there ever a moment when we are not children, even before we are redeemed and given full rights as sons? As Paul teaches his readers the right view of their humble beginnings with God, he is sure to remind them that God foreknew them and redeemed them with purpose.

Moreover, the spirit of the sonship is not just a deposit. He is not just sent to help us live as heirs. He is not just sent to give us special powers and supernatural abilities as God's children. No, it is the Spirit Himself who actually cries "abba, Father." The Spirit is not sent to those who believe, it is sent to those to believe.

So, who do you think you are? Are you the religiously pious overly confident in your own righteousness. Are you the spiritually insightful one who found God and pursued Him with all your might? Are you the loving soul mimicking Christ as you try to bring Heaven to earth? Or, are you the child, born a child of God, redeemed by His son, and even given the very Spirit by which you cry out to your Father?

Did father Abraham really have many sons?

2009-10-11T08:23:00.002-04:00

Well, if you grew up in a Sunday School like I did, you probably already have an answer for that. Of course he did, and many sons had Father Abraham, too. But, being the antagonist that I am, I have to ask: what does Scripture say?

In our study of Galatians, we find ourselves this week in the latter half of chapter 3 where Paul makes a startling statement about this Abrahamic lineage. Whereas Paul's Jewish opponents in the church would have been firmly rooted in their belief that their descent from Abraham warranted their higher importance in God's view, Paul has a new revelation for them. "The Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ" (Galatians 3:16).

The promise, specifically that of inheriting the aptly deemed "Promised Land," was given not to many children of Abraham, but to one. In the words of the Apostle Paul, God had in view just one of Abraham's seed that would inherit the land as promised. Now, Paul was no amateur Bible scholar, either. The Hebrew does indeed support the singular use of this term. So what do we make of it?

By contrast, of course, the Jews would quickly recall Moses' words in Deuteronomy 32:46-47. At this second reading of the Law, the young nation was promised that if they obeyed fully they "will live long in the land." That was the promise, after all. God swore on oath to give Abraham's seed the land of Canaan. Now, here they are at the border of the land and God promises them that it will indeed be theirs... on one condition. Obey fully.

But this kind of agreement, Paul points out, is not consistent with the idea of a promise. It's two-sided and conditional, and put in place by a Mediator. "A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one" (Galatians 3:20). God is one and in His promise it was He alone who would ensure the inheritance. So, is there conflict here? Does the Law as stated above contradict the promise?

"Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!" (Galatians 3:21). In fact, there was one person who pulled it all off. By the Law, one man did obey fully. He did fulfill the Law--every letter. He did earn His inheritance just as God had promised. Christ, the God-man! Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham and begotten of the Father, inherited the land according to the promise.

"Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7). By faith, we are not only adopted, saved, forgiven, justified, and made pure for presentation to God. We're made into the very image of Christ. We are "clothed" in Him. All the perfection that He accomplished is imputed to us, and in so multiplying the person of Christ by imputing Himself onto His people, God is making Abraham's one seed as numerous as the sands on the seashore.

As the song goes: "Father Abraham had many sons. Many sons had Father Abraham. I am one of them..." Are you?

The Promise of the Spirit: A Defense of Credobaptism

2009-10-03T12:21:00.005-04:00

Well, there's nothing like coming right out in the title and saying what this article is all about, eh? No creative tricky titles from this guy. I'll just lay it out there. Unless, of course, you have no idea what Credobaptism means and what I might be defending it against. It's quite simple really: do you take the plunge only after you believe, as an adult presumably, or should we in the Church baptize our infants (paedobaptism) as a sign of the promise much like the descendants of Abraham did with circumcision?

If you're new to the debate, the arguments on both sides are compelling. On the one hand, why would you baptize any infant without the ability to flex a sphincter, much less confess their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? On the other hand, Israel, God's chosen people, were instructed to mark the members of their community at just eight days old with an indelible mark, so what's the beef?

Circumcision was not credo-circumcion. No, infact, I'm quite sure few people would opt for that route. It was a sign given by God to remind Abraham and his descendants after him of the promise that God had made, and had not yet fulfilled.

We have the same promise today. Christ is said to have inaugurated eschatology. The kingdom is already but not yet. We are forgiven by Christ's past atoning death and resurrection, but we await the final and complete installment of His glorious kingdom and our glorified bodies when He returns. We wait.

But we do not wait without a reminder. Like Abraham, we were given a sign. God did not leave us without a tangible reminder of His eternal promise. What, then, is this reminder of which I speak? The sprinkling of some Evian on a baby yet in diapers? Is that how indelible, how powerful, how unforgettable and life-transforming the reminder of God's promise really is to us?

Well, if you read the title. You'll know that my answer is indeed, No. Instead, "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory" (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Gosh, that language sure sounds reminiscent of circumcision, doesn't it. And, to add to the debate, Paul's argument to the Galatians echos the same notion. How could the Galatians be confident that circumcision was of no value to them? But of course, they had already received the Spirit, the promise. What purpose, then, could circumcision hold for a person already marked with an indelible seal which, more than simply reminding, even guaranteed what was to come.

Exclusive Christianity: There is Not Other Gospel

2009-09-26T14:14:00.002-04:00

Wow. What a harsh title. Isn't it just typical of some egotistical Christian to think he is the only one who is right. How absurd and closed minded the Church must be to have such a narrow view. With all the wisdom, all the great thinkers, all the various people on earth and differing views which constitute a celebratory diversity for so many modern thinkers... how can we be so backwards to think we're the only people right on the face of this grand planet?

In our study of Galatians this week, we took a closer look at Paul's outrageous claims in chapter 1:6-8. "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel... But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"

Eternally Condemned? What was the crime worthy of such a judgment? To turn from the Gospel, perverting it from it's original truth. This leaves one of two options: either Paul was inescapably close-minded and unloving, warranting the complete dismissal of this and all his writings, or there must be something crucially important to the Gospel. So crucial, in fact, that to pollute the message with any falsehoods is a capital crime, worthy of death. Which is it?

While we may be under the impression that diversity of thought is good, that perpetual evolution of truth is the ultimate reality, and that any and all claims to exclusive truth must be folly--the reality is that these sentiments are not consistent with a Biblical outlook. Any perversion--modification, addition, revision, or outright restatement--of the Gospel will ultimately fail in one or both of the following ways:

Failure to acknowledge the gravity of our sinful nature, which ultimately leads to idolatry of Man.
Failure to recognize God’s complete character as He has revealed Himself, which leads to idolatry of a created god.

At the core of the issue is God, not man. The charge that Paul, and evangelical Christians today, are in fact intolerant and closed-minded will attempt to center the debate around man. The exclusivity of the Gospel has become an issue of Man's creativity and the assumption that it is our right to determine truth for ourselves. Inasmuch as this is the case, we are already idolaters.

The simple fact is that the Gospel is about God, not man. God desires that all men worship Him, and yet this cannot come about by spreading false testimony about Him--a false Gospel that is, as Paul said, really no Gospel at all.

Apostolic Authority

2009-09-20T08:33:00.004-04:00

As we start digging into our study of Galatians this Sunday, the first topic that comes up is one that many would find odd to study from Scripture. Paul, the author of the letter, enters into a lengthy discourse about his own position of authority. In so doing, he describes his independence of the authority of Peter, James, and John--the ones who are called pillars. His claims seem brash, boastful, and downright arrogant. And, in fact, they would be just that if it weren't for one simple fact: he's right!

Apostolic authority is a subject often assumed, but rarely discussed in Bible studies. Why do we care so much what a renegade Jew who traveled Eastern Europe wrote on the matter of Christianity. What gives him the right to dictate for us the doctrines, teaching, and even the very Gospel which cannot be contradicted by any man, nor even an angel from heaven (Gal. 1:8)?

Paul builds his defense first drawing upon the source of his knowledge. Paul was clear in Galatians 1:11-12 that he received this gospel from no man, but from Christ himself. I asked a class, what would have been different if Saul had believed upon hearing Steven's sermon in Acts 7? The answer: he would not have met the qualifications as an Apostle. But when God was pleased to reveal His Son to Paul (1:15), then he received Christ by special revelation from the resurrected Christ.

What Paul so adamantly defends, no other teacher, pastor, missionary, or theologian in the church today can assert. Paul's authority is apostolic. As one who received the gospel direct from Christ, and learned direct from Christ, his office in the church is uniquely authoritative. There were 12 others with the same station in the early church. Some of whom wrote instruction to the early church, along with Paul, that we still have today. And, because of the authority we know to be true in Apostles, this collection of Apostolic writing is counted infallible, as the words of the prophets who came before.

No other Christian thinker, teacher, theologian, clergy, or otherwise has written anything which the evangelical community would consider God-breathed scripture. As we study Paul's authority in the first two chapters of Galatians, then, we study the basis for Biblical authority. This is the reason that we can debate Luther, but not Paul... or that we can dispute Augustine's writings, but not Peter's... or this very blog, for instance, but not the writings of James, John, and the other New Testament writers.

So, knowing the authority with which Paul's words come, how then should we hold these teachings in our own lives? I rarely get more animated in an argument than when someone opposes the clear teaching of scripture. I tolerate direct disagreement from my students gladly, but nothing angers me more deeply than when they refuse to yield to the authoritative, Apostolic writing of Paul, Peter, James, John, or any of those reputed to be pillars.

The Discipline of Dying

2009-09-08T13:12:00.003-04:00

Over the past year (or maybe even longer) I've been working on writing here and there when I have the spare time. The end goal: a new book on the Sovereignty of God. I'm excited to announce that it's nearly complete, but that's not really the point of my post today. Today, I share an excerpt fresh off the press.

For about 3 months now, there has been a chapter left hanging. Incomplete. Wrapped in an enigma I not only failed to solve (which is never my aim) but I could not even begin to explore it. The chapter was on Moral Imperative, and the question: in view of God's absolute sovereignty, why even try?

Finally, it hit me (I think, at least. I'll let the comments on this post be the judge as to whether it makes the final cut). The reality is that we do not try. We die. But, lest that seem a mere platitude of escapism, do not forget that when we die we do. There is no trying in God's law, there is only doing. Be perfect. Be holy.

I wish that believers everywhere would find far less comfort in the limited success of their efforts to obey. Instead, when faced daily with the realities of our iniquity, we ought to learn the discipline of dying to self—self-motivation, self-sufficiency, self-reliance—and living in Christ's power. We ought to "carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body" (2 Corinthians 4:10).

When we believe the lie that we, as Christian people, are somehow empowered now to live perfect lives, the reality of our present life lived in a dead carcass not yet regenerated will ultimately lead to disparity and defeat. We are, even after confessing Christ and receiving the Spirit, defeated by the moral imperatives of Scripture. And here, once again, in our present weakness we find strength only in God's power—His absolute sovereignty to work in and through us.

We know the folly of believing that one can earn salvation without the atonement of the cross. We are helpless but for His mercy. How much more foolish, then, after one's acceptance of Christ's atonement to go on in the Christian life pursuing moral imperative by our own will? How blinded have we become to take the same imperative which once drove us to our knees at the foot of the cross and later attempt its perfection within ourselves. No, the truth of the Gospel is that we must continually return to the cross, "to proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26) so as to confess with the Apostle Paul that "I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me" (1 Corinthians 15:10).

The Spirit's work in sanctification is not unlike His work in justification. Whereas we find righteousness through the imperatives of Scripture only when we die by the Law and receive Christ's imputed righteousness, so too does the Spirit sanctify us by the same imperatives which continually teach us to depend on Him for life. A deep thirst for Scripture is instilled in God's elect as a provision of God with the chief purpose that we find there not instruction for how to now succeed as Christians, but a perpetual conviction that we must "die every day" (1 Corinthians 15:31).

That is the discipline of dying. Scripture drives us to our knees begging for God's mercy more than once in the Christian life. Life by the Spirit begins in utter dependence on God and therein it must also continue.

The Bookend of the Decalogue: Thou Shalt Not Covet

2009-08-13T12:18:00.004-04:00

I've found it difficult to find inspiration to blog of recent (as you may have noticed). I think one reason has been the content that I've been teaching on. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not commit adultery (not necessarily in that order). The cut-and-dry topics haven't granted fodder for great blog posts. Perhaps that's a flimsy excuse, but hey, it's better than "I'm just too busy."

Why do I mention this? Because, this week's content is markedly different. It struck me as I was driving today: Paul encapsulates the whole Law in this on commandment as illustrates the Law, Sin, Faith, and Forgiveness in Romans 7. "Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'Do not covet'" (Romans 7:7). There must be something to this. Paul had so many other sins he could have illustrated, but he chose covetousness. Why?

This final commandment in the Decalogue against a covetous heart really book-ends the set of commandments that precede it. It's a summary command, but also an expansion upon the previous so-called "social" commandments. Whereas Paul may have been able to keep his body from outwardly stealing and murdering, he recognized that the tenth commandment made all of God's statutes an issue of the heart, not merely actions themselves.

Why is God so concerned about the attitude of our heart--and, particularly, the desires of our heart? Covetousness is simply a desire for one item/person or another. God knows, and indeed created us so that our desires play a major role in governing all the rest of our being. Our obedience, our worship, our love, our devotion, our acts of service, our everyday behavior--all of these find their root cause in the overpowering sense of desire within each of us. Likewise, adultery, murder, lust, stealing, lying, divorce, abortion, selfishness--all find their root cause in the overpowering sense of desire within us as well.

[As an aside, this makes for great fodder for discussion on the subject of compatibilism]

God gives strict warning in His law--not only in the Decalogue, but all throughout the Law--that Israel should guard their hearts and be mindful of their desires. A covetous person is no longer master over his/her desires. The tempter can exercise control over this person with disastrous consequences. It is for this reason that God commands His people: you shall not covet..."

"O LORD, God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Israel, keep this desire in the hearts of your people forever, and keep their hearts loyal to you." -- 1 Chronicles 29:18

A Positive Spin on Adultery

2009-07-23T14:08:00.002-04:00

HA! I got you to read the article, didn't I? No, of course there's no positive spin on the act of adultery. None whatsoever. But, hopefully I can help you to see what I mean when I say "a positive spin."

When I began my study of the 7th commandment these past few weeks preparing for this Sunday's lesson, I realized I had to start with a definition of adultery. And, once there, I was forced to define marriage. Without an understanding of the underlying framework, the commandment is worthless to us as Christians. So, what is marriage? No. Let me restate: what was marriage to the hearers of this covenant in 1500 BC?

Marriage was a societal institution. It protected women, giving them an identity and a purpose in society not elsewhere realized. It provided much benefit to men--domestic support, sexual pleasure, and a general status of having "grown up" into manhood. It completed both partners. And, most of all, it did all of this because that's how it was designed by God. The two become one, they complete one another, they interact with one another in a way that (ideally) preserves equality without disregarding their inherent differences.

And, if you haven't caught on, God didn't just do this so we could all have sex and make babies. Marriage is a picture of God's relationship to Israel. In unity with Him Israel found an identity and purpose not elsewhere realized. God receives their ministry, their worship, and is glorified on earth through Israel. It delighted God to love Israel. And, Israel was treasured and shown to be valuable even while they were submitted to God's authority.

Does that last part sound impossible? Does it sound impractical and chauvinistic to think that my wife can submit to me and glorify me and yet not be devalued in the process? I hope not. Jesus did it. Remember, He's submitted to the Father in hierarchy but nonetheless exalted and God Himself. (1 Corinthians 11, and for more good reading on the subject read Wives and Husbands)

So, that brings us to the issue of adultery, then. What is adultery? It's thumbing one's nose at the covenant of marriage. It's a bride saying to her husband, "I will disgrace you, not serve you." It's a husband saying to his bride, "The respect of you alone is not enough for me, I will find others and build a harem." Adultery disrespects the covenant God made with Israel. It defiles it. It dishonors it. It violates it.

So what are we to do? Is it enough that we do not commit adultery? Can we just abstain and be safe? Israel tried this. They drew their lines and found their loop holes. "I'll just think about it, but not act." One man might think. Or, "I'll act privately as a measure of controlling my lusts." another might have concluded. But Jesus came along and closed off the loop holes. He cut out the comfort zone.

"Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away... And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away." -- Matthew 5:28-30

Oh, great. Now what can I do. Here's an idea: take a positive spin on adultery. When we focus on what we ought not do, we tend to forget the fervor with which we ought to do many things. Love your wife as Christ loved the church. Submit to your husband as to the Lord. Have sex often. Enjoy one another's company. In short: invest passionately in your marriage. Do not commit adultery, instead, "Rejoice in the wife of your youth" (Proverbs 5:18).

Thou Shalt Not Murder

2009-07-19T08:18:00.004-04:00

"Check!" For most of us, anyway, this is probably the one command above all others that we can easily gloss over. Unless I've been deceived, there are no hardened, cold-blooded murderers in our Sunday morning class. So, why invest an entire study into this command? For starters, it's a twelve week course, so we have to fill it up somehow. But there are better reasons than that. Much better reasons.

First, let's get the academic debate out of the way. The King James translates this term "kill" only one time: this time. Elsewhere, the same term is rendered manslayer, murderer, or slayer. And, of course, most other modern translations are clear to use the term murder in this command. This command does not negate or contradict other scripture--scripture which commanded military conquest, capital punishment, or divine judgment. It is not a ban on killing. It is a ban on murder.

So what's the difference? All of the above--military conquest, captial punishment, divine judgment--entail the taking of a life at the command of God and for the preservation of His glory. Murder, on the other hand, is taking a life for our purposes. It's killing to meet solely our needs, our requirements, or to fulfill our rage. Quite simply, murder makes us into gods.

But here is the shocking truth. Each man causes death. Every man is a killer. But not every man is a murderer. Every man is a killer in one of three ways:

1 John 3:12 says Cain killed Abel, "Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous." When we kill out of envy or selfish ambition, we murder. When we malign, slander, or hate for such reasons, we are murderers.
So, what if we reverse the motives listed in 1 John 3:12. Are we then no longer murderers? How many times throughout the history of the church have men killed, "because his own actions were righteous and his brother's were evil." Cain killed because he realized his own iniquity. But if we view ourselves as righteous, incomparably better than our brother, and thus kill, slander, malign, or hate him as a result, we are no less guilty of murder.
What can we do then? We must become killers. We must take a life. But it is not our brother's. "We ought to lay down our lives for our brothers" (1 John 3:16). The follower of Christ will, in view of Christ's example, forfeit his own life for the sake of his brother's--in word, in attitude, or even in deed.

As I said: Each man causes death. Every man is a killer. Christ came into the world to destroy all wickedness and sin. But, much to the Jews' dismay, he murdered not one Roman. Stoned not one adulterer. Instead, he gave up his own life to be taken at the hands of such sinners. Therefore, in view of His sacrifice, "offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God" (Romans 12:1).

Taking the Lord's Name in Vain

2009-06-27T12:23:00.004-04:00

Ever since I was young, the conventional application of the 3rd commandment has never set well with me. There is a tradition, handed down in our churches and ingrained in our societal standards, that this commandment forbids the expletive use of the word "god." I was never allowed to say, "oh my God!" much less issue a petition for damnation (I'll let you interpolate the phrasing).

Here was my struggle: tucked in between two introductory commandments and a fourth commandment, all of which dealt with core theological and pragmatic issues, I'm supposed to accept that God included a ban on Jews running around using the expression "Oh my Yahweh!" It just didn't fit. I'm no linguist, but I was pretty sure that expression wasn't around back then. Could it be that there's something much more significant God wants us to see in this commandment?

Let's begin with the Name. Of course, we all know that g-o-d is not the real name of God. What is God's name? I AM. Yet, there must be something more transcendent about this name than just the configuration of letters (after all, that's not even the original language). No, a name bears one's power. Their authority. The Romans had a saying, "There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved but the name of Caesar." It implied their emperor's power to save. Imagine the shock of Peter's hearers when he turned this truth toward another name. The name of Jesus.

The temple in 1 Kings 5:5 was built, not for God, but for God's Name. In Malachi 1:11, God says that it is His Name that will be great among the nations. Jesus commanded His followers to baptize people in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. We get the picture that one's name is his power, his authority... even his reputation. The 3rd commandment is the first trademark law. God is, in essence, protecting His brand.

How could one defame God's Name by their use of it? By "taking" it. The word for taking could be translated carry, lift up, or one might say to "wield" His name. God showed His might and power. Demanded exclusivity. Declared Himself too great for any depiction by an image. And then, what is Israel to do with such a mighty power? Can they "take" it whenever they wish? No. God's name--His power--must not be invoked in vain. It must not be invoked for empty, worthless reasons.

And now we again get to ask ourselves, how do we today take the Lord's name in vain? Is it in flippant use? Perhaps. But I think there are far deadlier breaches of this command each day in the Christian faith. Bearing the very name of the incarnate God, "Christians" are His priests, His ambassadors speaking His truth to the world. Do we bear that name in vain? Or worse, every time we bow our heads in prayer, do the words "in Christ's name we pray, amen" flow with reverence, or in vanity?

If we look beyond the societal norms that stem from this command, we allow the scripture to speak a convicting message. I am challenged to fully understand and hold with great reverence the privilege of pray and the call to be His priesthood.

He Stinketh: My Thoughts on Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis

2009-06-19T17:00:00.005-04:00

A bit harsh, I know, but the joke was too easy. I'm the type of guy that cannot resist an open opportunity at humor. He left himself wide open for it, though. If you've ever read his book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith you would undoubtedly remember the sappy application drawn from Martha's comment on her four-day dead brother Lazarus, "He stinketh" (Luke 11:39 KJV). Bell's reaction to this two-word phrase is uncomfortable at best. By uncomfortable, I don't mean theologically awry, I mean that to read it made me feel so awkward just hearing his words in my head that I would have preferred to get a wet kiss from my great aunt than to continue on in the chapter. What "stinketh" in you, Rob Bell? Let's start with your exegesis and go from there.

But, as I mentioned, it's more the humor afforded by the situation that I'm enthralled with, not necessarily a hatred of the book. I have, in fact, a love-hate relationship with this book and with Rob Bell's theology. I have enjoyed his communication style, his illustrative ability, and many of the contextual insight's he's offered, which often came as just tangents rather than main points. Although, given the "hate" side which I'm about to describe, I do intend to check his sources before holding to tightly to the facts he's presented.

So, that said, would I recommend this book to others? To be honest, probably not. So, is Nick just jumping on the bandwagon with all the other staunch traditionalists and defenders of orthodox doctrine? I hope not, but I have to ask... what's so wrong with orthodoxy? If you've read with interest Velvet Elvis and came away with a sentiment of disgust for the "old" way of the reformers and for the guard dogs of doctrine in conservative academia today--then you've proven my point. That being the likely reaction of readers is precisely why I would not recommend this book.

Bell seems to introduce a notion that our theology and doctrine are ever changing, evolving, and being reinvented by each generation into something better and more applicable to life. It's a notion that, by the way, wreaks of open theism and a distinctly Darwinian understanding of progression.

As evidence for his views, Bell offers Jesus. Who else? In His sermon on the mount, He repeatedly said "You have heard it said... but I tell you..." repealing the traditions and--according to Bell--evolving theology. The conclusion, then, is that we are to likewise be "binding and loosing," as he calls it, in an ever-changing exploration of theology.

The failure point of this conclusion is that Jesus was not taking part of a linear process of morphing theology. He was opening blind eyes to see anew the beauty and truth in the dry, old scriptures of such practitioners of orthodoxy as Moses and David, which their teachers and pharisees had so ignorantly missed. Jesus was not spurring on some evolutionary process by which we improve our relationship with God, He was rectifying a wrong understanding of God with timeless scripture penned by men long forgotten.

