Always One Note

An Evening at Southern

2011-08-16T21:29:00.001-06:00

Things are back to their usual full pace. As I spend the evening studying Hebrew and Church History while Ariana sleeps, Kim is out with the seminary wives having dessert at the home of Albert and Mary Mohler!

Post-modernism

2011-06-01T17:12:00.002-06:00

“Has anyone told drug-resistant bacteria and viruses that they are simply engaged in a language game or in a manipulative bid for power?” (Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, pg. 10)

It is a great question. And that’s what we’re about – questions. Perhaps with a little contextualization, epistemic humility, and dialog, those foundationalist microbes would see that their power-mongering language games have no place in the post-modern world. The post-modern ~~man~~ err... individual