What I caution readers of Bell and other emergent leaders like him is this: to accept these teachers' charge to "re-examine" scripture and take a fresh approach to theology is indeed encouraged... so long as you don't begin with the demand that this "fresh" exploration cannot possibly lead to the same conclusions that it once led Edwards, or Calvin, or Augustine, or Paul. It is pure arrogance, born of Darwinian mindset, that tells us we are at a pinnacle of truth today which was unattainable in generations past.

You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me

2009-06-11T23:18:00.003-04:00

In many traditions, the first and second commandment are lumped together. It is as though the command to have no other gods is one in the same as the command against idol fashioning and worship of created images. But is it? Is there not a fundamental difference between method of worship and belief structure about God?

I think it is no accident that God delivered his first commandment, distinct from the second but undeniably related, at the beginning of his Law. Whereas the second commandment, and all that follow, are related to orthopraxy--the correct practice of following God--the first commandment is very plainly orthodoxy--the correct belief system that under girds all moral truth and orthopraxy itself.

God says in His first command: You shall have no other gods before me. His command is not of worship. It's not of action--either required or prohibited. It is one of theology. In this command we see that we cannot believe whatever we wish to believe about God.

It was not acceptable to believe God was one of many regional ba'als. Israel could not believe that God was one with nature and nature one with God (pantheism). The people identified by His covenant could not hold to a belief that God was in an epic battle of good vs. evil (such as a yin and yang).

No. In this commandment we learn that we are not free to simply believe what we want to believe about God in the false hope that there are no practical repercussion. As soon as Israel forgot their theology, sin resulted. At Peor. Throughout Judges. In Jeroboam's sin. All throughout scripture, the failure to recognize God as the one true God and the God that He declares Himself to be ultimately leads to sin.

So, who do you declare God to be? Do we have other gods before our God? Do we believe that we can have the god of money, of love, of luck, or of capitalism and not affect our practice of faith?

A Covenant of Identity

2009-06-08T14:37:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, as we kicked off our study of the 10 Commandments, we faced the difficult question for Christians studying the Law: "Why do I care?" Some positions, critically referred to as "cheap grace" or "free grace," leave little reason to study such statutes in view of the unconditional love of Christ. While still others, even the most staunch of reformers, can't quite affirm that a failure to adhere would equate in damnation or loss of salvation. So, what are we to get from the Old Testament, the old covenant, and the Law that will benefit us as Christians?

The underlying issue with both positions which I (admittedly caricatured slightly) introduced above is that they both fail to see the covenants as anything more than justifying measures. The former covenant justified by repeated sacrifice. The latter did so by Christ's death. Nonetheless, emphasis in the debate falls firmly on the matter of our justification. But was that the premise of the old covenant? Is it the premise of the new?

In Exodus 19:5-6, God introduces the covenant to Moses saying, "If you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then..." What? You'll be saved from Hell? You'll enter Heaven? No. God's covenant was to make Israel His "treasured possession... a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." His covenant was to turn a people who were nothing but helpless slaves into a nation with their own land and borders. His purpose was for them to be His priests on earth, holy for His service.

Did that all change when Christ instituted the new covenant on the cross? Did He die for anything different? No. Christ died, fulfilling the justification requirements to make us righteous, holy, and blameless--ready for service unto God. He redeemed us from bondage to sin, wherein we were helpless slaves, and turned us into something not dissimilar to the recipients of the first covenant: "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light" (1 Peter 2:9).

God's holy standard--that which would make His treasured people stand apart from the world--has not changed. In the 10 commandments we find the standard of how a holy people behave. The convicting thought, then, is that we as the Church are indeed God's holy people. So, hey you holy people: be holy!

Inscriptions for Your Doorposts: Intro to the 10 Commandments

2009-06-06T11:48:00.003-04:00

This Sunday I'll be starting a new series for the quarter on the 10 commandments. Being a marketer by trade, however, I'm always thinking of creative names for classes. We've chosen to title this "Inscriptions for Your Doorposts"--a reflection of Deuteronomy 6:9, where God tells Israel just how close these commands should be to their everyday life.

Over the next 12 weeks, you'll see me writing and posting Mp3 Lectures on the 10 Commandments. But, this week is the introductory class. What many Christians struggle to understand as they look at the commands is how they apply to our lives today.

Sure, we should behave well. We should follow a moral standard. We should obey God. But once anyone starts contemplating the Law on a theological level, it can get to be a sticking point of legalism vs. justification by faith. Why do I follow these laws? Why do I observe religious code in obedience to God? What do I write them on my doorposts? Aren't I forgiven--freed from the Law?

As we'll discuss in detail this Sunday (and my readers can enjoy via Mp3 when it's uploaded by Monday) the Law of the Old Covenant was a covenant of identity. So often, we focus on the justification and forgiveness of sin as the sole end of God's covenant with Man, we forget that Christ died to set us apart; to make us holy and worthy of serving God.

God introduces the 10 commandments in Exodus 19:4-6 describing how He'd freed them from bondage in Egypt. He turned a helpless tribe into a great nation by His power so they might be His treasured possession. The correlation, then, should be very clear as He later speaks through Peter to the church under the New Covenant saying,

"You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God" (1 Peter 2:9-10).

So, as we consider our identity--the Church chosen by God to be His people and declare His praises on earth--we should study with great interest the holy standards by which God commanded His covenant nation Israel to live.

A Christian's Response Part II: The Jewish Requirements for Maschiach

2009-06-01T08:02:00.003-04:00

In my post last Friday, I introduced a topic that some of you may be very familiar with, and others may barely know as an issue: the Jewish requirements for Messiah (Maschiach) and, in particular, Jesus' failure to meet them to the Jew's liking. Read the full list in part one of this two-part post. As I very quickly addressed this list on Friday, there were three topics that I promised to address in a more lengthy response later. Well, it's later... and this is the lengthy response.

As you might expect, the vast majority of the Messianic requirements held out by the Jews are not disagreeable for the Christian. After all, we do reference the same prophets. Now, before I begin, I do want to state that this article is very clearly pertaining to the specific set of Jewish requirements for the Messiah, and as such, does not represent the full scope of expanded Christian messianism. For more details on the three offices of "the annointed" according to Christology, read Who Else by Christ and also reference the Week 4 lecture of the Person and Work of Christ class.

Now, back to the topic at hand. The three most pivotal points at which Jews argue Christ fails to fulfill their Messianic requirements are these:

To be a king in the line of David. You see, Christ was not actually a son of Joseph, and so His paternal lineage--the lineage through which tribal bloodline is established--cannot be linked to David.
That Christ was not an observant Jewish man. There are many layers to this dispute: first, the Jewish position that there cannot be a God-Man. Second, the Jewish position that Jesus violated the Jewish Law.
Finally, the position most vehemently defended by Jews, is that there is no place for a Messiah who comes, does part of His job, dies and comes back later to finish it.

The son of David...

First, let's address Jesus' lineage. I want to first point out that this objection was not developed as an argument until long after the establishment of the church. It was not an objection of Jesus' Jewish contemporaries. That is not to say, however, that later inspiration cannot be valid. The point which I believe is most notable is that in the time of Jesus, genetic recombination was hardly the measure by which parental lineage was tested. There was no paternity tests administed in DNA labs.

Jesus was given as a son to Joseph and Mary, raised in their household, and given every legal claim to the firstborn sonship without question of the seminal contributor (which is in fact a crucial part of the seminal view of original sin, but I digress). The point is that the definition of "son" was not dependent on genetic criteria. Jesus was in every way a son of Joseph. In Luke 2:23, Joseph accepted fatherhood of the boy by fulfilling the Law's requirement to consecrate his firstborn to the Lord.

And, if such irregularity in the passing of inheritance and bloodline is disagreeable, I would submit that God's purposes have been shown several times over not to follow man's tradition. Take Jacob, for example, who inhereted the blessing and promise despite the fact that he was not the first born--overturning the tradition of primogeniture.

Finally, perhaps in God's infinite wisdom, He did not provide a law of lineage. There was nothing in the Law that established an irreversible statute of paternity.

The Jewish God-Man

Where do I begin? I have already written much on the humanity and deity of Christ. I do not dare to think that I could convince a Jew of this point outside of the acceptance of such a mystery that comes--even for the most educated Christian--purely by faith. Let me simply point to previous works on the topic of the Kenosis. Christ the Mediator, An Attitude the Same as Christ, and We Beheld his Glory.

So, accepting that Jesus is God in the flesh, who emptied Himself by adding such limitations as the flesh, not out of weakness but out of love, we arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was a man.

But, was He an observant Jew? If not, then He is a lawbreaker and can be neither the Jewish Messiah nor our Spotless Lamb. But Jesus did not break the Law. He broke the legalistic stipulations of the contemporary Jewish hypocrites, but not the Law of God. Reference Matthew 12:1-13 for an understanding of His so-accused Sabbath breaking.

The key to understanding this point is in realizing the difference between the Jewish Law and the Jewish Traditions that prevailed in the 1st century. In Matt. 15:1-3, for example, the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Law. But His defense, undeniably accurate, was that He had not broken any Laws, but rather, their traditions.

Jesus, in fact, taught that the Law had more to do with one's heart than with legalistic obedience. His teachings in the sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) actually expound on the Law making it even harder to obey, for many, by applying it to thought and attitude.

I would charge Jews to simply analyze their traditional view of Jesus. Read the accounts of Christ's life on earth (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Ask for yourself, where did He break the Law? Especially bear in mind that even the Jew's teach "Torah is not viewed as a literal document in Judaism. Rather, it is something that can be understood, read and interpreted on many different levels" (A Jew with a View).

The Second Coming

If you've been following along in any of the comment strings that have prompted me to write this post, you've seen over and over that there "is no place in Judaism for a Messiah who comes, fulfills part of the requirements, dies, and comes back to finish it."

This is, perhaps, the simplest to address and yet the hardest to explain. It is simple because I can simply say this: Christians do not teach that Christ fulfilled ANY of the traditional Jewish Maschiach requirements (except for His lineage). I believe the greatest misconception--no doubt spurred on by the many Christians who themselves do not fully understand Christology--is that Jesus was the Anointed (Maschiach) King of the Jews.

The Christian belief is that we await the return of Jesus to assume His reign--a reign that so closely resembles what Jews await in their Maschiach the parallel is undeniable. In fact, as I've stated before, I even ascribe to the position that ethnic and national Israel has a particular place of blessing in this new kingdom, and that Gentiles are in fact "grafted in."

So, as I said, this is simple to state but difficult to explain. It's difficult to explain because we must then delve into the purpose of Jesus first coming 2000 years ago. His first coming and claiming the title "Annointed" throws confusion into the topic because that term carries a specific connotation to the Jew... a connotation that Jesus did not fulfull. And yet, the term is nonetheless applicable.

If a Jew is to accept the term Messiah placed on Jesus, they have to accept the doctrine of a New Covenant, established in Jesus' blood. That He was "annointed" to the office of prophet and of priest FIRST, declaring and mediating a new covenant. That He will be anointed the earthly politcial ruler, the King on David's throne (not in Heaven but on Earth) at a later time, but that this fulfillment of prophecy is dependent on those prophecies that Jews have not associated with their Maschiach. The prophecies that foretold His first coming.

Too much needs to be said about the covenants and Christ's first coming than can be stated here. I must leave you waiting for yet another future article in which I will dive deeper into the covenant purposes of Jesus first coming.

A Christian's Response: The Jewish Requirements for Maschiach

2009-05-29T16:19:00.003-04:00

This post comes in response to a comment on a previous post, Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up, by a Jew with the charge that Jesus did not meet the full list of requirements for the Maschiach (Messiah). I asked and was given this list by Tabatha aka "A Jew with a View" and so I've decided to post it here with some brief commentary. In a later post, I will provide a more detailed outline of Christian Messianism as it relates to the Jewish criticism of Jesus' claims to the Messiah title, "Anointed One."

My comments here will be color coded:
Already met in Jesus
Promised at Jesus' return
Incorrect exegesis resulting in a false criterion

He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10)
Realizing that Jews reject Jesus' lineage because he is not a son of Joseph, I will address this point in a later post, but for here, state simply that Christian theology accepts this as being met in Jesus.

The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with “fear of God” (Isaiah 11:2)
This is the mysterious Kenosis, also rejected by Jews. However, I want to challenge the meaning of "an observant Jew." Observant of Jewish traditional legalism, or of God's law?

Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)
That's what we're waiting for!

There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
That's what we're waiting for!

All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)
Unless, of course, you're a Sadducce :-)

The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)
According to Romans, it's the remnant that will experience this. Just as it was the righteous Remnant who God saved from exile in the Old Testament.

He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)
In principle, I believe Christians agree with this. However, He will wage war to destroy the enemy before peace can be established.

The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)
Close, but not quite. This text does not promise a restoration for all of the cities of Israel, but rather We await the restoration of Jerusalem.

Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)
Umm... ok, I guess. Not one that Christians emphasize greatly, but probably goes hand-in-hand with the perfect peace that will be established.

The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot.
That's what we're waiting for! The Temple represents God's glory on earth. Even though there's some difficulty around the presence of animal sacrifice in view of Christ's eternal sacrifice, but Dr. Constable gives a good description in his commentary.

He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9)
What's left after judgment, yes.

Jews will know the Torah without Study (Jeremiah 31:33)
Many view this as having happened, at least partially, with the indwelling. However, this, along with the following verse 34, will happen in perfection when we receive our resurrected bodies at His return.

He will give you all the desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)
Umm... ok, I guess. But, I do like John Piper's definition that the true desires of our heart are for God Himself.

He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9).
That's what we're waiting for!

Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4)
Close, but rather we hold that He will rule over all nations Himself.

The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17)
What's left after judgment, yes.

The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)
I agree. I am of the persuasion, based on Romans 10-11, that ethnic and national Israel will hold a position of higher importance in the Millenial Kingdom.

Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)
And to Christ. Just before they're judged, yes.

He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10).
Hi, I'm a gentile, and I believe in the Messiah :-)

Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9)
Can't wait!

The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26)
Close, but what Isaiah had in mind was not the Sanhedrin of Jesus' day. He clearly says, judges as in days of old.

All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)
I agree. I am of the persuasion, based on Romans 10-11, that ethnic and national Israel will hold a position of higher importance in the Millenial Kingdom.

In My Fathers House There Are Many Rooms...

2009-05-29T07:50:00.005-04:00

This post comes in response to a question posed by Tabatha at AskScripture.com. Tabatha (a self-proclaimed Jew) writes:

There is, I seem to recall, a beautiful piece of writing in the Christian bible; I don't know all of it but it starts with, I think: 'My father's house has many mansions'...?

I've always liked it, though I don't remember where I first read or heard it. It would just be great to learn a bit about the full piece of text?

How do you interpret that first line?

Thanks for asking, Tabatha. I have to admit that I'm hesitant at first--knowing from our past exchanges that you're much more familiar with Jewish tradition than I--to add my commentary on this passage, but I trust that what the Lord has to say through this passage will not be hindered by my commentary. I hope, in fact, that He uses me to illuminate in a way that's glorifying to Him.

The passage comes from John 14:2, during what is called the Passion Week that led up to Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus had predicted his own death in chapter 12, to His own disciples' dismay. Then, in the scene that immediately precedes this text, Jesus then foretells that it will be the denial and betrayal of His own disciples that will lead to His death. Peter, specifically, says He will "follow" Jesus where He goes--which is of course, to death--but Jesus predicts just the opposite for Peter.

Now, we also know from the other parallel accounts of this occasion (the synoptic Gospels) that it was at this very meal where Jesus declares the "New Covenant" in His blood. This brings us, at last to the context of the house and the rooms. One of the clearest descriptions of the old and new covenants is found in Jeremiah 31:32, where God describes the new covenant in this way:

"It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"

Both covenants, New and Old are likened to that of marriage. God was a "husband" to Israel, leading them by the hand--an affectionate term. Likewise, the Church is called the bride of Christ in Ephesians 5:32. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the covenant of marriage is modeled after God's covenant with His people, rather than that His covenant is modeled after marriage. (See The Nuptial Gospel for deeper discussion)

And so, at last I've laid the contextual groundwork for dissecting the passage of Scripture in question. In John 14:1-4, Jesus tells his disciples:

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going."

Although the Latin Vulgate and the King James versions both translated "rooms" as "mansions"--the better understanding would be "rooms." Literally, it's a dwelling place. But, whereas we consider a dwelling place to be it's own freestanding home, not so in the lower classes of this culture--such as the fisherman, carpenters, and so on. The custom practice was for a bridegroom to work during the year of his engagement on building a new addition, like a lean-to, onto his father's house. This would be where he and his new bride would live in the years after their marriage until, hopefully, someday he could begin his own family or inherit his father's house.

Jesus' message here to His disciples is that, though He is leaving them for a while, He is still their groom. He goes to prepare a place for them in the Father's house. Similar to the first covenant, which was established by the blood of a bull and mediated through Moses, Jesus here is giving a poignant metaphor for the love and care that is represented in the New Covenant, which He was about to confirm by His own blood (Luke 22:20) and would mediate Himself as our high priest (Hebrews 4:14-15).

And if He is departing temporarily, but remains their promised groom, then He certainly will return for them. That is the assurance He offers in verse 3. The eschatological meaning of this is still debated, but whether it is a pre-tribulation rapture that is in view, the descent of the new Jerusalem, or simply a metaphorical description of their reuniting at their own death, the end result cannot be mistaken. We will live in an everlasting loving relationship with God.

In the verses that follow, Jesus goes on to describe the mysterious relationship between Himself and God, their unity as one God-Head, and yet the distinction of Jesus as "the way" to the Father. For a more in depth look at this topic, refer to We Beheld His Glory, We Beheld His Glory Part II, Learning from the Kenosis, and Christ the Mediator.

Christians, Messianics, and Jews

2009-05-27T08:17:00.003-04:00

I have been enjoying an exchange of thought and positions with a blogger who calls himself "A Jew with a View." The more I read about his "bouts" with the Messianic Jews, the more I tend to realize that Christianity thinks that a Jew is something entirely different than an orthodox Jew does. Nomenclature is the root of so many arguments.

First, I have to confess that I can understand and relate to several points he has made stating that Jews themselves define what Judaism is, and it excludes those who worship a man--even the God-Man. So, in other words, the prevailing argument is that Messianics are not Jews.

However, I would like to propose that what is meant by Messianics and Christians by the term "Jew" is not the same definition as what an orthodox Jew might mean, and as such, if we can dissect the issue there may be less of an argument.

Messianics (and all Christians who actually understand orthodox theology... probably an equally minor proportion as in Judaism) understand that what it means to be Jewish is to be an Israelite in covenant with the One God wherein, among many other facets, sins are forgiven by expiation through a sacrifice.

If in fact Judaism and Christianity can agree up to this point, then the key difference is not in whether a person follows Jewish interpretation of the covenant--or rather, an acceptable New Covenant as described by the Prophet Jeremiah--but whether their interpretation is in fact one Jewish interpretation.

At this point, it's prudent to point out that there is a varying viewpoint on theology even among those who call themselves Jews today--ranging from orthodox to apostate.

So, the fact remains that a few Pharisees (Paul & Nicodemus), a zealot (Peter), a Rabbi (Jesus), and several fisherman and carpenters who were all themselves Jews were the originators of this new, albeit unorthodox, interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures which undergird Christian theology and Christology. So, is the Jew with a View right in claiming that Messianics are not Jewish? That they have no claim to the name "Jewish?" I don't think so.

If by this point in reading this post you're entirely lost... I would encourage you to read up on the arguments made at http://ajewwithaview.wordpress.com and, if you are so inclined, join the discussion!

So the World May Know You Reign... You Reign in Us.

2009-05-25T12:05:00.006-04:00

One of the less fortunate effects of God having placed in me a deep reverence for His sovereignty and the doctrines that acknowledge it has been the thought process that now accompanies any worship experience. Operating out of a deeply rooted understanding that God is wholly and totally sovereign over all things, salvation included, has prompted some questioning over certain worship songs. However, rather than digress into a philosophical conundrum over the phrasing of this lyric or that, I am compelled to write today about a song that I sang yesterday to my God with incredible joy.

In the song, "Reign in Us" by Starfield, the ending chorus says,

"Come cleanse us like a flood and send us out
So the world may know you reign, you reign in us."

As I sang this song aloud it struck me how great a picture this truly is of Jesus' command to tell the whole world about the good news of the Kingdom. That the world may know God reigns, and specifically that He reigns in His people, is exactly how He has purposed for His name to be glorified from as early as His covenant with Abraham. God's reign in Israel was to cause other nations to say, "What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them" (Deut. 4:7).

In the same way, we are all to reflect the "Kingdom Values"--as our pastor has been calling it in his sermon "Jesus Speaks" series from the Sermon on the Mount. Our message to the world is to be that of proclamation of God's reign, His praiseworthy personhood, and His covenant of love with His church.

Yet, just as I do desire to go out into the world and proclaim that He reigns, and as we the Church are sent out to show that He reigns in us as a body, none of this can be shown without first the cleansing through Christ. The song declares first, "Come cleanse us." That is the prerequisite for His sending us out. When we declare His reign, it is not that we are declaring our choice to allow Him to reign. No, instead, we declare that it is He who re-created us anew, purchased us at a price, adopted us as sons, and now reigns supreme in our lives.

"But, Nick!" someone will exclaim, "The world will hear that as an undesirable dictator-god and not respond." But I ask, for whom do you proclaim? It is for God that we proclaim; it is in adoration of His son that we obey the command to go into all nations; We baptize in the name of the Father, Spirit, and Son; we teach them everything that Christ taught us; indeed it is Christ who is with us always.

So, as our desires are brought in line with God's (a nice plug for compatibalism), we pray "please reign." And, having the cleansing of His blood we are sent out to proclaim that He reigns... He reigns in us.

John Calvin - Man of the Millenium

2009-05-22T22:06:00.004-04:00

I'm starting a new book--a gift from my mother-in-law who is in every way familiar with my Calvinist bent--that is a biography on the great reformer's life. John Calvin: Man of the Millennium is a biography by Dr. Phillip Vollmer designed, as the cover tells me, to be a "family read-along." However, as I read it, I'm rather glad I don't have my family at my feet listening along.

Already about 100 pages into the book, there is nothing disgraceful or deplorable about the book that I should denounce it. However, I haven't found much to praise either, except for Vollmer's fond adoration of Calvin and very apparent respect for the works of his life. In general, as most biographies are, I suppose, the book is valuable largely for one such as myself who is totally unstudied in Calvin's life, but don't look to it for a riveting read.

That's right! Shocked? As one who has developed a theology that even I must admit is distinctly Calvinist, taught it in the church, and argued vehemently for God's sovereignty on this very blog, I am markedly unfamiliar with Calvin himself. This fact, by the way, is why I commonly cause eyebrows to raise by saying, "well, I guess most would call me Calvinist, but I don't use that term." Not that I'm decidedly against it, just that I'm not always sure what is meant by the term in the mind of the one applying it to me and I suppose I should be sure that I know what is meant first, too.

I've already determined that one of my next reads will have to be Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. And, by now, you might ask yourself what in the world I have read. Well, Romans... a lot :-) Not to mention the 65 other canonical books that accompany it. In a previous post, The Layman's Library, you'll notice most of my study includes reference material, commentaries, and of course, audio learning from BiblicalTraining.org.

All in all, I look forward to enjoying the relaxed pace this weekend of reading my book and escaping work for three days. I do look forward to what I'll learn from it. However, I'm fully aware that as Monday winds down I'll be good and ready for an MP3 lecture on Old Testament Theology, or at least a heated theological debate.

An Eternal Perspective

2009-05-15T11:25:00.004-04:00

As I have been preparing for this week's lesson from James 5:7-12, I can't help but feel a sense of deja vu. Over the past several years, it seems that in nearly every study I've taught, we come across a passage with a similar theme. Live with an eternal perspective. Hmm... could it be this is a significant theme to the New Testament authors? Likely so.

Peter, in chapter 1 of his first epistle, told his readers to rejoice in their inheritance. Solomon, in Ecclesiastes, writes on and on about the vanity of vanities in a life lived without eternal perspective. In a lesson that even predates my blogging archives, I distinctly recall Paul's emphasis on the eternal perspective in his discussion on Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 and of course even more directly in chapter 15.

What's this all amount to? We're living in a temporary state. James has already told his readers, "You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes" (James 4:14). And, while I can say this and most who read it think to themselves, yes, we already know that. But do we live as though we know it?

There are a small handful of examples James points out in our text for this week. First, have the patience of a farmer. Now, we aren't the landowners, so we don't reap the harvest. We are, as Jesus put it, the workers for the field. But we must be patient. And why is that so hard? Because there's no fun all summer long until the harvest in the fall.

The festival is only when the work is over. Right now, we're sowing and plowing with little immediate payout for our work today--when, oh when, can we finally enjoy the feast of firstfruits that the Church has been awaiting for nearly 2000 years? When Christ returns we will celebrate with unbridled joy. But until that day the sun beats down, weeds keep popping up, and we must live entirely by faith while our wages we await in heaven.

James gives a great example of this sort of delayed gratification--one that we are to take as a model for our ministry on earth. "Take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord," James says (5:10). It's the same thing we read in 1 Peter which I commented on in an earlier article called, "Theopneustos."

They weren't serving themselves at all... ever thought about that? Get a message from God, have no idea what it means, and you're pretty sure nobody in your lifetime ever will, but you record it anyways for the benefit of people to come centuries after you. What a task!

It's impossible for us to fully grasp the notion of eternal life. We're told, however, to live as though we do... or at least try. Why? It's simple: because there is no higher hope. There is no better solace for the suffering servant of God than the hope for things yet unseen. In what has become on of my most often quoted passages, Paul writes: "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men" (1 Cor. 15:19).

Unnatural?

2009-05-11T17:03:00.004-04:00

This post comes from my good friend and fellow believer, Adam Daulton:

So I was studying for my Compensation Management final on Friday afternoon during lunch. I was reading about how the cost of compensating employees, especially in the modern world, has gone up. A big area that it has gone up is health care costs. The book mentioned that because people today view death as unnatural, money and resources are spent extending the life of terminally ill people, which eventually roles back to the cost of health care.

This got me thinking. I've never viewed death as unnatural. I've always viewed it as natural as birth, pooping, eating, sleeping, breathing, and everything else that we as humans do. Without death there is no life. Death is just another thing that happens in life, it just happens at the end of it. Death, not only is the end of life on this earth, but defines what life is.

The more I have thought about this view of death being unnatural, the more that I am grateful for my salvation through Jesus Christ and relationship with Him. Don't get me wrong, I love life! I love sunny mornings and thunderstorms rolling over cornfields, but at the same time I do not see life as warding off death. When it comes time for me to die, whether that is today or 50 years from now, it is going to be as natural as going home to eat some of Mom's lasagna.

So that is what I've been thinking this weekend that dying is natural. Just some food for thought...any comments are appreciated!

May there be a road,

Adam

Philippians 1:20-21:

According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed , but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

P.S. Also, please don't take this as a view for or against extending the life of terminally ill people. It is just a thought on the idea of death being unnatural. Thanks.

I have the pleasure of teaching this Sunday on the topic of taking on for oneself an eternal perspective. If nothing else, the text for this Sunday--James 5:7-12--teaches us that whatever we face in these "last days," it is incomparable to that which we await at Christ's return.

The Prodigal God

2009-04-28T08:16:00.002-04:00

I'm currently a little over half-way through the book by Timothy Keller called "The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith" in which Keller gives an eye-opening exegesis of the popular parable of the Prodigal Son. As with any Biblical text that we consider "familiar," we can fall into the trap of believing we already understand the meaning. But Keller challenges the most mature Christian and student of Scripture to look at this text anew.

In the popular "Sunday-school" reading of the parable, the focus falls on the father's love even in the face of the younger son's rebellion. The obvious implications fall on God's freely given grace to sinners as wretched as we are. Personally, this is a text and an application that I can identify very easily with. My laundry list of active rebellion and sin piled high during my teenage years, and when I finally came to sense the depth and riches of God's grace I was truly overwhelmed.

But, for many have spent their entire lives in the church, never acting out in rebellion, the story has more of a distant, philosophical meaning. There's little-to-no personal realization of weighty sin and "total depravity" because those traits have never been evident in the morally strict and righteous members of the church. "Oh, that's so nice of God to save all those really nasty people," they may think.

Keller, however, draws the reader's attention to the elder brother. Having obeyed perfectly and slaved all his life for the father, doesn't he, too, deserve a feast and a fatted calf? The reflections that Keller brings out in the book I won't spoil too much here, but I particularly enjoyed his charge to the morally strict in the Church: why do you do what you do? Is it out of love and adoration for God, or a deep-rooted sense that by following His commands you can in fact control your own life? Jesus' original audience, of course, was the Pharisees gathered around Him, angrily watching as Jesus dared to teach sinners about God.

If you've spent a life of chastity and purity out of devotion to God, I applaud you. But, be warned that there are two kinds of lost people for whom Jesus seeks. The first is obvious, the younger son who rebels. The second, less obvious, is the morally upright who do not fully understand why they obey as they do.

I'll leave you with this story from Elizabeth Elliot: for whom do you carry the stone?

Prayer Requests, Anybody?

2009-04-21T07:40:00.002-04:00

"Ok, before we close, does anybody have any prayer requests?" Everyone looks at one another blankly. Finally, the silence is broken, "My uncle's cousin's neighbor's dog was hit by a car two weeks ago... so, ummm... yeah, that kinda makes me sad."

As I have led various Bible studies and small groups over the years, it's been difficult for me to discern whether certain requests are genuine needs, simply an escape from unbearable silence, or offered as a cover up for what a person is really feeling deep down. Consequently, I've stopped asking for prayer requests in large classes of recent. What I've found shouldn't be a shock: nobody missed it.

This leads me to wonder, what concept of prayer and of prayer requests does the Church proliferate these days? Is it the humbling experience of going before our adoptive Father casting all our anxiety on Him and asking, gratefully yet expectantly, for the things we deeply need? Or, is it the grown-up evolution of a childish Sunday-school exercise? If that statement sounds a bit harsh, maybe it is. Maybe we should be rebuked for showing irreverence and contempt for the privilege of prayer which we have been given by our Lord and Father.

Equally as disconcerting is the reflection that this makes on our interpersonal bonds within the Church. How often do we resist sharing "real" prayer needs within a group because of the impact it may have on our facade of self-sufficiency. We are a people of independence, strength, and personal triumph. What need do we have to share our deepest weaknesses with those around us?

It is clear that there are appropriate times and places for sharing our deepest struggles. Certain levels of trust and confidence must be established. Nonetheless, whose responsibility is it to seek out such genuine relationships in the church? To find for oneself spiritual accountability? It is our own, and we should not only seek it, we should crave it.

My charge is twofold: if a situation does not allow for genuine prayer concerns to be shared--concerns that will edify you and result in praise and honor of God--then do not act out of compulsion to share something for prayer. Why not? Because my second charge is this: consider what you bring before the throne of God. He does not--like some friends might--need for you to bring Him problems in order that he can feel wanted, needed, and loved. We need not invent items about which to pray so that God will feel honored that we are praying to Him. He wants us to come before Him genuinely so that He can love us genuinely by meeting our genuine needs.

Contextualization of Scriptural Teaching

2009-04-19T13:58:00.002-04:00

Much has been written and argued over the contextualization of "the Gospel" in the past century of global missions. The issue, not to oversimplify, really hinges on how malleable God's word is to fit our cultural backgrounds. But, aside from the Gospel contextualization is the often-overlooked issue of contextualizing other, non-salvific teachings in Scripture. What does the metaphor "salt of the earth" really mean? I hardly think it meant anything related to ice, snow, or ice cream to any of Jesus' original listeners in the arid countryside of Judea.

While that certainly is a comical example, there are far more serious instances where a failure to interpret the Biblical texts within a right understanding of the original context--including time, culture, setting, and audience--can bring a grossly varied application of scripture. If I dare attempt to cite all examples of this common in the Church today, I very well may go on forever. And, unfortunately, I still will probably not find every one.

Instead, I'm writing today namely out of retrospect on the lesson that I prepared over the past week and delivered this morning: James 3:1-18. The NIV's rendering of the text has helped to propagate the common misunderstanding that "not many of you should presume to be teachers" (James 3:1). Fearful of the judgment that may befall a teacher, especially one who presumes to be a teacher when in fact they are not called by God, can lead to the most riduculous paranoia of teaching a children's Sunday School class or, God-forbid, even pursuing a career in public education.

But, what did James have in mind when he penned this text? Was their a signup sheet for Vacation Bible School teachers with too many names on it? In 50 ad, I hardly think so. So what does the text tell us? The KJV, I'm afraid, does a far better job rendering the literal meaning than the NIV. "Be not many masters." In essence, James writes to the congregations, "Don't be a bunch of teachers."

If you study and understand the setting in which this letter from James was written, we can more accurately understand the meaning before applying it directly to our own culture without proper exegesis. Churches in James' day were small, intimate gatherings. By Paul's instructions for orderly worhsip in 1 Corinthians 14, we get a picture of free-form instruction. Many people were allowed to stand and address the congregation. So what is James saying? You're not all teachers. Some of you should sit and listen.

Listen and learn. It's become easy for me, as I deepen in my own personal study, to critique a sermon as I listen rather than learn from it. As more and more Americans intellectualize scripture and become sure of their own understandings, we can shift from the mindset of an active participant in Bible study to an all-out indomitable expert their to offer our unsolicited feedback and waiting eagerly for our next turn to talk. James says, "don't be a big bunch of teachers." Fear the tongue, and allow that fear to keep it in check.

Good Friday Reflections

2009-04-10T09:41:00.003-04:00

When I was growing up, Easter (and Christmas) was always a big holiday for our family, but Good Friday tended to be less of a concern. I suppose it stemmed from the fact that we saved religion for Sundays, or perhaps it was because we were Quaker and Good Friday is what those "other" sacrament-based religions did. For whatever reason, it wasn't until recently that Good Friday became a serious occasion for me.

Now, I'm not hear to discuss the deviations from the Jewish calendar and the Roman calendar, the variants on the day passover was observed according to the synoptics vs. John, or any other discussion on whether or not today, Good Friday, is exactly the day of the year Christ was crucified. It's not really about that. It's about setting aside a minimum of one day out of the year on which to commemorate what Christ did for us on the cross. We celebrate this occasion publicly so that others may see, and perhaps learn about this strange tradition, and hopefully ask us, "what's so special about today?"

God intends for us to use such commemorated events as a witness to His glory. "In the future, when your son asks you, 'What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?' tell him: 'We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand'" (Deut. 6:20-21). The practices that seemed odd to foreigners in Israel opened the door for God's people to tell about His mighty deliverance, His mercy, and His love.

Likewise, I pray that someone asks me today, "What's so 'good' about Good Friday?" There's quite a story to tell. It's a story of God's deliverance from slavery we didn't even know we were in. His mercy to withdraw wrath we still can't even comprehend. And His love to do so while we were far from deserving it, or even desiring it.

So, as Christians, I urge you to not dismiss the significance and the holiness of a holiday such as this. There is a growing sentiment that the holiday itself is unimportant, and we should instead commemorate Christ's death every day, not just one. Well, there is honest intentions, I believe, in this teaching. Yet, it does defy what God decreed should be an effective and honoring method for sharing His truth with those who might not know Him yet.

Have a blessed Good Friday.

Faith That Works

2009-04-03T08:21:00.005-04:00

People call me a "free gracer," or even a "cheap gracer," because I have (and still do) intellectually agree that the prospect of a once-believing Christian could die apostate and, to our surprise, be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven. Is it the standard? No. Is it to be pursued? No. Yet, I'm convinced that to deny that possibility on a theoretical level would contradict scripture. However, despite whatever theoretical possibilities exist, I am also convinced and convicted that Scripture has no teaching for the encouragement, comfort, or even the invitation to live a life characterized as a "carnal Christian." Faith is not faith which has no works.

Wait wait wait! You JUST said that it's possible.... stop. I am interested in expositing what Scripture has to tell us. To agree with a theory is quite a different thing than to discharge my duty faithfully to teach the Word of God to believers called into His grace for the singular purpose of glorifying His name. We see in each morning paper that it's possible to win the lottery, and yet most of us still head off for work just the same. The person who learns of the lottery and decides to quit the work to which he is called will suffer great loss and live with zero confidence in his future. So it is with the followers of Christ.

Few passages state this truth more poignantly than the text we'll be studying this Sunday, James 2:14-26. Beginning with the challenge to anyone who "claims to have faith but has no deeds... Can such faith save him" (James 2:14)? It cuts to the heart of our theological values in evangelical protestantism: how dare you assess my deeds and ask if I am really saved! (see previous article on Faith & Deeds) But James does dare. And, he does so for the benefit and edification of his readers. Moreover, he does it for the glorification of the name his readers bear: Christ.

James describes faith without deeds as lifeless, "as the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). A body without breath or spirit is lifeless, useless, limp and inanimate. It will bear no offspring, no labor, no worth of any kind. While Luther and the rest of the protestant movement emphasize faith alone, Peter addresses this topic telling his readers to "add to your faith" (2 Peter 1:5). After describing a laundry list of works that result from and add to faith, Peter concludes "they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive" (2 Peter 1:8).

But probably the most debated point that comes from the faith and deeds topic is that of eternal security. In James 2:18 we read a charge that few of us dare to place on any brother or disciple in the faith: "show me." While his readers were presuming upon the grace of God, so confident in it that they thought their actions were irrelevant, James saw fit to sweep that blanket of security right out from under them. "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder" (James 2:19).

If we continue reading in Peter's exhortation to "add" to your faith, we are told to "make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall" (2 Peter 1:10). Who needs to be sure? The one who called and elected us? Certainly not. But if you know a tree by it's fruit, you will know you are His child by your fruit. If you are marked by the Spirit, a seal guaranteeing your inheritance, then you will see the mark in the Spirit's work. If you were buried with Christ in order to be raised again with Him, then you can eagerly await that assured resurrection when you indeed die to yourself for the sake of Christ. But if you presume upon His grace, as a worker would presume upon the lottery, you will forsake the blessing of confidence before God for a blind hope of salvation without any credible evidence.

Faith & Deeds: Your Window to the World of Works

2009-03-31T10:21:00.005-04:00

I am preparing this week to teach on the much debated passage, James 2:14-26. As I come to the text looking for God to show me what He has to say (and not what my own theological bent has to say) on the topic, the first thing that He has made clear to me is that my window on the world is--as everyone's--tinted.

If I ask a room full of evangelicals, "What do you have to do to earn justification through Christ?" There will come a swarm of answers affirming that I must "do" nothing but rather I must merely believe. The mantra of "grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone" would no doubt be touted, perhaps while fists pound in palms (ok, maybe not that extreme). Yet, it's clear that this passionate stance against works-based salvation is a product of our window on the world (and of course the baited way in which I formed the question [grin]). The shaddow from which we in the Evangelical movement are fleeing includes puritanism, fundamentalism, and a unique flavor of late-modern legalism that all amount to a great distaste for "works" emphases.

Martin Luther, too, rose against the "works" emphasized gospel of his day with a similar passion. So much so, in fact, that he is on record as calling the book of James an "epistle of straw" and perhaps even challenging its canonization. Luther was surrounded by a type of Pharisee-like legalism so strong that he polarized to the other extreme. That theme has been a back-bone of protestantism in general that sticks with us today.

Even more important to understanding the scripture at-hand, however, is not our own tinted windows on the world, but that of the Biblical authors that stand seemingly at odds: Paul and James.

Paul, a pharisee by training, faced largely the false-teaching of Judaisers and addressed those fallacies head-on in his epistles. This is made especially clear by his emphasis on the Law and circumcision. When we read Paul's words, "not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:9), bear in mind the boasting he describes in Romans 3:27, "Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith." In fact, Paul's opposition to the legalism of the Judaisers is very closely paralleled to Luther's opposition to the Medieval Catholicism of his day.

James, however, peers through a very different window on the world and on the Church(es) which he oversaw. Likely a carpenter like his father, uneducated, and close companion of Jesus during His earthly ministries, James (in exact agreement with Paul) saw the transformed life a crucial aspect of a justified person's faith. James faced a movement of apathy and intellectualism in the church--one that disregarded the actions of the body and focused on the knowledge of the mind. This is made especially clear by the works that James cites in his discourse on faith and deeds in chapter 2: giving to the needy (verses 15-16), surrendering all to God (verses 21-22), and trusting the Lord (verse 25). James does not enforce that justification is by works in the sense that Paul defined works--following the Law and being circumcised. In fact, James is recorded in Acts 15 as speaking out against legalism for the converted Gentiles.

So, getting back to our own window on the world, ask yourself: what positions does this "works based salvation" that I oppose really include, and what might it not? More importantly, what is James really telling his readers in their day and in their context... and what is he not?

Oh, and just so I don't leave a loose-end untied, Luther himself later resolved that "Faith alone justifies, but the faith which justifies is never alone" as he came to understand that faith in Christ will certainly manifest in works.

A Lengthy Response - RE: Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up

2009-03-27T14:52:00.004-04:00

If you've been following the comment string of my previous article: Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up, you may have noticed an escalating string of comments from an anonymous reader. I admire the thought and clarity with which he/she has responded and I think there are valid questions raised worth addressing, so I have decided to create a lengthy response to the most recent comment in this new post.

In an item-by-item fashion, allow me to reply...

1. Christianity is not a divine religion. It is a political creation of the Roman Empire designed to control the Jews.

Yes, and Judaism is not a divine religion either, it's the syncretistic product of an Egyptian outcast fascinated with the Messopotamian mythologies and Semitic culture... fooey. To establish a pacifying religious figure-head amid the rebellious Jewish people may seem a plausible scheme of the Romans, until you consider: just how big of a threat were the Jews to Rome? Did they merit such an outlandish ruse? If they could pull off such a covert operation with such success that nobody diverted from the political line for centuries, maybe they should have dreamed up such a plan for dealing with the Visigoths?

What's more is the the Biblical writings don't support the notion at all. Yes, as mentioned before, it may seem appealing to invent a character such as Jesus who may pacify the Jews, but it's obvious from the beginnings of the Gospels that the Jews rejected Christ. If the intent in creating a false religion was to win over the rebellious Jews to follow their pacifist leader, would the gospels and Acts have portrayed Jewish rejection of Christ so clearly?

No, this is not a valid approach to history.

2. There is no place in Judaism for a messiah that does part of his job, then dies, then comes back and finishes the job.

Well, then it appears the Romans didn't do their research before defining this character that they invented, eh? Oh, sorry... I digress. We're on the 2nd point now. Right.

Could it also be said that there was no place in Judaism for God to make Abraham into a great nation... destroy it... and then do it all over again? Actually, my friend Anonymous, I agree with you. Inasmuch as Judaism had become by the 1st century more of a pattern of traditions than (as you called it) a "divine religion," there was no place in their tradition for a Messiah such as Jesus was and is. You are quite correct.

However, I believe what you may have been trying to say is that there is no place in the divine Hebrew texts (our "Old Testament") for such a Messiah. I confess that I'm not as well versed in Old Testament theology as I should be, so I won't dare venture into a passage-by-passage discourse of how each prophecy can be reconciled. However, I would like to submit that Hebrew writings were never very exact when it came to chronology and continuity (except in cases when they expressly aimed to be, such as Jonah's 3-day visit to fish gut).

By way of example, I'll offer two: first, Adam was told not to eat of the tree for, "when you eat of it you will surely die" (Gen. 2:17). Yet, he did not die... at least not "when" he ate of it. Secondly, consider David's anointing (Messiah) as King. In 1 Samuel 16, David is anointed as king by the prophet of God and Saul is proclaimed to no longer be king. But, David is not king for another 30 years. He was king already, but not yet.

I will, again, reiterate my agreement with Anonymous that this sort of "already but not yet" messianism has no place in traditional Judaism. But it is nonetheless a hermeneutically sound approach to the Messianic prophecies.

3. There are 5 or 6 things that the Jewish messiah must do in order to qualify. These include (off the top of my head) - gather the exiles, build the temple, usher in an era of peace (perhaps preceded by a large war according to some people's interpritation)... and there are others I can't remember right now.

Ahh, and there lies the real issue. All of the items cited herein are a part of traditional Jewish Messianism. On these grounds, the earlier point that Jesus did part of His job, died, and will later return to finish it is actually misrepresented. Jesus did not do any part of this "job" according to the Jewish Messianism. He promised it. He predicted it. But he left every ounce of it undone at His death. In fact, it should interest Jewish readers that the New Testament writings from Acts through Revelation (especially Revelation) express a burning desire to see all of the traditional Jewish Messianic prophecies fulfilled.

However, Jesus' first trip to this terrestrial ball had other goals in mind. He was fulfilling Jeremiah 31:31 before Isaiah 11:6. Christianity does not claim that Christ has already fulfilled all of the Messianic roles. The chief difference in a Christian's present anticipation of a future Messiah and the Jew's present anticipation of a future Messiah is that Christians already know Him by name.

4. ...The Christian interpritation of the messiah involves supernatural stuff, the Jewish messiah is an emancipated empowered mortal human being who brings about real dramatic change to the real world...

How sad a prospect to think that God cannot accomplish the "supernatural." What do Jews do with the "supernatural" elements of their own cherished scriptures? Which is easier, to part the red sea or to raise a man from the dead? And, if you cannot trust that God really parted a sea, then why would you believe his promise to send a peacemaker in the future--mortal or otherwise?

Jesus was a great man... to be denied messiahship is not an insult, it is a great credit to him that he was a contender.

Ah, yes, just as it was an honor for Yahweh to be a 'contender' for the Israelite's worship, right up there with all the other gods... oh, wait, that's not how God thinks at all. "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 42:8).

The Devil Made You Do What?

2009-03-13T09:42:00.002-04:00

This Sunday, I have the privilege of teaching from James 1:13-18. The title that was assigned to my lesson is "The Devil Made You Do What?" Although culturally iconic, I'm not sure it accurately represents the dilemma represented in the text. To anyone who has ever noodled on the topic of God's sovereignty, the issue that James addresses here could be more aptly stated as, "God made you do what?"

Having just introduced in the previous verses a counter-intuitive approach to trials in which the suffering reader should rejoice that God is producing character in such a way, James now moves on to a very strongly related matter. It's no accident, in fact, that the same word translated as "trial" in verse 2 is also translated "temptation" in verse 13.

In the many character-building experiences we endure through life, we have two options: follow Christ or follow our sinful nature. To react to any situation in a way unworthy of Christ is to sin. So, naturally, if God sends trials, is it God who tempts us to sin? James addresses this misconception head-on: NO!

As many of us logical creatures might desire a well-developed explanation of how this can be so, James instead appeals to a different argument: the character of God. He does not delve into dangerous re-definition of terms or create slithery distinctions of the permissive vs. active will. To James, there is no need. God's character alone answers the question, all that's left is our faith to accept it. Faith, that is, in who God has revealed Himself to be, not in how God has (or hasn't) revealed Himself to perform.

Once we accept God's character as the under-girding principle that answers our question, we're left with one shameful realization: who we are in contrast to His revealed character. The very next verse draws the damning conclusion that temptation does not, in fact, come from God but from our own sinful natures. We men, the ones created pure and yet determined to spoil it, stand inquiring of God, "why did you put me in the situation where I could sin?" when all along the ONLY one in the entire universe that is totally undeserving of any allegations is God Himself.

The fact is, we can't even face good times, let alone trials, without burning with sinful desires. We don't need God's help to find excuses to sin. It's not as though the trials that He brings us in any way deepen the effect of the fall in our lives. No, in all situations we are damned to sin. Praise be to God, the Father of the heavenly lights, who gives us a good and perfect gift in His Son.

The Nuptial Gospel

2009-03-07T15:53:00.003-05:00

By now, the term "social gospel" is pretty widely known, but what's the nuptial gospel? I'll tell you... it's a made up term I just invented. Or at least I think I did. Although I haven't done my due diligence in a trademark and patent search, it was new to me when I thought of it last night.

The social gospel, stripped of it's theologically debatable earmarks and connotations, is at it's heart the principal that THE gospel can (or should, depending on who you ask) be conveyed in the genuine care for those socially needy. This is a Biblical concept, no doubt. "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it" (James 2:15-16)?

In an opportunity that the Spirit created and led me through last night, I found a similar connection between the familiar (felt needs) and the unfamiliar (the gospel to non-believers) that proved very useful. What can a man understand and relate to the love of God if he is not "socially needy." In this case, the married man struggling in his marriage could relate to the covenant love that God has modeled for us.

"Why does she need to deserve your love?" I asked. He didn't quite know what to say. The answer was exceedingly obvious to him, doesn't everyone need to work to deserve love? I explained that her attitude and actions toward him would be more positively effected if he focused less on correcting her (or "parenting" her as he put it) but simply on loving her unconditionally and caring for her. From a psychological standpoint, it made sense to him how this was sound advice.

With that established, I decided now would be a good time to break all social etiquette and bring God up in the midst of a perfectly good normal conversation. "You know, that's what God does for us," I said. His blank stare let me know I had the opportunity to say more. I explained how marriage isn't just something we invented. If we (men, that is) made it up in our own wisdom, we wouldn't have chosen to be monogamous nor would we reserve sex for marriage. To this observation, I received a glowing agreement and buy in... the Spirit was moving.

"So, who made it up? God did. And He told us that, when it's working well, it mimics the way He loves us." Now we're getting somewhere. I was able to make the correlation between his appropriate love for his wife and God's love for his people. "It's nice for me to know that when I screw up, divorce isn't an option for God. That's why it's not an option for me and my wife."

Did He get on his knees and convert? No. But for the first time in a long time I was able to engage this friend in an overt and open discussion about God, His Son, and man that didn't end in a scoff at my faith or an awkward lack of response. So, am I ready to formulate the "nuptial gospel" as a church-wide strategy for conversions? No. But I did find it's effectiveness very moving, and I was grateful to God for giving me the words. I share it today because perhaps your looking for that open door with someone you know. Are they married? Give it a shot.

Jesus is Lord

2009-02-22T17:10:00.004-05:00

In our continued study of the Person and Work of Christ, we come to the study of His Lordship. The earliest creed of the church, recorded in Romans 10:9-10, is a simple three-word phrase that's rich with meaning. "Jesus is Lord." What does it mean to confess with one's mouth that Jesus is Lord? And, more importantly, what does it mean that Jesus is Lord?

First, a confession that Jesus is Lord is a statement of allegiance. Satan is god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), ruler of the kingdom of the air (Eph. 2:2). But when we confess with our mouth that he is not Lord, Jesus is Lord, we defect from the rule of darkness and claim citizenship in heaven—in a kingdom that we eagerly await here on earth. We henceforth make ourselves outcasts. Surrounded by devout patriots in an evil dominion, we have confessed publicly that Jesus is Lord. We have no inheritance, no place, no citizenship in this realm anymore.

So, who is the Lord for whom we have abandoned all comforts to follow? Ephesians 1:20-23 gives the clear description of how total and sovereign His rule really is. "Far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given," Jesus is in fact sovereign over Satan himself.

What's more, He is Lord over us all men as well. As we read on in Ephesians 2, we see the effect of our former allegiance to the kingdom of this age, that we were by nature objects of wrath. We were dead in that transgression prior to defecting to the Lord. So, by what means did we defect to Jesus' reign? God "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:5).

It is in this truth that we realize the fallacy of the misinterpretation of this verse, that we are saved when we "make Jesus Lord in our Lives." We do nothing to make Jesus Lord. He is Lord. The earliest creed found in Romans 10 is a humble confession that He is Lord. He is the Lord so powerful that He saved us while we were unable to save ourselves, unable to defect.

But praise be to God. By grace He has called us, and in faith we respond confessing, "Jesus is Lord."

Rejoicing in God's Sovereignty

2009-02-18T14:32:00.002-05:00

I was at breakfast this morning with my accountability partner, doing a quick Bible study and spending time in prayer as we usually do. This morning was not uncommon from many others. From the moment I woke, the pressures of being a business owner in this economy were weighing on my mind. I drove to meet Jeff, half thinking about the study we would be doing, but mostly thinking about how I would find the business to keep alive in the coming months.

I sat down with Jeff. We talked back and forth about how our weeks were going. We shared the trials that we were facing in business and the challenges that we have in finding new contracts. After the catch-up, we opened to our reading for the day. We've been reading through the history of Israel for about 2 years now, starting in 1 Samuel. Today, by what some might call coincidence, we happened to be on the last chapter of 1 Kings.

No self-respecting Calvinist can be unfamiliar with this text. It's an oft-cited text in the academic debate between God's permissive and His direct control over evil in the world. However, this morning it was not that facet of this account that stimulated me the most. As we read together through the story and discussed what God had to show us from the text, the lesson became obvious: God is in control no matter what. No matter what prophets (or business analysts) a person listens to, what evil motives shape their decision, or even how they disguise themselves in the world, God's purpose will stand.

Ahab did everything humanly possible to defy God's plan and decree that he should die. Dressed in commoner's clothes, Ahab was still killed by what the narrator calls a "random" flight of an arrow. But random as it may have been to the archer and to Ahab, God's plan was sovereign over all.

Where do I find joy in life when life seems stacked against me? Nowhere else but in the comfort that God is indeed working all things for the good of those whom He has called (Romans 8:28). Jeff and I laughed as we recalled the many times in our own respective businesses that we had struggled and strived to earn business by all conventional wisdom, only to have seemingly random chance bring us into contact with our next major client.

It was well after 8:00 when we parted ways for the morning and I headed off to the office. My mood was notably different than just an hour previous. Has God promised me wealth? No. Has He promised me a life without trials? Actually quite the opposite. But has He promised to meet my needs? Yes. I rejoice knowing that God is totally sovereign, and I cannot imagine having hope in His providence if He were anything less.

Be the Change

2009-02-15T17:30:00.002-05:00

As a firm believer in the providence of God, I know the events of this morning were no accident. First, I taught this week on Jesus' message of internal transformation. After class, I listened to a sermon that delved deeper into Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of God within us. And during it all I sat next to a mentally handicapped gentlemen who, I must confess, tests every ounce of my patience.

I first met Tom (I've changed his name for obvious reasons) about 2 years ago at our church. He lives in a small community across the street where several apartments are leased to people with varying degrees of handicap. A social worker checks in from time to time on each person, none of whom possess the capacity to be totally independent. As a result of our proximity, our church welcomes frequent guests from this community.

From day one, Tom's goal at our church has been evident. In fact, he's not bashful about his objective at all. He wants to meet a woman. Not wishing to be inappropriate, Tom is quick to qualify that of course, he would wish to marry this woman in order for their relationship to be proper. Nonetheless, he has informed us very plainly, he longs for certain desires to be met.

Boundaries have been set. All ranks of church leadership and deacons are aware of Tom's situation and single-track objective. He is never left alone with groups of women. Upon seeing him, any one of several men in our church quickly come alongside Tom and make sure to accompany him very closely throughout his visit to our church. And, despite being told very sternly on more than one occasion that we are not going to assist him in his endeavor at our church, he still returns quite frequently to attend a class and sometimes stay for worship—although his mental disabilities have severely limited his attention span, making an entire 1-hour worship service a very rare occurrence.

After wrapping up class this morning, I walked out to get some coffee where I found Tom eagerly engaging in a one-on-one conversation with a women in our church. As usual, I stepped in between, interrupting their conversation with my own cordial greeting for Tom. "Oh great," I thought to myself, "I guess it's my week to be his babysitter for the day."

For the next 20 minutes, as I listened to Tom's usual rants about not having a wife to make him happy, I caught myself in the most selfish of thought patterns. "I only get to see some of these friends once a week. I can't believe I have to be the one to babysit while they're all over their visiting. Why can't we just tell Tom what we think and not have him come back again." Much to my dismay, he decided this Sunday to join me in worship service. "Who else can I make him sit with," I thought to myself.

But it was in the pew this Sunday that God thumped me upside the head and made me see what Jesus was saying... what even I had been teaching. The sermon was from Matthew 4. As the pastor read "those having seizures... He healed them" (Matt. 4:24), Tom leaned over to me and said, "that was me, but Jesus healed me." I was frozen in my seat. I later learned that Tom was born premature and didn't breathe at all for his first few minutes after birth. As a child, he suffered seizures, but after asking Jesus for healing, they ceased. That was the reason he's been drawn to the church seeking the answer to his next major request of God: a wife.

I still don't agree with Tom's intentions at our church. I still believe he needs constant supervision. But what I learned is this: I cannot change Tom's mind, I can only change my mind toward him. With God's help, I hope to do so!

"Be the change. Be the light. Show this world what love is like." - Jake Brothers

You can be praying for me this week as I have plans to meet Tom for lunch and hopefully ease some of his obvious loneliness.

Five Things Every Christian Should Know About the Kingdom of God

2009-02-12T07:44:00.005-05:00

In our continued study of the Person and Work of Christ, we come this week to Jesus' earthly ministry. I've been rather enjoying this week of preparation in the gospels, seeing anew the old stories I thought I had learned as a child. Of particular interest has been the topic of the Kingdom of God, and seeing as how I wrote a book on the topic, you might say I have a special fondness for it. This morning, let me share with you 5 things I think every believer should know about the Kingdom of God.

It's within you.
In Luke 17:21, Jesus says that "the kingdom of God is within you." Now, though Christ has ascended, the Spirit remains to rule in our own hearts. In the Kingdom of Eden, Adam was able not to sin (posse non peccare). Prior to the giving of the Spirit, men were not able to not sin(non posse non peccare). In the present age of the inaugurated Kingdom, His subjects are able not to sin as Adam once was. But, as we will see below, we await a final consummation of all the Kingdom promises when we will be not able to sin (non posse peccare).
It's among you.
An alternate translation of Luke 17:21 might rightly read, "the Kingdom of God is among you." In fact, I believe this translation is more likely what Christ meant as He spoke and what Luke intended to communicate. Remember, at the time Jesus spoke these words, the Spirit had not yet come. In fact, Luke's gospel places little emphasis on the coming Spirit, it's in John that we find strong teaching on the role of the Spirit. The Kingdom of God was "among you" when Christ was here because the King was here. How could they fast with the King present? Why were the Pharisees asking when it would come while their King was among them?
It's already come.
As I mentioned in the first point, the Kingdom has been inaugurated now. We live in an age of Christ's rule on earth unlike any in history. He is transforming His people via the sanctifying work of the Spirit to be conformed to His likeness. In this present Kingdom, with our sins now forgiven we can approach the throne of God confidently. In fact, for those who wait for "the resurrection," it, too, has also begun as Christ was resurrected so that He might be the first.
It's yet to come.
Christ spent most of His earthly ministry filling the role of a Prophet to Israel. As a prophet, His message was to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom of God. He taught His disciples to pray saying, "your kingdom come" (Luke 11:12). He warned them about what would happen "in those days" (Mark 13:17). Even after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, Paul wrote, "our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there" (Phil. 3:20). There are numerous promises that we are waiting to be fulfilled in the final consummation of God's Kingdom on earth.
It's the same thing as the Kingdom of Heaven
A little anticlimactic, I know, but I had to slip this little tidbit into the top 5 list so that no believer would be led astray by false dispensational teachings on Matthew's use of "Kingdom of Heaven." As Matthew wrote to his Jewish readers, he respected their reverence for the name of God and substituted the word heaven in it's stead. Be assured, Christ's message recorded in Matthew on the Kingdom of Heaven is one in the same with Mark and Luke's account of the Kingdom of God.

The Undeniable Doctrine of Election

2009-02-09T07:53:00.002-05:00

There exists in the church today a misconception that election represents a controversial topic. When this misconception is perpetuated, we do an injustice to students of the Word who seek to deepen their love of God. The doctrine of election is not controversial. The doctrine of election is rarely even debated. It is the doctrine of salvation, particularly the aspect of free will, that is the root of so much strife and that is often inappropriately linked to the doctrine of election causing so many people to shriek at it's mention. But with those misconceptions and debates aside, the doctrine of election should be the most unifying truth in all of Church doctrine.

Regardless of where one may fall in the free will debate, the doctrine of election is an undeniable fact found throughout scripture. The proof texts are too numerous to count, but among the more prominent are Deuteronomy 7, John 10, Ephesians 1, and 1 Peter 1. In fact, even popular memory verses that we teach our children to recite echo the truth of election: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 John 4:10). Or, when we sing together, "I once was lost but now am found... T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear," we are proclaiming and extolling God for His election of those whom He foreknew.

So why do I say so strongly that to misrepresent the doctrine of election is an injustice to followers of Christ? Is it because I am just another radical and irrational Calvinist to be quickly dismissed and ignored. Not at all. Need I remind you that Arminius, too, believed in election, though his definition of foreknowledge differed from mine. For that matter (though I have no evidence) I would suggest Pelagius as well would not have denied the obvious Biblical teaching that we, the Church, are chosen of God.

No, it is an injustice to pass over, as many timid teachers do, the truth that God chose us because it is in His choosing of us that we are filled the most awe and wonder. Yes, it is wondrous that He would send His Son to die, but can we really view the cross as a cosmic roll of the dice? God, hoping that some might accept His gift, crucified His Son with blind hope in our acceptance? No. Be it born out of His foreknowledge of us or His foreknowledge of our faith, God chose us before we chose Him. And therein lies the wonder and mystery of the love of our God.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." -- Romans 5:8

Adultered and Killed, then Born Again:The Relationship of the Atonement

2009-02-06T10:17:00.003-05:00

In our exploration of the Person and Work of Christ, we have come to the pinnacle work of Christ: the Atonement. Last week we looked in depth at the religious aspects of the atonement—the sacrificial and substitutionary aspects—while this week we discuss the relationship aspects. The relationship of God to Man is most commonly paralleled to the marriage covenant (or vise versa, technically speaking). So, how does the atonement, Christ's death on the cross, fit into our marriage with God?

In Jeremiah 31:32, God delivers a shocking verdict: "they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them." This is the picture of an adulterous wife, forsaking her husband for the sinful pleasures of another man. That is Israel, and that was even us who now make up the Church. But God makes an amazing promise in Jeremiah 31. He will establish a new covenant with them. He will remarry an adulterous wife!

As if the mercy of this new covenant offer were not amazing enough, the mystery deepens as we investigate further just what adultery meant in the Law. The punishment for adultery was death (Lev. 20:10). Another option, however, presents itself later in Deuteronomy 24, divorce, which is later cited by the pharisees in Matthew 19:7. When we read the parameters from Deuteronomy 24:4, we learn that even after divorce the Law forbids a husband to remarry the adulterous wife. In the case of God, it would be as though He sent us away to serve other gods for a time, only to change His mind and bring us back to Him. It cannot be so. We are defiled, unholy, and unable to enter into covenant relationship with God.

So then, we are left with one conclusion. With regard to our status, "What a wretched man I am!" and with regard to our sentence, "Who will rescue me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24). God deals with our adultery according to Leviticus 20, not Deuteronomy 24. He pronounces the sentence of death, not divorce. He chooses to propitiate His wrath in the death of His Son rather than divorce us and seal our fate in everlasting covenant with our idols and with satan.

It is here, in the choosing of a death sentence rather than divorce, that we see the providence of God in stunning ways. Dead with Christ, we are now dead to the Law (Romans 6-7). Given new birth, we are new creatures (2 Corinthians 5). As new creatures with the lawful wrath satisfied, we can finally see how God is both just and the one who justifies. He could not re-marry us if we did not first die, but we have indeed died with Christ and are given new life through His resurrection (1 Peter 1:3; Romans 6:4).

"Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!" -- Romans 7:25

The Secularization of Prayer

2009-02-05T07:50:00.004-05:00

I was in a print shop the other day and while I waited for my order to be completed, I stood in the lobby amidst several examples of this shop's work. One particular vinyl banner caught my eye. Although I have no idea what Eliza's Wish Foundation is, what struck me was the obvious prayer connotations on this banner. She is looking up, hands together under her chin, just as every child learns to pray at a very young age. So what's missing in this picture? For starters, Christ. Beyond that, how about any mention of prayer or God at all.

We live in a world where prayer is viewed as tantamount to wishing upon a star, as the little girl in this photo is doing. Eliza's Wish Foundation may indeed be a wonderfully helpful organization, but what glory is there to God when the world wishes for hope yet has no Savior to hope in. What hope is left when the world wishes upon a star, but never prays in the name of the Son. Most importantly, why is there still a world of lost people still wishing on stars (i.e. praying to idols) while the church sits stoic in it's four walls on the corner.

As believers, do we see the parody? Does the sight of a seemingly innocent little girl praying to a star for the hope of needy people everywhere give us any conviction that God is being robbed of His due glory. If anywhere the power of prayer is unknown, the problem begins in the Church. Do we know the power of prayer? Do we employ the power of prayer? As I myself am admittedly weak in the discipline of prayer, my wife and I have started reading "With Christ in the School of Prayer" by Andrew Murray. My prayer for my wife and I is that we learn from Christ Himself how to pray, how to remain confident in the Father's goodness, and how to use prayer to glorify His name in our lives.

What struck me in this photo is not the connotation to prayer itself, that much is not surprising at all, but it's the belief that a little girl's wish on a star is more effectual for meeting the needs of the world than the prayer of God's children to their Father. My concern is not that Eliza's Wish Foundation is doing too little prayer, it's that the Church is. My charge is not to Eliza's Wish Foundation to pray more and convert to a Christian mission, it's for the Church to meet the needs of the world in such a powerful way that those in need would have one true hope in God.

Sounds Like Greek to Me

2009-02-02T10:41:00.003-05:00

I recently endeavored to translate a book of the New Testament on my own. Previously, my knowledge in Greek was about as extensive as the alphabet, some Christianese vocabulary, and enough time in a lexicon to be dangerous with Greek text. I just recently finished teaching a class on 1 Peter, the content was fresh in my mind and I had done several word studies during my lesson preparations as well, so I decided to make 1 Peter my first translation challenge. 4 verses into the first chapter, and I have some fun anecdotes that you may find helpful in your own Greek study, or at the very least, amusing.

"us" and "you" are dangerously similar: hemas, hymas... so, it can be very easy to believe that Peter's readers were given new life so that Peter and the other Apostles could have an imperishable inheritance. Something didn't feel right about that one.
Lexicons lie... ok, so maybe they don't lie, but they don't tell the whole truth. While I'm looking at an 11-letter word with what appears to be not one but two suffixes, Strong's saw fit to spare me the trouble and only give the meaning of the 5-letter root.
The eleventh commandment should have been: Thou shall not use the same word to mean both "for" and "to."
My high school English teachers might be interested to hear this: I praise God for punctuation.
Learn your alpha beta gammas (abc's). If you insist on finding corollaries with the English alphabet, give up now. P is R. Y is G. U is M. Oh, and a different-looking U is also U... and sometimes Y... and, yes, just give up now.

I'm sure I'll have more to share as time goes on, but in all seriousness, I am very much looking forward to learning this language. As many of you have experienced, I'm sure, re-reading the same passage years later can often bring new meaning to light, or new perspectives to bear. I am hoping the same happens with this adventure, and I pray that God blesses my time and draws me nearer to Him.

The Religion and Relationship of the Atonement

2009-01-30T16:59:00.003-05:00

As I think about the people I've talked to, heard speak, or read their writings on Christ's atoning works, I realize that there are distinctly two approaches to the cross, and most of us are dominated in our thinking by one or the other. Even when we hear one perspective dripping all over a message, we may filter it through our lens on the cross and apply totally different points. Neither perspective is wrong, and neither is fully right, but they're two sides to the same coin.

First, there is the religious thinker. Theologically minded and committed to analyzing doctrinal nuances, the religious thinker is quick to identify the liturgical beauty of Christ's death. Typically this is flows from a modern mindset, very scientific and ordered. We see definite links being built between the sacrificial requirements and Christ's death. We find significance in the semantics of God's holiness, righteousness, justification, imputation, propitiation, etc. The religious thinker is able to explain the unquestionable validity of our justification by faith according to the religious codes that God Himself has established. And he's right.

Next, however, is the relational thinker. Emotionally guided and driven by the reality and impact of God's love, the emotional thinker finds solace in the wonderful act of mercy and grace that God bestowed on us in order to adopt us as His children. Typically this flows from a post-modern mindset, very compassionate and socially minded. We see emphasis placed on the suffering of Christ, the magnificent sacrifice of God to send His only son, and the heart-melting love story that the Gospel narrative unfolds. The relational thinker finds it impossible to contain his passionate response of love to the Father who first loved us. And he's right.

I've heard it said that "Christianity is not about religion." That's a relational (post-modern) fallacy. As our society swings more and more toward an outright hatred of religion and absolutes, I want to emphasize that Christ died to satisfy the very absolute realities that God had set up in His religious Law delivered through Moses. The substitutionary and sacrificial aspects of the atonement are meaningless without the context of the Law.

Yet, the power of the Gospel doesn't end there. In fact, we must remember why the Law itself was ever bestowed upon Israel, "it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers" (Deut. 7:8, emphasis mine). God is not bashful of the fact that He wants to relate to men and women at the deepest level of emotion. He shares His emotions with us in His word—love, joy, anger, and sadness. There is deep emotion and desire for relationship (note, His desire is not a need born out of weakness as the human desire often is) that surrounds Christ's atoning death. Without the expiation and reconciliation that comes through the cross, the religious context of the atonement is also meaningless.

Doctrine is nothing without grace, and grace is nothing without doctrine.

Cosmic Child Abuse: The Atonement Under Attack

2009-01-28T16:57:00.005-05:00

In his book, The Story We Find Ourselves In, Brian McLaren introduces a not-so-new concern about the atonement as his fictional character observes the atonement calling it "divine child abuse." McLaren, however, is not necessarily the front runner of this position. Steve Chalke has openly defended the atonement as "cosmic child abuse" in his papers and the book The Atonement Debate. The fact is, this line of logic does not stop with abandoning merely the idea that God intended to inflict His wrath of Christ, but leads many thinkers on the path toward total denial that God would have wrath in the first place.

I would submit to you that not only is this logic unbiblical and heretical, but it leaves one with a host of unanswered questions. Why do we commemorate and revere Christ for His death after all? How can one adopt the Christian faith in a true sense and deny the very reason for Christ's death? Can you really "follow Christ" with merely a set of moral imperatives and "love thy neighbor" ideologies? Is it true, as the world has tried so desperately to affirm, that Christ was merely a good man whose death bears no theological ramifications that would dare to impose a set of propositional truths on our convenient world of relative reality? Will we profit the human race if we can but succeed in defining God according to our ideals—with no wrath, discriminatory judgments, or sovereignty over this world?

In my last post, I posed the rhetorical question "Who Needs an Atonement Anyway?" The answer, if Mclaren and Chalke are to believed, would be nobody at all. But, praise God that we can see plainly His plan in scripture to redeem His people by the very intentional means of substituting His son in our place to expiate the Father's wrath.

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us." — 2 Corinthians 5:21

Not only that, but the plan was not a mystery to the Son. This cannot be considered child abuse as the Son fully understoods the will of the Father when he emptied Himself in order to carry out His purpose.

"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." — Matthew 20:28

Substitution is at the heart of what the atonement means. It is the very reason that Christ can now be king over an everlasting kingdom (Heb. 1:3). It is the perfect fulfillment of God's plan, not the ugly mark of some disgraceful temperament that we should be ashamed to proclaim. God is rightfully wrathful. He is just and righteous in His judgment. I find it rather laughable that the flawed, sinful human would render judgment on the legitimacy and fairness of God's own judgment.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God... Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?" — 1 Corinthians 1:18,20

Who Needs an Atonement Anyway?

2009-01-27T07:10:00.004-05:00

As we reach the mid-way point in our series on The Person and Work of Christ, we are at the pinnacle of Christ's past work: Atonement. Sadly, however, the very need for an atonement has been abandoned by some in exchange for a much less offensive picture of God. Without a proper understanding of Why the atonement was required, we can never fully appreciate What the atonement was and is. The seemingly "unfriendly" attributes of God—His wrath and justice—cannot be denied without also defaming His glorious love and mercy.

There are four bases on which the full beauty and praiseworthiness of Christ's work of atonement rests. Ironically, the first two are anything but beautiful. The first basis for an atonement is the existence of sin itself. Even this core principal of the Christian faith has been dismissed of recent by pastors who desire to preach a less offensive gospel. But, my friends, we cannot preach a gospel that is altogether unoffensive to a people who offend God most severely. Without an understanding of sin, who needs an atonement anyway?

Second, I'm afraid, is even far less popular than the first: God's wrath. The Biblical truth that God is wrathful toward sinners is a fundamental basis for the atonement and crucial in understanding the splendor of what Christ did for us. As far back as Genesis 2:17, "when you eat of it you will surely die," we see God's ordained retribution for disobedience. Nahum 1:3 assures us that, "the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished." Elsewhere we read, "the wages of sin is death," (Rom. 6:23) and a host of other verses that I couldn't even begin to count or cite. The fact is, as surely as you and I have sinned, we deserve to have God's wrath executed upon us, causing eternal death and torment in total separation from Him. If there were no wrath—no imminent punishment for sin—then who needs an atonement anyway?

Third, and often overlooked, is God's righteousness. Not only does God possess wrath, but He possesses wrath in tandem with a perfect righteousness that requires His justice be fulfilled. He cannot dismiss the verdict, death. He cannot merely brush off and forget the wrongs we have done. I refer to this as "grandpa in the sky" theology, or GITS, as I've come to call it, somewhat tongue in cheek. God's wrath and His righteousness (i.e. justice, see BSL - Righteous) together exclude any option of an acquittal. He will not simply lighten up in order to help some failing students pass. He will not write pardons just to boost his popularity. God will prove Himself to be a righteous Judge. If He were to abandon strict justice, then who needs an atonement anyway?

But finally, just as it seems all hope is lost, the fourth basis for an atonement is equally as certain as the first three: God's mercy. In His mercy, God determined a plan by which our sin, His wrath, and His righteousness could converge in one act of mercy on His children and provide a means for our salvation. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (Rom. 5:21). After all, without God's mercy, who could be atoned for anyway?

Over the next two weeks, I'll be diving deeper and deeper into the aspects of the atonement. I pray that through a greater appreciation for what Christ did, we may develop a deeper sense of worship for who He is.

Love the Sinner by Hating the Sin

2009-01-25T15:22:00.004-05:00

This article comes in response to a question posted by anonymous on my open question forum, askscripture.com. Anonymous writes:

"As a born again christian mother, how do I respond to my 24 year old daughter who has announced that she is in a relationship with another female, who is 18 years old? What do I say, what limits if any, do I set? Do I accept this other female into our home and family celebrations? I am overwhelmed with heartache and don't do much but cry. Just before she announced this, she had a boyfriend for 6 1/2 years."

This is indeed a difficult situation to be in for any parent, or any friend of a dearly loved fellow sinner. People do horrible things. We call them mistakes, judgment lapses, learning experiences, etc. God, however, calls it by an altogether less popular word: sin.

Whenever we talk about dealing with the sin of another within the body, and especially within our own nuclear families, it's an important first step to confess and realize that we ourselves are also sinners. That said, the distinguishing factor between our anonymous mother and her daughter is that (presumably) that the mother confesses her sin and is not embracing a lifestyle of sin. Meanwhile the daughter shares no such humility and repentance.

The oft quoted verse by liberals and relativists who despise the concept that one human can rebuke another is Matthew 7:3, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" But remember that I've already mentioned we are looking to the plank in our own. What do confessed sinners do to deal with the specks in their brother's eye. To continue the metaphor: once you finally did remove the plank from your eye, would you then go on pretending as though your brother or sister had no speck in theirs? No. Jesus warned against hypocritical judgment, but He by no means disallowed accountability within the body.

For the dilemma that anonymous finds herself in here I believe the most applicable passage is 1 Corinthians 5:11, which reads, "you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral.... With such a man do not even eat."

Oh, but there must be some other way. Surely there must be some more kind, gentle, unoffensive way to deal with a daughter, of all people. We long to see the cuddly image we've developed of our "grandpa in the sky" type of god simply dismissing the sin and saying, "I love you anyway."

The discomfort we feel, however great or little, with this proposed scenario arises within us for one simple reason: far too mild of an attitude toward sin. If we saw sin for what it really is, what God sees it as, then we would revile the thought of sharing a meal even with a child, sibling, or parent who marked themselves proudly and unashamedly with such a repulsive spirit. Sin is death. It should be to us the stench of rotting flesh. Would you dine and be merry with a ripe corpse in the room?

The purpose, of course, of taking on such an attitude and carrying forth the action prescribed is not to elevate ourselves in some manner of self-righteousness. That is the abuse and misuse of such teaching that has led our modern culture to reject the rebuke and even the mere concept that there exists such a thing as sin. But God is not fooled. The purpose and heart behind this course of this action is to love the sinner—as we no doubt realize anonymous loves her daughter—by hating the sin.

I prefer to rephrase the old adage, "Love the sinner but hate the sin," into a more Biblical application of the concept: "Love the sinner by hating the sin." If we do not show our neighbor the speck in his/her eye, how is that loving? If we spare one's potential angst over realizing sin in their life by allowing them to persist believing they are ok, that will prove to be most unloving on the day our Lord returns. As difficult as this action seems in our worldly wisdom, the most loving thing a mother could do for this daughter would be to love her by hating her sin. As a believer, we should hate such outward rebellion to God so much that "with such a man [we would] not even eat."

As an encouraging conclusion to this thought, jump to Paul's second letter to Corinth. In 2 Corinthians 2:6-7 we see the result of this course of action. The sinner repents and Paul instructs the church to forgive him, welcome him home, and celebrate with them. "I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him," Paul writes in verse 8. We have here a real example of the church discipline having the desired effect and we are witness to the joy it brings to all involved, not only the sinner but the entire church.

Who Else but Christ?

2009-01-22T17:38:00.003-05:00

I have been reviewing miles of commentary and articles published on messianism and messianic prophesy and have found an amazing amount of varying theories. Most pertinent to the Christian faith is the messianic beliefs of God's covenant people, Israel, at the time of the appearance of our Christ, Jesus.

It is no secret to most Christians that the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus' day were anticipating somewhat of a prominent political and military leader to arrive, overthrow the imposing power (Rome as it were), and re-establish the Davidic throne, borders, etc. This is clearly the root of much of their skepticism that we see depicted in the Gospels. But, knowing this fact, are you keenly aware of why they believed so? Or, more importantly, why are we believers so convinced of another picture of the Messiah?

Jewish messianism is rooted most fundamentally on Daniel 9 as the lens through which other messianic prophesy is viewed. Daniel 9 describes the Lords anointed as just the political leader we described earlier. Likewise, texts such as Isaiah 9:6 seem to support this view. So, where do we get off thinking there's another interpretation?

First, it is of chief importance to realize that the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (namely, to have a king on the throne) is only one aspect of the Messiah promised to Israel. But, I also want to stress that the Jewish anticipation of an Anointed to take the throne and rule assertively was not at all wrong, as some have thought, but merely incomplete and out of sequence.

Before the Davidic covenant, God promised Israel a future prophet. This future prophet would be like Moses. Deuteronomy 18 tells us that He will speak the very words of God (verse 18) and failure to heed those words will invoke judgment from God (verse 19). With that in the background, consider then how often Jesus says in Matthew, "You have heard it said... but I say." He quotes Moses and the Law, offering new revelation and illumination into the Word of God.

Then, in the Davidic covenant, there is evidence that the true fulfillment of the covenant could only come from God incarnate. Who else could sit on the throne forever. As Peter exegetes in Acts 2, "David said about him: '...because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.'... I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne." Consider also the Isaiah 9:6 passage mentioned earlier: "His name shall be... Mighty God." Who else could this Messiah be but the God incarnate Jesus Christ?

Finally, Christ was anointed not only as king and prophet, but as priest. Hebrews chapters 4-9 detail the splendor of God's plan to make the old covenant obsolete with a new high priest who no longer has to sacrifice for Himself. Only by the permanent sacrifice of Christ can our sins be truly forgiven forever as God had promised in Jeremiah 31. By what means could this promise have come true under the Old Testament Law?

But as I mentioned earlier, the Jew's anticipation of a ruling king is not wrong, merely incomplete. The Son will return to take His throne. In that day, Israel will see and believe. God has reserved for Himself a remnant. In a sense they are correct: their Messiah is yet to come, we simply (by faith) have had the privilege of a sneak peak.

Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up?

2009-01-21T09:50:00.004-05:00

I'm going to go ahead and admit it: I love Wikipedia. Although I'm not always assured of it's accuracy, it offers an excellent resource for a cursory introduction to any topic, as well as cited resources where one can find primary research. I was digging on the subjects of Christ this week (which, by the way, offer great examples of how the world in wiki-collaboration will defame Christ and distort the truth), when I stumbled upon this article: Jewish Messiah Claimants.

In a word: fascinating. First of all, of the five so-called messiah claimants prior to Jesus, two were emperors who would have likely claimed the title "Anointed" for political reasons. There is no evidence to support that these men were believed to be, or believed themselves to be, the Jewish Messiah in the covenant sense. Next, Judas son of Hezekiah was himself in the royal family of Judah and would have likely claimed the title "Anointed" for similar political reasons--to emphasize his claim to the throne of David. Finally, Asthrongs and Simon were men of more humble origins, yet their claim to the title "Anointed" was nonetheless political. As they endeavored to lead their Jewish brethren in rebellion, they needed to make strong claims to their authority. What better way than to profess a direct anointing of God?

It should be clear to you by this point, if it was not already, that the term Messiah has not always born such a weighty religious definition as it does in modern context. It has gained a more mystically slanted definition in today's culture as a direct result of a widespread misunderstanding of the term's application to Jesus, and of course, a widespread misunderstanding of who Jesus Himself is.

If you continue down the list of claimants in the Wikipedia article, you'll soon realize that in fact nearly all of the men listed were leading a rebellion of some sort. In order for their plot to succeed, they would need the trust of the people. What better way to trust the people than to call yourself by the same title as the ancient kings?

So did any one on this list really mean "Messiah" in the way we think of the term? Were any of them ever thinking of themselves as more than a temporal king or leader of Israel? Did anyone on the list actually use the word mâšîah to mean the ultimate fulfillment of God's covenant? Well... there was this one guy. You know His name. Jesus!

That's right. Jesus the Christ, the Anointed, the Messiah, was and is the Anointed in a unique way. "Anointed" became a political term in Judea because of the implication of kingship, but Jesus knew that He was Anointed as much more than that. He is King in the line of David. He is the prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-20), and even greater than Moses (Hebrews 3:1-6). He is our high priest, even greater than Aaron (Hebrews 4:14-16).

Abba Father: The Cry of God's Humble Children

2009-01-19T20:54:00.005-05:00

In my spare time, I've been working on a second book—one that will take much longer than the first to compose and even longer for me to dare to publish. I've tentatively titled it, "Thy Will Be Done," as a follow-up to my last book, "Thy Kingdom Come." The theme of this book will (Lord willing) be about living life as ambassadors of a totally sovereign God. During some of my recent times of reflection and study, I've come to appreciate and understand new perspectives about the Abba cry that I felt led to share. Consider it a pre-release preview.

There is no shortage of proposals put forth on the real meaning of "Abba" in the New Testament. Some have considered the term to mean little more than father, while others believe it renders a more intimate meaning, a sort of Aramaic form of "daddy". The exegetical task is formidable, with a mere 3 instances of the term found in the whole of the New Testament. Here's what we do know:

In all three instances, the term Αββα is immediately followed by πατήρ (patēr, or father)
It is derived from Aramaic, whereas patēr is purely Greek
Although similar in meaning, patēr is not a direct translation of abba, which indicates there is additional significance in abba beyond just "father."
Most importantly, in all three instances, the use of the word abba arises out of a humble and submissive heart. In Mark 14:36, Christ is submitting (with pain and turmoil) to the will of the Father for Him to suffer. In Romans 8:15, Paul explains how we as believers cry out to God in the context of fear and suffering. And in Galatians 4:6, Paul describes the believer's confession that he/she deserves nothing under the Law, but is made alive in Christ alone.

So, what does this tell us? The abba cry is indeed a cry! This is not the gentle coo of a son resting peacefully in his father's arms. This is the cry of a toddler getting his first shot at the doctor's office, screaming in pain and looking at his father who stands by watching. Innocent and ignorant of what is truly in his best interest, the child is confused and terrified.

How can he just stand there watching his child in pain? "Dad," the son cries out, "make it stop!" But he won't. Can this be love? "Can this really be what's best for me?" the toddler might ask (if a toddler could reason... bear with the analogy).

After all, isn't that what Christ Himself cried? "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me." How often do we cry that? We pray for things that we do not understand. Lord heal me. Lord find me a new job. Lord bring my loved ones to repentance and salvation. "Yet not what I will, but what you will" (Mark 14:36).

Are we much different? Just a few verses following the abba cry in Romans 8, Paul continues, "We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express" (Romans 8:26). Here we stand in the midst of a fallen world, enduring pain and suffering for God, all the while knowing (just as the toddler knew) that our Father is fully capable to make it all stop in an instant. "Abba! Help us! Oh, Lord, won't you make it all stop!"

But we already know the answer. "Do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening" (1 Peter 4:12). So what do we pray for in times like these? How do we groan to our Abba Father? I don't know. The Spirit knows.

This is the picture of the life we live as ambassadors of the sovereign King. We struggle to understand His power. We cannot begin to understand His will. Yet as Christ cried out to God, His sweat even turning to blood under great distress, He submitted Himself humbly to the will of the Father, and so must we.

Impeccability: Could Christ Have Sinned?

2009-01-18T17:33:00.005-05:00

In this week's class, as I had somewhat expected, the discussion of Christ's humanity led directly to the question of whether or not it was possible for Christ to have sinned. The Impeccability Doctrine (for those of you who may not be familiar with the debate) hinges on the dilemma that if Christ could have sinned, then we are at risk of implicating His divine nature in sin as well, and yet if he could not have sinned, then how was He truly tempted? It's no trivial matter and one that is hotly disputed in the study of Christology.

Could Christ have sinned? No. How can we know? We know today that He could not have sinned becayse we know today that He did not sin. Confused? Allow me to explain.

I'd like to begin by reducing the debate to it's core. To posit that Christ could not have sinned on the basis that He was God assumes the fact that God Himself is impeccable. So I ask: why is God unable to sin. As I consider the truth of His sovereignty, it's become more and more troubling to me to resolve that He cannot sin simply because He is moral. Can some outside moral structure of existence impose upon God the limitations of His action? As gravity dictates our abilities as humans, is God dictated to be sinless by some moral order of the universe? No.

This view is known as voluntarism, which is a deeply entangled term that can have many implications. For this topic, I simply mean to present that God is sinless because God has willed to be sinless. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, determined and willed according to His good pleasure to be sinnless, moral, faithful, and the host of other communicable attributes that we identify in God.

As we consider this, the question of Christ's impeccability becomes invariably clear. Could Christ have sinned? No. Why? Because God the Father ordained it. In the same way that He ordained that the pharisees would reject Him, that Peter would deny Him, and that Rome would Crucify Him, God ordained Christ to be sinless.

Now, as surely as we recognize this exhibition of God's sovereignty we must also recognize the mysterious reality of compatible free will. Inasmuch as we each have the genuine choice of what to eat for dinner tonight, that choice is no less real to us in the present despite the reality that God already knows what we'll eat. In the same way, Christ's temptation was no less real to Him during His life on earth. In fact, to all of creation—Jesus' human form included—the impeccability doctrine was yet undecided prior to Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension. However, to the only God the Father, it most certainly was. He was not sitting on the edge of His seat for some 30 years, hoping like mad that His plan would come true. No, the sovereign Father says:

"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is
still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I
please" (Isaiah 46:10).

So, what can this possibly mean for us? How can I take this philosophical proposition that appears to be nothing more than an extension of the age-old free will debate and actually apply it to my life? First, take heart: we have a mediator who was indeed tempted in every way we were. Not only that, but rejoice in the confidence that we have. The child of God is predestined to be conformed to the likeness of the Son, not because he can stand sinless in his own power, but because "the Lord is able to make him stand" (Romans 14:4). This power of God has been evidenced for us in Christ's life that He might be the firstfruits among many brothers: the second Adam, our glorious Head.

Exegetical Fallacies: D.A. Carson's Passion for Truth

2009-01-17T10:47:00.004-05:00

I recently received this book as a gift. Three pages into the first chapter I thought (with tongue in cheek), "I hope my students never read this." Carson's straight talk about the common exegetical fallacies (and, take heart, he does mean common) will make any teacher of the word swallow hard. But, for the teacher of scripture who seeks to honor God, I would consider this a "must read."

First, as Carson points out, exegetical fallacies happen in all facets of doctrinal realms. Calvinists are no more immune than Arminians. Baptists no more immune than Presbyterians. As we struggle to understand the grammar, vocabulary, and syntax of two ancient languages, the margin for error is great. However, the cost of error is even greater.

Exegetical fallacy can mean the difference between a trial from God and a temptation from God. It can be the difference between a virgin birth and the pregnancy of a young woman. It can be the difference between giving God the glory He is due and defaming His name with exegetical fallacy.

The stakes are high. Doctrinal wars and the wide dispersion of Christian denominations create increasing skepticism in the world today. And yet, for those of us passionate about seeing truth proclaimed, certain debates are worth the effort. If you, however, seek the wisdom and illumination in Scripture to both know that line—that threshold of the utmost theological importance—as well as the side on which you stand, I highly recommend D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies."

Hero of the Hudson: A Lesson in Narrative Theology

2009-01-16T09:31:00.003-05:00

The recent heroics of Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III on US Airways Flight 1549 are growing in fame. His hero status has (in under 24 hours, mind you) topped the national news with titles like "hero pilot," and has even spawned a facebook group honoring the "The Hudson River Hero." And, not to downplay Sullenberger's heroism, he clearly deserves our accolade for his obvious selfless acts, preparedness, and perfect execution of a crisis plan under crisis circumstances.

But all the hype makes me wonder, knowing the forgetfulness of our society, what the activity of that facebook group will be in a week... a month... or a year. Will Sully's phone be ringing off the hook with interview requests, book deals, and crazed fans after a few months have gone by? Only a rare few heroes of even the last century are still household names today.

After God had brought plagues on Egypt, parted the red sea, delivered manna and quail in the desert, and was preparing to drive out the Canaanite nations before Israel, He expressed His concern for the same forgetfulness in the hearts and minds of His people. "When the LORD your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers," He warned, "be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" (Deut. 6:10-12).

God understood that, just as the heroics of Mr. Sullenberger, no matter how great, are at risk of being forever forgotten, so are the mighty miracles of God that demonstrate His character and His love for His people. How could Moses ensure that the children and grandchildren of the generation who witnessed all these things would not forget their God who did them? Just as we tend to forget the heroics of a crisis after the crisis is over and we rest comfortably in our armchair, so would Israel grow complacent as they rested comfortably in the land of milk and honey where God would establish their borders and bless them.

Herein lies the importance of narrative theology—the story behind the doctrines! About such "doctrinal" beliefs God told Moses to instruct the people: "In the future, when your son asks you, 'What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?' tell him: 'We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.' (Deut. 6:20-21). Tell these stories! God wants His fame to never be forgotten!

Fortunately, God is not a God who delivered us once and has left us be ever since. He is present with us, active in our lives. What stories will you tell your children about God? How has He been a hero in your life? How will they learn to revere His name and proclaim His fame?

Christ the Mediator: the Westminster Confession of Faith

2009-01-14T18:41:00.004-05:00

In my continued study of the Person and Work of Christ, I come to this—perhaps the most comprehensive and clear description of the Hypostatic Union:

"The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by he power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. " (Westminster Confession of Faith, VIII.II)

Where do I begin! Well, I suppose I'll begin by saying, "no, I'm not a Presbyterian." That said, I do respect the work of the learned men of England from 1646, but that should not implicate me in agreement with their every statement. Which ones with which I differ is a topic for another time.

Let's begin with the first clause. I have spent the past three weeks writing about Christ's deity and the implications of Christ's deity. However, in this first clause of the confession's statement about Christ and the hypostatic union, we see clearly the cost of taking on human nature: infirmities. Not merely servanthood, but a weakness not worth comparing with God's omnipotence. Not merely sickness, but mortality. He did not, however, take on the sinful nature that is the weakest part of us all. How?

Christ's link to Adam was broken. Being made of the substance of Mary, He was not conceived of Adam (Joseph). Whether you believe in seminal or federal original sin (or have no decided position), one thing is certain: sin is passed on via the male of our species, a necessary contributor to each new person... except for Christ.

Finally, at the heart of the Hypostatic Union, these two natures were joined "without conversion, composition, or confusion." Without conversion: neither nature was modified to fit the other. Without composition: the natures did not combine in such a way so as to compose a new nature. Without confusion: the two natures did not blend together, each taking attributes of the other. Jesus was both fully God and fully Man.

So, what does this mean for us? In short, it means that when we read that we were called to emulate Christ, we should first understand that we were called to emulate God. However, the truth does not end there. See, it was not until the New Testament, when God was revealed in the flesh as Christ, the Son, that He commanded His followers to imitate Himself. We aren't called to the impossible task of imitating the Almighty God the Father, but the prototypical man Jesus Christ. In imitating Jesus, we reflect God's glory on earth as He did. Jesus lived His life as a man—learning as we do, feeling as we do, and even tempted as we do—and yet was without sin, the exact representation of the Glory of God (Heb. 1:3). That is a model we can follow if we face life as Christ did—a student of the scriptures, devoted in prayer, and submitted to God's will.

An Attitude the Same as Christ: Learning from the Kenosis

2009-01-13T17:15:00.003-05:00

I read an article this week related to the topic at-hand: Jesus is Fully Human, from the Desiring God blog. In it, the author walks through a simple progression of concepts from the simplest to grasp to the most profound. Jesus had a human body. Jesus had human emotion. Jesus had a human mind. And finally, Jesus had a human will. While the mystery of the last statement is certainly an inviting topic for anyone seeking a stimulating whirlwind of thought and study, I don't want to move on too quickly from the first. That God Himself would take on a human form is, second to Christ's death on the cross, is the most astonishing manifestation of His love we could ever imagine.

Theologians often use the term "kenosis," and while I don't want to puff myself up with fancy vocabulary and 5-dollar words, the roots of this term should be meaningful to us all. the Greek κενόω (kenoō) means to empty out, like pouring out a pitcher until it's entirely empty. It's a total dispelling of all that one has. Christ emptied Himself in order to be found in the likeness of a man so that He might die the death that we deserve.

But how did He empty Himself? What is it that emptied Christ of His equality with the Father and His glorified state? Not the subtraction of a divine nature, but the addition of a human one. Subtraction by addition... much in the way that adding new paint on top of the Mona Lisa would empty it almost entirely of it's value.

I must give credit for this "Emptying by Adding" interpretation to Gerald Hawthorne, professor at Wheaton College who has published commentary on Philippians. To affirm that Christ was emptied of His deity is called the Kenotic Heresy. Scripture and Church History both affirm that Christ is both fully God and fully Man. So, what does that mean for us?

First, your attitude should be like that of Christ. He sacrificed so much to be our savior... to be our God who would tabernacle among us. What can we withhold in our worship? What do we have that we do not owe Him?

More than that, what excuse do we have as we continue to fail in our obedience to God. Living in His totally human nature, albeit not sinful nature, but nonetheless susceptible to temptation in every way that we are, Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit, resisted temptation entirely. He was not spared from sin because He was God. No, indeed He endured by the same strength that we now have available to us through the indwelling Counselor, the Holy Spirit.

Peter offers a daunting charge for all of us, yet it was not Peter who charged it first. Inasmuch as we have been called, we are called to this: perfection.

"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 'He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth'" (1 Peter 2:21-22)

We Beheld His Glory - Part II

2009-01-08T19:16:00.002-05:00

In my last post, I discussed the deity of Christ and His praiseworthiness as such. As believers, we find so much joy and inexpressible awe before God at His good and perfect plan to take on flesh for our sake. But, this linchpin belief of Christology is often at the center of Satan's attack and the world's attack on our faith in the very God who saves us. Why is Christ's deity under such scrutiny? More so than the doctrine of scripture, the mere existence of God, or even the seven-day creation, the world seeks to deny that Christ was God in the flesh.

The reason is simple: If Jesus was God, then we must believe what He said. Christ brings a simple message that God is in control. Christianity is a faith of submission, of confession, and of reliance upon one that shows us for who we really are. "If we can but show that Christ is not God," the world says, "then we can continue to be god to ourselves."

To receive Christ is to cast out the tattered being that we are and accept from God the promise of redemption by His power and not of our own. How distasteful to an enlightened people! How humiliating a thought to a society that has evolved from ape to this higher being. How ridiculous a discipline to deny one's self in light of all we as men are capable of.

That's certainly what the Jews must have thought in their seemingly "perfect" execution of the religion they thought was Judaism. But Stephen told them what Christ revealed, "You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts... you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it" (Acts 7:51-53). When Stephen looked to heaven he declared aloud what he saw: Christ with God as the eschatological Son of Man figure from Daniel 7. It was a convicting statement that, if they were to believe Christ, would require that they admit their frailty and failures and humbly ask forgiveness. Instead, they found murder to be an easier resolution.

But, I do not wish to conclude this thought with the harsh convicting power of Christ that damns those hardened in unbelief. We do well to recall who it was that presided over this rage-filled murder of Stephen: the young Saul. As we see evidenced in Saul's conversion, the power of Christ is not merely the power to judge, but the power to save. Jesus is Lord! By His power—the almighty power of the only true God—Jesus saves us! Praise Jesus for being God. Amen.

We Beheld His Glory

2009-01-07T15:49:00.003-05:00

As we get ready this week for the second installment of a 9-week course on "The Person and Work of Christ," I've been working very hard to consider not only the theological and doctrinal study of Christology, but also to see the truth anew and reconnect with the deep impact it had on me in the times when God first revealed Himself to me in scripture. There comes, I'm sorry to admit, a staleness to knowledge when we disconnect it from it's implications. I'm thoroughly enjoying a new discovery of how profound this simple truth really is: Jesus is God!

Jesus is God! He is the one and only omnipotent God, full of mercy and faithful to His covenants. He came down, took on our desperate condition in order to "tabernacle" among us, and suffered the worst of our physical and spiritual depravity as He suffered on the cross—all because of His faithfulness (and not ours) to fulfill His covenant.

Jesus is God! He is exalted with the names of God alone: Theos, Lord of Glory, Son of Man, Son of God, Beginning and End. It is praiseworthy for us to recognize Jesus, not merely as a man, but as God. The world wishes to pay lip-service to the Christ by some seemingly well-intentioned acknowledgment that He was a good teacher or an exemplary model of loving sacrifice, but how can anything less than the glory He is due be anything more than insulting? He is God!

Jesus is God! As we consider this fact and continue to renew our commitment to the Gospel day after day, let's stop to consider that through Christ and Christ alone we can behold the glory of the one and only true God. Not only that, but we also glorify God through meditation and proclamation of God the Son:

"every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:11).

The Person and Work of Christ

2008-12-31T17:34:00.003-05:00

Over the past few weeks, I have been traveling around the Midwest, visiting various family members to celebrate Christmas together (which explains the long break since my last post, sorry). In between driving, dinners, and Christmas cantatas, I spent several hours preparing for my next class: The Person and Work of Christ. Coupling this study with the message of the Christmas season has been a true joy.

The Son, 2nd person of the Trinity, came into human flesh. In his lecture on the Apostles Creed topic "suffered under Pontius Pilate," Dr. Albert Mohler described that not only did Jesus suffer on the cross, but His very incarnation was suffered for our sake. For God to become Man is a sacrifice that we should not quickly forget. Mohler went on to say that many people have died martyrs, but only one was born one: Jesus Christ.

But, as is fitting given the setting of this holiday season, we will start this Sunday, the first class of the series, at the beginning. However, praise God that Jesus' beginning was not in the manger. No, in fact, John makes it very clear in John 1 that Jesus was not created (begotten of the Father, yes, but not created by Him). Instead, quite the opposite: "Through him all things were made" (John 1:3).

From His eternal existence to His deity, humanity, roles, atonement, and future works... we will study over the coming nine weeks the Person and Work of Christ, the Son of God. As we study the single most scrutinized and publicly defamed character of world History, I hope that we may honor God in this course by holding "firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught," and that as a result those taking the course will be emboldened to "refute those who oppose it" (Titus 1:9). To recount a previous question posted on this blog by anonymous, I pray that I my split these doctrinal hairs responsibly and in accordance with God's word.

(Audio mp3 lectures will be posted weekly here.)

1 Peter 4:12-19 - Judgment & God's Sovereignty

2008-12-11T10:48:00.004-05:00

Several weeks back I wrote a lengthy response to a reader's question about Job, his suffering, and God's sovereignty. The basic premise was, "He's God, you're not." For many people, that is an unsatisfactory answer to the dilemma of evil, suffering, injustices and social inequality. For me, it's the most satisfying response there could be. Why the disparity?

At my office one afternoon, I sat and discussed communication rhetoric, approaches, and strategies with an intern, himself a communication major, and writer at our firm. In his studies at a secular university he was learning about the sharp distinctions between historic Christian rhetoric, born out of a worldview of absolute truth handed down by God, and that of the secular culture today where truth is relative and God's words hold no higher authority (nay, even less) than one's own thought. The application of his study in school was that to these two diverse audiences, two diverse forms of rhetoric have emerged: the apologetic and the exegetical.

The apologetic is of little value to the believer because he can (or should be able to) understand and process the words of God as truth. Instead, he benefits from the exegesis of scripture. On the contrary, the non-believer will find little value in exegesis because it's basis is not established yet in the heart and mind of the listener.

So, why this dissertation on communication to address the topic of sovereignty? I can accept from the non-believer that suffering, evil, injustice and the like present a logical hurdle toward faith in God. But I must rebuke, on the basis of God's word, that a believer professing faith in God the Father Almighty would cite such circumstances as problematic to their faith. I openly oppose such a view within the church in light of one simple and certain exegetical truth: God is God.

In exegetical style, New Testament authors refuted any questioning of God with authoritative fashion. "Do not be surprised," Peter says in verse 12. He goes on in verse 19 to declare that we "suffer according to the will of God." Elsewhere, Paul answers the question directly, "Is God unjust? Not at all" (Romans 9:14). Job is faced with the undeniable truth of his own futility and humanity as God rants, "Where were you..." (Job 38:4 et al).

For the seeker who is trying to grasp the riches of God's glory and struggles with the perceptions of the things around him, God shows Himself merciful and good through the compassion and love of Jesus Christ. But for anyone among His own household that would question the motives and desires of God, He charges:

"Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right
way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of
understanding?" (Isaiah 40:14)

1 Peter 4:7-11 - Love That's Out of This World

2008-12-04T12:40:00.003-05:00

This Sunday we'll be studying a small passage from 1 Peter that follows-up on the last lesson, Christ's Vindication. When you read the Bible in snippets, as most people do, you sometimes fail to find the connectivity and lose context from the topics that led up to the text at hand. That is the case with this text. Taken by themselves, they're very helpful instructions for day-to-day living as a loving Christian. When linked to the concepts of Christ's second coming and the much-prophesied days leading up to that event, this text becomes all the more poignant.

In prep for this Sunday's lesson, I've been reading Mark 13. I've just been pondering what these times will feel like. What it would be like to live in a day where being a Christian was an open invitation to discrimination, ridicule, torture or death. Sadly, many places in the world are already in this state of existence. If we take Mark 13 literally, I believe all places on earth will one day present this same unfavorable climate for believers.

I'm reminded of an observation that one of my friends made many years ago. The husband of a professional child-birthing coach, Chip cited Romans 8:22 and commented that every minute of labor, the mother-to-be thinks it's the worst pain she's ever had. Then the next minute, it's even worse. He then added his observation that the generations of mankind have been the same way. Every generation there are preachers that talk about how awful and sinful our generation has become, and therefore conclude that the end must be near. I cannot think of a more crystal-clear way to understand this metaphor.

So, are we in the last days? As a mother in labor, we may certainly feel that this generation is the worst the world has ever seen. Maybe the next will top it, who knows. What we do know is how Scripture tells us to deal with the ever-increasing pressures against our faith and difficulties of this world, and it's not to worry or speculate. It's to love!

We are told in this passage and elsewhere that our love should be out of this world... literally. It should come from the strength of God. Which is convenient because as I read the instructions in 1 Peter 4:7-11, I'm struck at how unable I am in my own strength to accomplish it. But, so God may be praised, He empowers us to live in loving community so great that it's out of this world.

By God's strength, we're to face the adversity this fallen world has for the Church with open hospitality, taking care of brothers in more dire need than us. We're to take on an attitude of love toward others, which will cover the rough edges that our sin one-to-another creates. We are to serve one another and speak to one another as though we were representing God to them—the God of mercy and love who has poured out His grace on His elect.

Because after all, Christ for whose name we suffer will be vindicated, the first born among many brothers. "To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen." (1 Peter 4:11)

Wives & Husbands - Part II

2008-12-01T17:22:00.005-05:00

A few weeks ago I wrote about a topic that is constantly on the forefront of doctrinal battles: The roles of Wives & Husbands. As a follow-up to that post, and to that topic in general, I just wanted to take a few minutes to share something that I found very moving during one of my recent times in the Word.

I love to write. So, often times as I'm doing self-study I end up writing thoughts. Some day, they may be compiled into a book. Who knows. In any case, there are those rare times when my fingers move faster than my mind and I just get passionate about a topic and "on a role" so to speak. Now, there are two possible outcomes of those excited and unbridled ramblings. It's either extremely inspiring and a magnificent art of writing or extremely undecipherable and worthy of a good hack at the backspace key. I'd like to think that this was the former.

I was considering the concept of a "treasured possession" and its significance in theology. Without really thinking, I began to type. I'd like to share with you the ramblings that left me with no other thought at the end other than to truly treasure my wife and to commend her publiclcy for the ways she honors me:

Like the Sons of God in Genesis 6, God chose a people with whom to initiate a covenant of love, and this covenant was also likened to marriage. God spoke to Israel, "Your Maker is your husband—the Lord almighty is His name" (Isaiah 54:5).

Why would God "marry" mere mortals? What prompts Him to display such amazing love and mercy? To be sure, we can never understand precisely why He chose to do so. What we do know, however, is that it was not based on Israel's merit. They did not deserve this covenant. God says, "It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity" (Deut. 9:5).
We also know God's intended effect for His choice. We know why, if not for their merit, He treasured His possession, Israel. "You will be my treasured possession," said the Lord, "…you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:5-6). A kingdom of priests, made holy and consecrated for His worship, Israel would bring praise to God on earth. They were instruments of His praise and worship. Just as a good wife reflects well upon the husband who loves her, so would the world look to Israel and see the glory of the one who "treasures" her.

Husbands, if you desire honor and respect from your wife, treasure her! Wives, honor your husband who treasures you.

For more detail, listen to my expository teaching on 1 Peter 3:1-7 in mp3 format.

Mars Hill's Narrative Theology - What's Missing in This Story?

2008-11-26T09:09:00.006-05:00

First, let me start by clarifying something that confused me from the beginning. We're not talking about the Mars Hill of Seattle, WA where Mark Driscoll preaches. When my uncle first approached me asking, "What do you think about this 'Mars Hill' thing?" I immediately thought of Driscoll's church in Seattle.

No, instead, this is Mars Hill Bible church of Grandville, MI where Pastor Rob Bell has championed his statement of Narrative Theology, coupled with the New Exodus teaching, with great popularity (an estimated 10,000+ weekly attendance). My question is this: What's missing in this "story?"

As I first began to read their statement of Narrative Theology, I was admittedly pleased. The narrative approach to developing theology and doctrine is quite fond to me. In fact, many might say that my first book, Thy Kingdom Come: A Prayer of Victory, was itself an expression of Narrative Theology. Obviously I don't think that the approach is altogether without merit. For a more in-depth look at the topic of Narrative Theology at large, I recommend this answer by Ra McLaughlin (though I've not explored any of the other claims that may be found at that URL).

So, what IS missing in Rob Bell's story? What left me—at the end of just one single PDF page—writhing in my desk chair? Allow me to offer a surface-level critique of this increasingly popular statement of faith, and then I invite you, the reader, to share your own take on the matter. Perhaps some of you have more first-hand experience that may shed light.

The statement is devoid of any affirmation to the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ. The statement, found in paragraph 6 of the aforementioned statement of Narrative Theology, reads: "His path of suffering, crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection has brought hope to all creation. Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans." It seems that this is just strong enough to preclude anyone from holding only to the Exemplary Atonement theory, but it (and the entire narrative as I read it) is devoid of the concept of wrath, atonement, death as penalty for sin, etc.
My second critique was a little less obvious and it took me a while to find this. Read the document again, if you can, through the eyes of a total non-believer. Do you see how the plural first-person "we" would include you, the non-believing reader, in the narrative? I have no confirmation that Rob Bell preaches, or even holds this position, but this theological statement is extremely friendly to the Universalist.

In summary, I must conclude that this statement of theology is unique in it's ability to say so much while affirming nothing at all. The purpose—in my opinion—of a doctrinal statement should be to guard sound doctrine and affirm that false doctrines are not propagated at your church. By Mars Hill Bible Church's statement, what could be refuted? Universalism? No. Legalism? No. Pelagianism? No. Yikes!

A Tweetable Creed

2008-11-24T15:31:00.004-05:00

I came accross an interesting challenge and decided to take it up. In his blog, Lingamish, David Ker asks readers "Can you write a meme in less than 140 characters, the equivalent of a Twitter 'tweet,' that results in a statement that every Christian could confess?"

Hows this (taken from 1 Corinthians 15) ...

I beleive that Christ died for my sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day as the firstborn among many brothers, of which He has made me one.

1 Peter 3:18-22 - The Rocky Gospel

2008-11-22T11:49:00.002-05:00

For three straight weeks in our class we've been studying various forms of the meek, submissive, and suffering aspects of Christian living. If the story were to end there (candidly speaking) I'm not sure how much appeal the God of ages would have for me. The Apostle Paul, I dare say, would agree with me. He wrote, "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men" (1 Cor. 15:19).

The way Peter frames the passage we'll study this week, 1 Peter 3:18-22, reminds me of the dramatic set-up for all 5 of Rocky's great come-backs. Submit to authorities, Submit to one-another, even be prepared to suffer when you don't deserve it... and then WHAM... "put to death in the body but..." (drum roll please) "... made alive by the Spirit."

From there, we see some unique perspectives on salvation that have historically been de-emphasized in today's evangelical circles. First, a comparison of the New Covenant ordinance of baptism to the Old Testament flood. The suffering and submissive nature that Christ took on ultimately resulted in the death of His flesh, as it will also in ours. But, more than the inevitable physical death, we're called to put to death our own sinful flesh, which we symbolize with baptism. In Genesis 6, water destroyed the wickedness of creation. In Romans 5, we read that water symbolizes the destruction of sin in our own flesh.

Next, with that comparison in view, Peter then explains that our salvation is from Christ's resurrection. Where we as evangelicals typically emphasize the atoning death, we must be careful not to neglect the salvific significance of Christ's resurrection. Even though our bodies will die, we will be made alive in the spirit. The life that Christ's atonement makes possible was actually initiated in His resurrection, making Him the firstborn among many brothers. 1 Corinthians 15 expounds on this truth in detail, telling us that our new bodies will be like his in nature.

It is only with this understanding of death to our sinful bodies that we can understand the relationship of suffering to sinlessness made in 4:1. Once again, on this same basis, Peter encourages his readers in 4:6 that even those who have died awaiting Christ's return have died in the body according to judgment but will live, as He did, by the spirit.

The Last Days - Warning Passages & Eternal Security

2008-11-17T10:38:00.006-05:00

Today's post comes in response to a recent question on AskScripture.com where Anonymous writes (gross misspellings corrected):

"[I am] Trying to prepare a sermon for the body of our local church. I feel that [we're] living in what the Bible calls the last days before the coming of lord Jesus Christ. [I am] looking for some Biblical answers that show that many will fall from [their] faith in these days. To show them that this is a very bad thing to do, and [their] salvation is nothing to be playing around with.

Where do I begin. Let's start with basic hermeneutic principle: "I feel that..." followed by "I am looking for Biblical answers that show..." will always yield the answers you seek, but it may not be the answers that the Bible gives. Let me rephrase: if you enter into a study of Scripture with a foregone conclusion in mind and seek only to find the scriptural evidence to build your case, you will succeed in finding what you want to find, but that does not necessarily mean that you found truth.

However, we must all acknowledge that we do this to some degree. Covenant Theologians assume certain facts about Old Testament prophesy. Evangelicals de-emphasize the gospels and emphasize Paul. And Calvinists assume softer interpretations of the word "world" as well as the many warning passages, of which our anonymous inquisitor is expressly interested in.

Lucky for anonymous, I'm not a Calvinist... [clears throat] I'm just reformed [grin].

First, in regards to the present day being the last days. I'm not very certain about that. I do not claim to be an expert on eschatology, but there are several descriptions of the "last days" in scripture, even signs that they are near, and we haven't seen all of them come true. One of my friends and colleagues once commented that for at least 200 years, every generation has believed theirs to be the last. My wife's great grandfather recently passed away, yet right up until the day of his death he was so certain these were the last days that he swore that he would be taken in the rapture. Was the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD the abomination that causes desolation? It's not so cut-and-dry.

However, that wasn't really the basis of anonymous' question, and if he would like to preach a sermon with that assumption in mind, I would not fault him in the least. The more troubling assumption I see is that many will fall from their faith (that's nearly verbatim, but slightly skewed) and that this is an event that the presumably saved members of anonymous' congregation will do via "playing around" with their justified status before God.

Let's look at the text in question here, Matthew 24:9-25. In describing the events, Jesus toggles between specific you's and general many's. In verse 4, He warns His disciples specifically about deceptive prophets. But in verse 5, it is an ambiguous group that is misled by them. Again in verses 6 and 9, Jesus gives specific predictions of what will happen to "you," His followers. The warning of falling away in verse 10, then, is once again generic.

What does it mean that many will fall away, or as the NIV puts it "abandon the faith?" Just as Christ, the stumbling stone, caused many Jews to disbelieve, so will the turmoil and seemingly unjust cruelty cause many to abandon any hope in Yaweh, the god of Israel. But there is no evidence in the text that tells us these who fall away are the elect, having been justified through faith by Christ's blood, now abandoning their own salvation.

On the contrary, Jesus actually speaks some comfort to His followers. He declares that these deceiving prophets will try, "to deceive even the elect—if that were possible." Through my lens of interpretation I assume the unspoken truth here to be that it is indeed not possible. Jesus continues saying, "See, I have told you ahead of time," as though these warnings would be used to prevent His elect from being fooled.

So, anonymous, how would I preach this sermon if I were you? Do not use fear of damnation as a deterrent for sin. Instead, challenge the body of believers to "make your calling and election sure" (2 Peter 2:10). Sure to whom? To God? Certainly not. If you fear the certainty of your eternal security, prove it to yourself by living out the life that only the Spirit can enable. Then, you can face tribulation and even death in the last days with confidence in:

"an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:4-5; emphasis mine).

Good Scotch and Fine Cigars

2008-11-17T07:54:00.002-05:00

Last Thursday, I was invited by a client and friend to Cigar Night at a local country club. I gladly accepted. After several hours of smoking the same cigar that seemed to never expire and a few glasses of scotch that I couldn't dream to afford on my own, I decided it was time to get home and see my wife.

Now, this client was no stranger to my outspoken faith and Christian principles, yet he had no reservations in inviting me to cigar night. In fact, I don't think he was even surprised when I accepted. None the less, at the end of the evening, just before I left, he commented about my behavior in contrast to other Christians that he has encountered, or at least the impression they left on him, "You're a Christian, but you actually enjoy life!"

Wanting to be careful about what he may have been implying, I added, "Of course I do, but you know you won't catch me drunk or going out to strip clubs with you. I'll sip some whiskey and puff a cigar with the best of 'em."

"Oh, of course, of course... yeah I know that." He said almost apologetically. But before I left he invited me to a Christmas party at his house next month. How many legalistic and/or fundamentalist Christians have the rapport and trust of those outside our Christian bubbles like that? To hear the surprise in his voice as he commented on how I live my life like a normal person is really a commentary on the way the world views Christians in general.

Now, sure, we're called to be "holy" which means "set apart," but you have to ask yourself how characters like Levi (the tax collector) and Mary Magdalene (the former prostitute) were attracted to Christ and desired to be in his presence while Christ maintained perfect holiness. If caricatures like the SNL "church lady" played by Dana Carvey are really how the world views us, its no wonder adult conversions and evangelism are nearly extinct in the American church.

Many years ago, I taught a small men's group out of my home and one of the studies we most enjoyed was this book, "Too Christian, Too Pagan: How to love the world without falling for it." I can't honestly remember the specific theological positions of the author, Dick Staub, but in the context of the book it was somewhat irrelevant. His whole point was to help believers to see ways in which they can engage culture without sinning. We had quite a few great discussions that were very helpful for us as we grew in our walks. If for no other value, the book provides excellent fodder for discussion and debate.

So, how do we live in the world without being of the world? Was my glad acceptance of cigar smoke and ethanol disrespectful of my body as a temple? I think not. Moreover, I think the fact that our bodies are temples bears more significance than just a staunch position on personal hygiene and wellness. Shouldn't the Temple be there for all to see, not hidden behind the four walls of a church?

The Layman's Library

2008-11-11T08:02:00.002-05:00

I've had several people ask me where I get my resources. It's well known that I'm not seminary trained, Bible-school trained, nor did I even grow up in Christian school. My dad's not a pastor, I don't live near a university library, and I don't even know my Greek alphabet by heart. So, what resources are there available to "joes" like me who want to dig into the Word without spending thousands on a small library? Tons! So, I'd like to share a few of my favorites.

First, if you're looking for commentary that's worth the read, check soniclight.com. Now, there are a lot of things on this website, and to be honest, I've never looked at any of it other than the study notes. Click the link to visit study notes and you'll find Dr. Constable's entire set of notes on every book of the Bible. Constable is a professor at Dallas and evidently a thorough researcher. I like his notes because in them I actually find cited commentary from countless other theologians.

Next, and probably my favorite, has to be BlueLetterBible.org. This is how I end up sounding like a Greek scholar on Sunday mornings. Now, here again, there are tons of resources on this website. The only one I utilize is the Strong's concordance, which you find by clicking the tiny little "C" in the midst of those six links that appear next to every verse. Once the Greek is displayed, also be sure you click the Srong's code, not the translated word itself. You want to find the Greek definition of that word and where it's used elsewhere in scripture. Clicking the English word gives a word search of the english translation, which is not always as accurate.

Finally, one of the most influential self-study resources that I have found in all my life has been BiblicalTraining.org. Here, you can essentially audit a complete track of seminary MDIV courses via mp3. As an auditory learner myself, I've taken systematics I & II, some Biblical Theology, a smattering of Greek, etc. Best of all, it is free. Now, you'll find two links, one called "foundations," the other "leadership." The latter is the deeper, more detailed of the two and the one that I recommend.

Aside from that, I also frequent biblegateway.com for a quick look at various translations of a text, and from time to time I even venture on to wikipedia for a secular view of Biblical and Church history topics.

Adam, Eve, and Incest

2008-11-10T17:15:00.003-05:00

This post comes in response to a question on askscripture.com where anonymous writes: "the bible doesn't say, as far as I know, if there were any other people unrelated to Adam and Eve's family on the earth when Cain got married. So, where did Cain get his wife from? Was she related to him?"

This is not a bad question. First, I'll answer the easier of the two questions: yes, you are correct that he Bible makes no mention of any other humans being created. So, the logical conclusion is that Cain must have married his sister.

Troubling? Why? In today's family structure where there may be 10 or so 1st cousins at a Christmas dinner, it's a bit disturbing to consider marrying any one of them. Not to mention the genetic disorders that result (I'll address that in a moment). But, try to imagine life outside the social stigma of incest we have today. Adam lived 930 years. Which, assuming he was virile from creation, means he could have fathered over 900 children in his monogamous relationship with Eve.

So, Cain didn't grow up with his sister. He's not in family photos with her. They didn't play together as children. In fact, she may be as strange to him as any other person in a crowd of 900. In that sense, it's not quite so... well... icky.

What about the Biblical ban on incest? Remember that law was not given for several thousand more years in Leviticus 18. It is not uncharacteristic of God at all to provide new or revised Laws to protect His people as time progresses. For whatever reason (and scholars can speculate that genetic devolution was the cause) God saw fit to forbid that which He once approved (Abraham married his half-sister).

I appreciate some other works on this topic found at:
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html
http://godlorica.blogspot.com/2006/01/whom-did-cain-marry.html (particularly if you do the math as he suggests)

1 Peter 3:1-7 - Wives & Husbands

2008-11-07T09:15:00.003-05:00

This Sunday, I'll be teaching out of 1 Peter 3:1-7 on wives and husbands. By God's providence, in my 3 years as leader of the 20-somethings ministry at Faith, the topic of male/female relationship (and related topics on church structure and function) has come up at least 4 times that I can remember. On top of that, I've spoken to a group of men at a CBMC meeting on the topic from 1 Corinthians 11. I don't believe in coincidence, so there's either something God wants me to learn about this or some message He really wants people to hear through me. Either way, I'm humbled and hope to exposit the text responsibly this weekend.

A few things stand out to me. First, as I so tactfully argued in my last post, is Peter's call for the 1st century Greek women to follow the example set out by a Semitic nomad from over 2000 years prior. Think about it, that's the same separation we have today from the setting in which 1 Peter was written. In a doctrinal debate where "cultural contextualization" comes up so often, I think we have to acknowledge the way in which Peter presents his teaching as what theologians call a "transcultural normative," which basically means it is a standard that transcends cultural barriers because of the overarching authority of God's intended order.

That said, we must also be responsible in this text to see what those transcultural principles are, and be careful not to add to them. Peter doesn't describe a 50's housewife here. He doesn't say women should be perceived in lesser value, nor give husbands permission to demean and manipulate wives (in fact, quite the opposite). But, implied in this passage (and stated explicitly elsewhere in the New Testament) is a truth about differing roles and a definite hierarchy—not hierarchy of value or worth, but of civil, familial, and even church authority.

Two more things stand out to me that build on this principle of complementary roles. First, Peter's praise for women "who put their hope in God," and his call for all women to "not give way to fear." Fear of what? Their husbands? Perhaps. What about social pressures to adorn oneself instead of relying on "inner beauty?" Women in the church who accept a Biblical view of their complementing roles need to be recognized, admired, edified, and encouraged because this behavior requires a faith and hope in God as their sole measure of worth, outside of worldly standards, to a degree that I declare many men struggle to have as they assess their own self-image.

And finally, the last verse really personalizes that call for recognition, admiration, edification, and encouragement and places it directly as a burden on each husband individually. Do not underestimate the magnitude of Peters first phrase, "in the same way." In the way that we place hope in God and strive for value according to His standards, we should lay down self, pride, personal agenda in pursuit of understanding and honoring our wives. Where the NIV uses "considerate", the NASB says to live "in an understanding way." And, lest there be any perversion of this hierarchical order into a hierarchy of value in God's sight, Peter assures that our believing wives are co-heirs and will receive an inheritance by the same measure as their husbands.

Women in Ministry

2008-11-05T10:11:00.005-05:00

I'm currently reading a book called "Women in Ministry: Four Views" which combines essays and responses from Christians on the topic of women and their role in church ministry that range from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal. As usual, I tend to fall somewhere in between.

If you can get past the fact that you're reading a book that was not designed to keep your attention, but is rather an assimilation of academic arguments made from 4 different people... then it isn't a bad read. Don't expect, however, to be riveted with entertaining content.

I happen to be reading this book as we, as leaders at our church, prepare to implement a new adult course system and must address the question: who is eligible to teach? Ironically, I'm working through that topic while simultaneously, the class that I am teaching at present has reached chapter 3 in our study of 1 Peter. As I've been preparing, a quote from the book matched very nicely with a quote from the passage, and I thought I'd share to see if you find the same connection.

In response to the often touted argument that Biblical restrictions on women in ministry were merely outgrowths of the culture in which they were written, Susan T. Foh (yes, a woman advocates male headship in the book) writes:

"Another cultural setting must be noted in the interpretation of Scripture: that of the interpreter.... Equality is a current banner held high (it is un-American to speak against equality) and it is assumed to be an indisputable theme in Scripture. But is it?"

With that very intriguing thought fresh in my mind, I began reviewing the text for my lesson this Sunday and a verse jumped off the page at me:

"For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful" (1 Peter 3:5).

Wait, you mean to tell me that the actions of Semitic tribal women circa 2000 B.C. living in a different time, place, and culture can actually be relevant to serve as a model for 1st century Greek women? That must mean that the 1st centry Greek culture wasn't so enlightened, so advanced, so liberated from the shackles of history that it could dismiss culturally irrelevant issues of days gone by. Phew, but it's a good thing we've reached the pinnacle of civilization today so we can do just that, eh? Er... umm... wait a sec....

Jesus and Homosexuals

2008-11-04T17:29:00.001-05:00

This post comes in response to a question on AskScripture.com where anonymous writes, “Did Jesus like homosexuals and condone it by his actions?”

Shortest blog post ever: “No.”

Ok, so I’ll go ahead and expound a bit. I think what anonymous is getting at is a recent campaign by the Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) entitled “Would Jesus Discriminate” and promoting http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/. The campaign included newspaper ads, billboards, and a slew of other media outlets citing alleged Biblical support of the so-called LGBT lifestyle.

Among the Bible verses that I personally saw advertised was Matthew 19:10-12 where Jesus tells his disciples that some men were born eunuchs. The MCC contends that in this context, eunuchs somehow represent a parallel to homosexual persons. To be honest, it is difficult to construct an argument against such a proposition that lacks any grounds at all. There are no alternate meanings of the text, there is no ambiguity in the Greek word eunouchos (Greek for eunuch), and there is no reason to see this connection other than a desire and effort to justify sin by twisting the meaning of Scripture to suit one’s own agenda.

Another account of Jesus in the gospels that is often touted as a supporting text for homosexual lifestyle is found in Matthew 8:5-13 where a centurion asks Jesus to heal his servant. The MCC contends that in this context, the sick servant was not really a servant to the centurion, but his homosexual partner. Once again, it is clear that this interpretation requires a tremendous stretch of the imagination, not to mention a twist of the text.

In short, there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus condoned such sin as homosexuality. In fact, the strongest evidence supports that he would not have done so. Jesus told his followers, “Not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law” (Matt. 5:18). This Law that He referred to was the same law that reads, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Lev. 18:22).

The book of Job: Suffering and God's Sovereignty

2008-11-01T15:27:00.005-04:00

This post comes in response to a question posted on AskScripture.com where anonymous writes: "Why did Job suffer? What examples of suffering were given in the book? Is Job's behavior questionable at times?"

I could spend years studying and writing on the book of Job and never totally unpack all that can be found entwined in it's passages. One of the most insightful studies is to read the seemingly logical observations about God and His righteousness that Job's three friends offer, consider how they are subtly flawed, and realize how commonly we make the same mistakes in our own theological judgements. But, anonymous has asked some very specific questions about the suffering we see in the book, so let's take a look.

Allow me to answer these questions a bit out of sequence. First, what examples do we see? Job lost pretty much everything but his own life, and even that he began to wish would end. In the first test, 1:13-19, raiders from nearby tribes destroyed his farm implements (donkeys and oxen) and his merchant vessels (camels). Meanwhile, it was natural disaster that destroyed his inventory (sheep) and even his own family. Now, I do not wish to downplay the value of human life lost, but I want to make sure we understand the economic meaning that a large family had in Job's day. While we can personally relate to his loss of loved ones, we might not directly relate to what this meant for Job's social status at the time. In essence, the first test was a stripping of all material blessing. The second test, 2:3-8, is where Job loses even his own health, the last shred of status that he could have. In his culture, to suffer skin boils was the curse of people on the lowest rung of the social ladder.

So what kind of suffering is this? It's tangible. It's something we can all comprehend, and some can even empathize. Some argue, however, that this is not related to the suffering of the New Testament, which was religious persecution and warranted endurance for a greater pragmatic significance than just the unfortunate dealings of so-called fate. However, was Job's suffering not a religious persecution? Who instigated it and why? It was Satan (literally the Accuser) who sought to oppose God by accusing a the ultimate character of Godliness in his day, Job, of disingenuous faith. It is clear by the narrative that none of this calamity would have befallen Job had he not been so "blameless and upright" (1:8; 2:3).

So, with that said, let's consider the first question posed by anonymous. Why did Job suffer? If we carry my last statement to the logical conclusion, it can be said that Job suffered as a result of his righteousness. How unjust is that! What an atrocious and wrong outcome of Job's obvious devotion to God. To deepen the mystery, no matter how you slice it we cannot absolve God of the ultimate responsibility for Job's suffering. God permitted Satan to implement the torment, but when he was petitioned "why" by Job, He did not skirt the responsibility by pointing blame on Satan. God, in essence, responded, "Sure I did, and what are you going to say about it. I'm God. Period."

In order to understand the book of Job without becoming inflamed with anger towards God, it is imperative that we accept by faith a truly Biblical view of God. In studying this story, you must understand that the original writer and original readers, monotheistic Hebrews, viewed God as unquestionably righteous. Therefore, Job would have been in utter sin to call the character of God into question. It simply wasn't an option. We look at these accounts through our Westernized lenses to the world and ask "why would God do this" as though we have the right to ask. Job, his friends, and the Israelites that studied this text did not share the same outlook. (See the "BSL - Righteous" download for a deeper understanding).

In fact, the book of Job carried the Hebrew doctrine of God's righteousness into a new level of understanding. Most of Israel's wisdom books (the Pentetuch, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes) presented the theme of blessing from God as a just outcome of one's righteousness, and likewise curses were for those who lived unrighteous lives. This was the crux of Job's friends' advice as they thought surely he must have sinned to deserve this. The book of Job, however, does not allow the Hebrew to predict and influence God's judgements in a pattern of justice that WE as mere humans deem appropriate. The conclusion is that He is God, He will do what He pleases, and we dare not question. God is sovereign.

This is not an easy conclusion. In fact, it is precisely what frustrates most readers of Job. It's so unsatisfactory to us in our Westernized minds that we continue looking and thinking "surely there is more." I am reading "Come Next Spring" by Jim Welter, and while we obviously share differing theological views and hermeneutic methods, his treatise of Job is worth the read for anyone struggling with the unquestionable sovereignty of God.

So, to the third question, was Job out of line in his response? In one subtle way, yes, and God shamed him for it. Job, like his friends, understood God's justice to be tit-for-tat just as many people today demand that He be. In 42:4-6, Job finally understood how incomprehensible God really is, and therefor how incomprehensible His judgements, and therefore repented for presuming that he could comprehend how God should and would honor Job's righteousness.

Happy Halloween

2008-10-31T07:45:00.004-04:00

Of course, I couldn't be the only blogger on the Internet that DIDN'T post something about Halloween. I'd feel so left out. Now, as a believer, you might expect me to write something about the evils, the idolatry, the dangers of witchcraft and God's displeasure with our fascination in the whole evil realm... nah. That'd be boring. And for the record, I'm dressed as a cowboy today, which I don't think is representative of Satan in any way.

In class this weekend, we'll be studying 1 Peter 2:13-25 on submission to authorities. Now, I know you're not going to believe this, but this has long been a struggle for me, and Halloween is a prime example of this struggle in my mind. I'll go ahead and say it: I love to prank. I love to toilet paper houses. I love to soap windows. I thoroughly enjoy forking yards. And, as most of you know, all of this is illegal.

The authorities where I come from call this vandalism, trespassing, and creating a public menace.... at least, that's what the officer told me. When I was a teenager, we once "decorated" our teacher's front yard with over 120 rolls of toilet paper in just two tall oaks. His neighbor saw it early in the morning and actually called the newspaper to take pictures before he called the cops. On another occasion, our cross country coach specifically told us not to T.P. his house. So, we creatively honored his request. We found old toilets in a trash dump and (as my dad would put it) "liberated" them from the confines of their present location, only to place them prominently in our coach's front yard. There was no paper to be found.

Maybe this is just my sin nature (which I prefer to call my "rebel" side in reference to topics like this) coming through, but I tend to believe God thought that was pretty funny. Am I wrong?

Getting back to the passage at hand, do you think God had speed limits, no-U-turn signs, and friendly pranking in mind when He commanded us to submit to authorities? For a deep (and much more responsible) exposition on the text, I'll refer to an article from Bible.org. Peter's readers lived under an authority that was growing increasingly intolerant of Christians. There were much more serious matters at hand than just a cop telling a pimple-faced teen to clean up the toilet paper before he drives you home. As I watch our nation slowly turn further and further from God-honoring practices, both in government and in the lives of citizens, I am reminded of these words: "do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you" (1 John 3:13). The day may be coming when Christians in America will begin to relate to these passages on the same level their original readers may have.

Why are evangelicals so hair-splitting about doctrine?

2008-10-29T16:09:00.004-04:00

This post comes in response to a question posted on AskScripture.com where anonymous writes: "Why are evangelicals so hair-splitting about doctrine?"

My first reaction was "oh great, a liberal trying to instigate," but I've been inclined to give our friend Mr. Anonymous the benefit of the doubt, especially in view of the fact that he/she certainly would be right to say that God desires unity, not dissension. As passionate as I can be about certain debates, I myself must make the conscious effort to realize I will always have more in common with the most liberal of my brothers and sisters in Christ than with the most conservative and moral non-believers.

So, to get to the question, then, why are evangelicals (and fundamentalists) so hair-splitting about doctrinal positions in light of the clear commands to "agree with one another so that there may be no divisions" (1 Cor. 1:10)? Have some men simply come under the sin of pride and fascination with quarrels? Perhaps some have. But it is important to understand that the pursuit of agreement must be held in balance with the pursuit of sound doctrine that we see in Paul's pastoral epistles (i.e. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). A theistic world view teaches us that there is absolute right and absolute wrong. I believe many good-willed Christians are genuinely pursuing God's glory as they adamantly defy those who, in their opinions, do injustice to His revelation.

While it could be called "hair-splitting" for Christians to debate over scriptural inerrancy, God's sovereignty, baptismal traditions or any of the countless debated topics, it could also be crucial. It all depends on your perspective. For an example, let's assume that God told His people through a prophet that He got a 1600 (perfect score) on his SAT's. What if I heard it wrong and told everyone, "He's pretty bright, you know, a 1500 isn't bad." That's not giving God all the glory He deserves. What's worse could be, "Well, He said He did, but the original transcript got lost when He moved out of his dorm, so all we have is a photocopy. But hey, it's not really important. All that matters is He loves you." Obviously that's not all that really matters because He took the time to tell you He got a 1600.

We should all share a common passion for God's glory. For anyone who has come to especially revere God for a particular attribute or who has found great purpose in serving God according to a particular doctrine, the way a hair gets split could be the difference between ultimate glory and lesser glory. If we can all share a mutual desire for the same cause, namely His glory, we can more respectfully approach our differences. Personally, however, I am more dedicated to the glory of God than to my peace with fellow man, although I do not believe the two must be mutually exclusive.

1 Peter 2:8 - The Double Predestinarian View

2008-10-27T07:54:00.002-04:00

To follow up in more detail on my post last week, as well as the discussion yesterday in my class, I just want to expound on the varying views for those of you who may be unfamiliar with the debate. We discussed all of 1 Peter 8-12 in class, and regretfully had very little time to address the truths of the 8th and 12th verses regarding God's appointments and the Day of judgment.

There are primarily two views, although there are undoubtedly innumerable views in reality, we will look at two diverse perspectives. I want to also make clear that these are two views within the reformed tradition, and certainly a great many views exist in the Wesleyan, Arminian, etc. traditions.

First is the "Single Predestinarian" view. According to this teaching, Man is singly responsible for their own damnation. Though created good, Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and eternal separation from God onto all of their progeny. Then, in an act of unmerited grace, God elected some to receive mercy. The fact that others do not, then, is not God actively appointing them to damnation because they had already appointed themselves for damnation. Instead, God performs a single act of predestination, that for His elect to be justified. Thus the title "Single Predestination."

With that description of the single view, you've probably already ascertained the meaning of the double view. Double Predestination believes that in order for God to be ultimately sovereign, He must be the initiator over both appointments—both to justification and to "stumbling," as 1 Peter puts it.

First, my warning: The distinction between these two views is largely a philosophical debate, and not a doctrine that is pivotal in scripture. At the same time, it's not neglected in scripture, and so an exploration of it is not unwarranted. If you are intrigued, by all means, dig into scripture. I would remind you that (1) scripture is the ultimate authority, not your view of fairness; (2) whichever view you decide, you're deciding it for yourself only... not for others around you and certainly not for God. The mission of theology is not to try and define God using scripture, it's to allow God to reveal Himself to us through scripture. There's a big difference.

Second, my instigation: So, you're intrigued to investigate? Where do you start? 1 Peter 2:8 certainly seems a likely verse to help us reach a decision. Without question, Romans 9 is as well. But riddle me this: What is evil? Dig into the Hebrew (blueletterbible.com is a decent resource) and see what you find? We read in 1 Peter, God "lay" or "placed" a stumbling stone in Zion. What did he place in the Garden? Why? Is the parallel intentional?

Third: my invitation: Got any thoughts on the issue? Questions? Please feel free to comment here. (Anonymous comments are permitted)

1 Peter 2:8-12 - His Chosen People

2008-10-24T10:00:00.004-04:00

Last week, we looked at the identity of Christ in verses 4-7. In verse 8 Peter continues with a description of who we, members of the Church and stones in this figurative temple, are as a result. He begins by stating that those who disobey are recieving just what God had appointed for them. By sharp contrast, Peter goes on to name 4 things, none of which are things we could ever become by our own doing, that describe the Church.

The church is, first of all, chosen from what was once a hopeless and Godless existence (see Eph 2:11-22). Not only chosen to simply escape damnation, but to be a royal priesthood worthy of God's service. He sets the Church apart like a holy nation, similar to Israel. And finally, the church belongs to God.

The end result is praise. Praise for God calling us out of darkness. Praise for God making us into something ("a people") when we were once nothing. Praise for God making us objects of mercy rather than objects of wrath. Then, this overwhelming praise manifests itself in daily living, as we see in verses 11-12.

As I mentioned in last week's post, Scripture is God-centric. We see that theme once again here. This passage begins explaining His plan for Christ, His authority to justify, and His authority to judge, then moves on to reiterate Peter's opening from 1:1-2 regarding His choice, and finally concludes with the intended result: glory and honor to.... drum role please... God Himeself!

1 Peter 2:4-8 - The Chosen Cornerstone

2008-10-16T20:21:00.000-04:00

In this passage, Peter uses a combination of metaphors as well as Old Testament quotations to show us (1) who Jesus was and then (2) who his readers, and all of the Church, is as a result. Let's begin with the identity of Jesus:

• Though rejected by men, Jesus was shown to be chosen with a purpose (verse 4; see also Matt. 21:33-44; Acts 2:22-35)...
• To be our High Priest, consecrating us in order that we too
can make spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (verse 5; see also Hebrews 8:11-14)...
• And to be the cornerstone, providing a pattern and foundation upon which the rest of the Church would be built (verse 6; see also Ephesians 2:19-22)...
• Of which he is the Savior, and the "one who trusts in Him" is saved by faith (verse 6; see also John 3:16)...
• From the wrath of God Himself and no other (see context of quote in verse 6 and 8 - Isaiah 28:14-19; 8:12-15).

I find it very important to realize the God-centric emphasis from beginning to end of this section. As I look through Scripture seeking instruction, truth, etc. I find constant reminders that God wants us to begin by acknowledging His supremacy. Here He begins by reiterating that Christ was His chosen one, and concludes letting us know that He is the one who judges. No one else can be compared to God. No one shares His powers to justify, to sanctify, and to judge.

1 Peter 1:13-25 - Hey Holy People: Be Holy!

2008-10-10T14:58:00.008-04:00

Mull that title over a few times and tell me how much sense it makes. It's kinda like telling a fire to burn, or telling a fish to get wet, right? Well, ironically that's the sort of call we find over and over again in the New Testament. Our passage this week is from 1 Peter 1:13 - 2:3 where Peter moves on from his theological presentation on the believer's salvation to a life application matter: be holy!

As you read this passage on your own in preparation for this Sunday (high hopes, I know, but humor me) if it weren't for what I'm about to tell you, you'd probably skim the words, hearing it the same way you perhaps have since you were a kid in Sunday School. But what if I dared you to know what holiness really meant? What if the same root word of Holy (hagios) appeared elsewhere outside of verses 15 and 16 in a way you might not expect. In our handouts page, there is a new BSL handout for the word "Holy." I encourage you to read it and consider the term anew.

This Sunday we'll take a close look at what it means to be holy. But also come prepared to find an intriguing new motivation to heed God's command for us, His chosen people, to be holy to the praise of His name.

1 Peter 1:10-12 - Theopneustos

2008-09-17T19:47:00.004-04:00

Sounds like Greek to me! That is, of course, because it is. The title for this week's lesson from 1 Peter 1:10-12 is the Greek word for "God-Breathed"—the term we use to describe Scripture and it's divine origin.

Our passage is one of those gems where there are multiple nuggets that we can find and explore (and I'll have to resist the urge to go in depth with all of them). First, the mystery of Christ's sufferings and glory. We take for granted today that Christ died for our sins, but it was indeed a mystery for His contemporaries, and just imagine the prophets who wrote of it before even knowing when He would come.

Second, the ministry (service) of the prophets. They weren't serving themselves at all... ever thought about that? Get a message from God, have no idea what it means, and you're pretty sure nobody in your lifetime ever will, but you record it anyways for the benefit of people to come centuries after you. What a task!

And finally, the most paradoxical in these two verses, a prophet's "intent searching" even while it's God's "breath" or "spirit" that is speaking through them anyway. Come ready this Sunday.

1 Peter 1:3-9 - Rejoice in Your Inheritance

2008-09-10T22:20:00.004-04:00

The emperor is out to kill us. It's becoming increasingly difficult to meet in public without the risk of imprisonment or worse. We're losing our businesses. We're losing our minds. And when, OH WHEN, will He return to make it all end? Have we done something to upset Him? Can we do something to appease Him? Are we sure that we're really His? Oh, what a terrifying prospect... my goodness, what if we aren't?

When times are bad, doubts can spiral out of control. In an era where economic prosperity was a sign of the gods' favor, what can a group of Greeks make of their desperate plight that seems to worsen every day. As we read in 1 Peter 1:3-8 this coming Sunday, try to put yourselves in the shoes of a 1st century Christian in Asia Minor. It's not hard if you know how to relate.

While the ancients looked to prosperity and health, today our highly experiential world tells us that God is near to us, and us to Him, when we sense His presence. Quiet times are deep and "spiritual." We pray daily. The mountain-top experiences tell us something is real in this religion. And when that fades? And when we fade? What then?

Peter told his readers there was confidence to be had in the power of God. Adam said it best after class last Sunday when he told me, regardless of your persuasion on free will vs. God's sovereignty, we can't be deceived into thinking that salvation revolves around us and our actions.

Compatibilism & Libertarianism

2008-09-10T22:04:00.004-04:00

First, a follow-up for last week. We ended our discussion with the debate over human free will. I want to round out that discussion with a little final commentary, then I'll move on to our preview for next week's lesson in 1 Peter.

Free will that is "compatible" with God's is described like this: Man will do that which he most desires. This means that—in theory—God's will is carried forth through Man's so-called "free" will in that He knows what we desire, what we would choose given various circumstances, and thereby guides human history with this infinite knowledge. This stands in contrast to the libertarian freedom most advocated by Arminians where man's will is not imposed on in any way by God's will—compatible or otherwise.

Now, I included one key phrase "in theory" in this final commentary that (hopefully) wraps up this discussion for our class... at least for now. What I want you to realize is that neither "compatibalism" nor "libertarian" appear anywhere in my concordance, and unless you have some radical new translation of the Bible, I venture to say it's nowhere in yours either. The only authoritative word that we have to go on is the Word itself (or Himself, I could go either way there). I encourage you—nay, implore you—to seek answers FIRST in scripture and make every effort neither to add to its teaching nor dismiss any of its truths despite the understandability and/or logic of what you find.

I don't ask that everyone agree with me, nor Calvin, but only this: that you base your beliefs solely in scripture. Everything else is merely "in theory."

1 Peter 1:1-2 - To God's Elect

2008-09-04T12:12:00.005-04:00

Hello all you elect people, how are you today? Ok, so that's not customary language that we use in the Church today. But, as we begin our study in 1 Peter this Sunday, we'll see that it certainly was a perfectly fine way to address believers in the early church.

Writing to fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, Peter addressed his letter specifically to "God's Elect ... who have been chosen." Now, before your minds immediately begin to draft acceptable definitions of what Peter really meant by that, let's stop for a moment and ask, what's so important about election that Peter wanted to identify his audience with the term? He didn't hide from the concept or dismiss it as illogical, unpalatable, or counter to his own free will. Maybe... juuuuust maybe... his readers didn't see the concept as quite so inflammatory as we do today.

I think we can all agree that there may be something foundational to a 1st century Jew about the concept of being God's "chosen people." So then, is there something from this doctrine of election that should be foundational to us as modern-day, gentile believers? Well, if you've been around me long enough, you know my answer to that already. I want to invite you to come ready for an in-depth look at this doctrine this Sunday. There's a lot of ground to cover, so we'll start promptly at 9:15.

Oh, and if you'd like to come prepared, here's some recommended reading: Romans 8-9; Ephesians 1:3-14.

Money in Ministry

2008-08-21T10:08:00.004-04:00

In many Christians' vocabularies, worship and ministry are interchangeable. But, there's a distinct difference... and yet, there's also a distinct connection. Money given in worship often finds its way into some form of ministry. Likewise, giving money out of a sincere desire to worship God with our resources goes hand-in-hand with giving money out of a sincere desire to minister.

Last week, we looked closely at Old Testament examples of worshipping God—recognizing who He is in regard to who we are not. And, intermixed among those very passages we read about providing for the Levites with those very sacrifices, and enjoying the feasts with the aliens, fatherless, and widows.

One thing that is clear throughout scripture is that God has a heart for the poor and marginalized. Jesus ate with societies outcasts. In Isaiah 58, God rebuked Judah for observing fasts without considering what God truly wanted from their fasts: "Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter" (Isa. 58:6).

This Sunday, we will continue our pursuit of understanding God's perspective on money by looking at how He intends its use(s) in ministry. If you're eager to come prepared, re-read Deut. 14-16 and pay attention to His provision for the Levites, aliens, fatherless, and widows.

Money in Worship

2008-08-14T18:42:00.003-04:00

Well, it's been a nice summer break, but I'll be glad to be back teaching this Sunday morning. We're going to round out the summer with one last topical series before diving into our book for the fall, which will be 1 Peter. For the next three weeks, however, we're going to explore some Biblical concepts on money.

Now, this may not feel like the typical Christian "money management" series you could be used to. Instead, we'll spend this Sunday learning about money in worship, the following Sunday on money in ministry (yes, they're different), and then we'll wrap up the 3rd Sunday, August 31st, with a discussion over the Biblical viewpoints on things like "financial security" and "retirement." I believe that an understanding of Scripture leads us to a Godly application of principals in our life, and that's what I hope we accomplish.

So, how does money relate to worship? Do we worship God by "giving" Him our money, and if so, what in the world does that look like? Well, for many of you, it's those silver plates with red felt at bottom... right? We'll be focusing on Deuteronomy 15 and 16, specifically the feasts, to understand how God wants us to worship Him with our money.

I look forward to seeing you all Sunday.

Courtroom Christianity

2008-07-11T08:55:00.004-04:00

Not long ago, I appeared in court over a small claims suit. Lucky for me, I grew up on Matlock and Law & Order... I knew the lingo and walked into the courtroom quite confident. I entered exhibits A, B, and C, just like they do in the movies. I called the judge "Your Honor" and resisted the urge from time to time to scream "Objection" just for good measure. In the end, however, it was not my courtroom savvy that won the case. The truth is, I was RIGHTEOUS already, the Judge merely confirmed it.

The same will be true when we approach the judgement seat of Christ, though my defense will be much different. This Sunday, we'll be discussing the legal jargon that was thrown around in courts that Moses judged. As believers in Christ, we are declared tsaddiyq (righteous), but not as a result of our own tsadaq (justify; to make righteous).

In your understanding and use of the word, what would you say it means to be a righteous person? Is it a state of being, or a state of behavior? A status or a striving?

Evangelism... How good is the good news?

2008-07-04T10:56:00.004-04:00

In our BSL (Bible as a Second Language) series, we began with "Gospel"--the Good News. This week, we're going to see the verb form, Euaggelizo (transliterated Evangelizo or Evangelism). Just as we saw that Gospel has taken on a new definition in our oh-so culturally-steeped Church today, just think about what the action of telling it has come to mean.

I want to share a simple quote to let you chew on until Sunday morning. This comes from another blogger that I found while searching the web for resources. I haven't researched his affiliations or other articles, so I'm not advocating everything you may find if you follow this link. But consider what he has to say about our topic at hand, and by 10:15 Sunday morning, see if you can at least relate, if not agree...

"I hate the word evangelism. It's quite possible that some will take offense at that because evangelism is a strong Christian word and concept, and not liking it may have connotations to not liking the action of doing it. And you would be right! I do not like the word because it is very misunderstood by the rest of our world and I do not like the word because of how we have been trained to do it....
"King Richard had good news for the Muslim world – it was a crusade! When our world hears 'crusade,' when our world hears 'evangelism,' when our world hears 'turn from your ways!,' they do not connect the dots and think, 'Wow, this is really good news!'"
-- Thoughts Outloud, Jeff Peters

Function, Order, & Ordinances of the Church

2008-05-22T09:00:00.003-04:00

Why in the world would we want to combine these three topics, each of which could easily constitute a semester of study by themeselves, into one Sunday morning lesson? The order and ordinances (also called the Sacraments) of the Church are the topic of more controversy and debate between believers than any other doctrinal topics. So, not only do they seem disconnected one from another, but wouldn't it be madness to try and cover them both in one hour?

The focal point of all these issues, however, is the function of the Church. The topic of which ordinances to observe, how to observe them, and when to observe them hinges on what the Church is seeking to accomplish in the first place. Likewise, the topic of how to order the church, who should lead, who should teach, who should serve and how the group should be structured also revolve around the simple matter of the Church's function in this world.

Our ultimate purpose as the Church is to glorify Christ. Whether it be through evangelism, benevolence, mutual edification, or simply corporate worship—all of which we will discuss next week—the ultimate FUNCTION of the church is to glorify and exalt Christ on earth until His return and thereafter.

So, we will look at ordinances and order of the Church through a dramatically simplified lense: how does this doctrine glorify Christ? In so doing, other questions such as tradition, cultural contextualization, and spiritual experiences all disappear. Is that too much of a narrow view? Can we really ignore matters that appear so relevant to our culture today? A disciplined focus on Christ alone does indeed earn the label "narrow-minded" in today's culture. "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matthew 7:14).

Does it matter what we believe?

2008-05-14T08:49:00.003-04:00

Does it matter what we believe? Are there fundamental theological truths that are essential to what it means to be a Christian? And, if so, why do we have to write out an official statement that details what we believe in? Aren't we Christians who believe in the Bible?

Indeed, we are. But as such, we as the Church have a great burden to carry out Paul's charge to "encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Titus 1:9). So how do we define what is "sound doctrine" and what we must "refute?"

Our church and the larger group of Evangelical Free Churches of which we are a part, has a 12 point Statement of Faith that was adopted 58 years ago. Over the past four years, it has been reviewed and a new proposal is on the table to make some changes.

Pastor Tom will meet with us this Sunday to discuss the background of this proposal and share the details as well as take questions and hear your thoughts. I encourage you to visit http://www.efca.org/about/doctrine/ to see the existing statement and come ready to learn the reasons and call to make modifications.

Head, Hands, Heart... What's the 4th one?

2008-05-08T17:15:00.004-04:00

Ok, so maybe Justin and Chelsea are going to be the only ones that get the joke, but whenever I try to list the metaphors for the Church from memory, I end up saying the 4H pledge.

This Sunday, we're going to go through as many metaphors as we have time for. The New Testament writers, and Jesus Himself, were incredibly adept at using imagery to communicate their point. So much so that literature classes often still use Biblical examples for a technique called a "Word Picture."

The metaphors are much deeper than what's on the surface, however. Examples of the Church as a building, for example, were intended to have a very significant and powerful reference for 1st century Jews thinking of their sacred temple. The bride metaphor reveals beautiful truths about the Old Testament laws for marriage and, in turn, reveals God's intent for our own marriages today as well.

Let's see how many we can come up with. What are some of the metaphors for the Church that you can remember... and what do you think they mean?
(Post 'em here)

The Church

2008-05-01T07:34:00.006-04:00

From 9:00 to Noon on Sunday mornings, an hour and half out to eat for lunch with the group, 2 hours Wednesday night, and 2 hours Monday night... we could spend up to 8.5 hours each week "at church" in one way or another. Add in meetings, caring for other members, one-on-one accountability, Bible studies, personal quiet time, and before you know it you've got a part-time job just being a church member. So, for something that consumes so much of our lives (ideally, all of it) I thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at what "the Church" really is.

For the next 5 weeks, leading up to Kendra's and my departure to Southeast Asia, we will be going through a study of the Church. This Sunday, we'll start with the identiy of the church. What makes the church, why is it special, how did it come to be, and what does that mean to you?

To begin, we must start at the beginning. God's covenant with the Church is called a "new covenant," so what happened to the old one? What relation (if any) exists between Israel and the Church? How is the Church identified today... is it similar to Israel in it's identity, or not? How so?

In the weeks to come, we'll explore several major topics on the Church:

Metaphors for the Church that are found in the New Testament
The function, order, and ordinances of the Church
The role of the Church in the world and your role in the Church

Botox Religion

2008-04-25T09:15:00.003-04:00

Wrinkles? We have a shot for that. Fat? We have a pill for that. Losing muscle tone? Just 20 minutes a day and Bowflex can fix that. Hair going gray? We have a shampoo for that. Body feeling its age? Try icy hot to relax it away. Hearing starting to fade? Beltone make 'em smaller and less noticeable to not only improve hearing, but to safe face by not revealing your weakness.

Does it seem that people in our culture accept aging and death as a part of life? No, we flee from it. I wonder, then, if there is a connection between our denial of the facts of aging and our denial of the facts about God. If a person is truly believes the delusion that they may avoid aging by the power of their own will, effort, or wealth, what heed do they give to their Creator?

Solomon seems to draw a distinct connection as he describes the effects of time on a man, and yet his only conclusion is to remember God while you still can, before the final effect (death) takes hold. As long as we can run from death, we have no need for the Creator. But Solomon says, "Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come" (Ecc. 12:1) What do you suppose it profits a man to contemplate death even while he still feels invincible?

The futility of us... the centrality of Him.

2008-04-18T16:29:00.003-04:00

All throughout Ecclesiastes, the theme of vanity, meaningless life, toil, and trouble are apparent, and nowhere more so than in chapters 8-10 that we'll be looking at on Sunday. Solomon searches out every possibility that remains in his quest for something worthwhile. Pleasing the king, or rebelling; following the law, or disregarding it; Even trying to be wise may not get your far, because it seems our fortunes are up to chance.

In fact, there are only two things Solomon appears to know for sure. First, try not to die. For whatever reason, it seems dying is not a good thing to Solomon. Second, God reigns!

Through this entire section, the one unchangeable, unshakable, unaffected, righteous, and generous character that we see is God. Take some time, if you can, and read these three chapters, focusing particularly on the lines that reference God. Notice the reverence that is given Him that Solomon does not even give other royals like himself. No matter what we see in this fallen world, we must continue "holding on to faith and a good conscience" (1 Tim. 1:19) saying "God be praised" in all circumstances.

The Ameri-Canaan Dream

2008-04-04T07:38:00.004-04:00

We hear so much about living the American dream, and by the name of it, you'd think we came up with it or something. Live free and wealthy, own land, enjoy the fruits of your labor... c'mon, is it really fair to call this the American dream. If we read chapters 4 & 5 in Ecclesiastes, we'll see Solomon describing the same dream in Canaan, over 3000 years ago. Let's see how well it worked out for him.

Oh, now it might sound like a stretch to say there's so much similarity between the Canaan Dream and the American Dream, but just look at the text. Starting in 4:3, we have the people pursuing contentment (in their possessions), familial relationship (2-1/2 kids and a dog, right?), political gain, and of course, all the while observing the necessary religious patronage that our societal tradition requires (5:1-7).

The tune changes in 5:8, however, as Solomon goes on to observe the evil of taxes, economic expansion, and building an estate for inheritance. Move on to chapter 6 and the picture gets grimmer.

So where do we find our hope? Who can answer the rhetorical questions in 6:8,11, & 12? The old hymn says it best, "My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness."

Turn Turn Turn

2008-03-14T18:54:00.003-04:00

Ok, so for any oldies fans, the text we'll be studying this Sunday is going to difficult to study without humming the tune to The Byrd's hit from the 60's. But, I dare say that the songwriter Peter Seeger, didn't use this passage from Ecclesiastes with the same outlook on life as the original author.

In chapter 3, we see the author's frustrated outlook on the endless cycle of events; his acknowledgement that we, as humans, realize there is an eternity, yet cannot grasp God's freedom from time's restraint; his resolve to merely enjoy life and appreciate his enjoyment as a gift from God; and the lack of clarity over the ultimate destiny of Man's "breath," or spirit.

The truth I see is that regardless of our knowledge and understanding of the deep things of God, He is nonetheless worthy of worship. It is texts like these in Ecclesiastes 3 that make Solomon's conclusion in chapter 12 such a wonderful expression of reverence for God despite the undeniable mysteries of God.

A meaningless life...

2008-02-26T18:39:00.003-05:00

When I was a teenager, I went to a national conference for teens in the Quaker denomination. For a small-town farm boy, this was was quite an eye-opening experience. It was there that I had my first encounter with a theologian who actually believed that Christ was merely a "good moral teacher."

"How silly!" I thought. Hoping to show him his error, my simple response was, "So, then how do you get to Heaven?" This was not a difficult obstacle for his logic, as he explained that he did not believe in a heaven, nor a hell, but merely "worm food" as he so aptly put it. Puzzled, I asked one more question. "So, why do you obey the 'moral teachings' of Jesus at all?"

Nearly three thousand years ago, a wise teacher and king in the house of David had pondered the same question. I would encourage you this week to read through the book of Ecclesiastes and consider how meaningless our lives would be—our jobs, our relationships, even our religion—if it were not for the truth of the very last verses, 12:13-14. Praise God for the reward He has promised us all.

Wrapping-Up a Year and a Half in Corinth

2008-02-16T11:41:00.003-05:00

Well, this weekend marks the end of an era for our group. It was September of 2006 when we first opened our Bibles to 1 Corinthians 1:1 and began to study the intricacies of Greek culture, the problems in Corinth, and how Paul's instruction to them transcends the millenia and applies directly to us today.

Tomorrow in class (sorry I once again waited to post the blog entry 24 hours before the class) we will review the final summary and benediction that Paul gave to the Corinthians. Then we will spend the class period reading the letter through once more in the same way that it was originally intended to be delivered. Originally, this letter was written to be read aloud before the church, not necessarily dissected word by word by a class of Bible believers.

I invite you (if you get this message in time) to read the letter cover to cover before class tomorrow. It will only take you 10 minutes, tops. Everyone has missed a week from time to time, and many have joined us in the middle of our study. Post any questions from any part of the letter here in the blog (anonymously if you prefer) and we can discuss together to bring clarity and closure to this book, and this phase in our class history.

Who's the boss?

2008-02-07T20:56:00.001-05:00

Our passage this coming Sunday is the dramatic conclusion to Paul's tyrade about his own authority in Christ. Here's where he finally lays it all out there and tells it to their face, right? Paul says to his rebellious children, "by God's power we will live with Him to serve you" (2 Cor. 13:4)

... In the famous words of Scooby Doo, "Whaaaaaaaa?"

C'mon Paul, where's that "kick 'em into shape" authority you're supposed to have? This Sunday, we will take a closer look at the authority that God gave the Apostles, and that He gives today to leaders in the church. Why is authority granted? How should it be administered. Reflection on Christ's own exhibition of His power on earth reveals a lot. Considering the failures of other would-be authorities in Bibilical history will also be a fun exercise.

Despite the disdain for authority that we have in our flesh, we need to come to God's Word in passages like 2 Corinthians 13 with an attitude of submission and understand the God-honoring reasons for authority.

See you Sunday!

The inferior church

2008-02-04T12:37:00.001-05:00

In the passage we studied yesterday (2 Cor. 12:11-18), Paul charged the Corinthian church in verse 13, "How were you inferior to the other churches?" He goes on to answer his own question, "...except that I was never a burden to you?" As we reflect on what he's saying, the obvious question becomes: why didn't Paul take a collection from Corinth?

Was Corinth poor? We learned earlier in his letter (chapter 9) that they have excess money to share. Did Paul not deserve to make a living from the church in Corinth? In his first letter to Corinth, he gives a lengthy discourse explaining precisely why he had the right to collect (1 Cor. 9). Yet, he claims that to collect from them would hinder the gospel. Why?

As we have discussed, the Corinthians were accustomed to paying their teachers. The better the teacher, the more they paid. Paul felt that if he became a "burden" to the Corinthian Christians, then they may think as though they contributed something of value to the Gospel by their giving, thus enabling themselves to have received it. Indeed, with Paul's refusal to take their financial support, the Corinthians' pride was hurt. They felt inferior to other churches, and yet Paul continues in verse 14 to tell them that he would still not take any offering from them. For, despite their attitude toward wealth, Paul states, "what I want is not your possessions but you."

God wants us to receive his Gospel as empty vessels, fully aware that we have nothing to offer. For Corinth, they wanted to offer their wealth to help God. For us, could it be our knowledge, our skills, our good deeds? God asked Job, blameless as he was, what he had done that God should repay him (Job 41:11). All our knowledge, our skills, even our righteous behavior and any good work is only a gift of grace from God the Father. We are empty vessels that God chooses to fill, and then use. We should rejoice that we are "inferior" so that God alone may glorified.

Visions and Thorns

2008-01-26T12:24:00.001-05:00

After two weeks of studying about Paul's boasting, we find ourselves this week in 2 Corinthians 12, where the first half of the chapter tells the account of Paul's supernatural experience in paradise, then immediately follows with the claim that a messenger from Satan has been tormenting him ever since. There will be no shortage of substance for discussion this Sunday morning.

First, what merit do we give to "special revelations" today. There are a host of people (some devout, some delirious) infiltrating the church with convincing tales of their vision or dream. Can any of them be trusted? Surely God is not incapable of intervening in this manner, but what do we make of Paul's obvious refusal to lean on this experience of his in order to validate his authority and teaching.

Next, the most controversial, the "messenger of Satan" that Paul so gleefully accepts. Isn't Satan the enemy? Wouldn't any interaction between Paul and Satan be indicative of the fact that God has abandoned Paul. Don't we equate any semblance of evil with a curse or judgement from God?

As always, we must seek what Scripture has to say about these topics. I look forward to our discussion tomorrow morning (and continued here online if there are any who feel led).

20-Somethings at Faith Missionary Church

2008-01-23T10:49:00.001-05:00

If you're looking for the 20-somethings website, you're not in the wrong place. Well, at least not by your own fault. http://www.fmc20.org/ and http://www.fmc20.com/ redirect here where we once housed a website to connect the 20-somethings ministry for Faith Missionary Church.

However, being crafty fellows, it took us nearly a year to realize that Facebook actually offered the same (nay, even better) functionality and social features than our website ever could. So...

If you're looking to connect with the 20-somethings at Faith, visit the Facebook Group.

If you're interested in the teaching notes, scripture exploration, and general theological discussion with Nick Carter, this blog is where you will find it.

Ask Scripture

2007-10-23T17:49:00.002-04:00

Got a question about a passage of the Bible? Trying to understand some section of Scripture?

Please, by way of comments on this post, feel free to ask any questions you may have. Be sure to subscribe, as I will take the time in the coming week to research and reply in a new blog post.

You can ask about a topic or a passage. I welcome discussion and inquiry from all levels of understanding—laymen to pastors—as well as those of you who may still be testing the claims of scripture and may or may not have accepted the Gospel message.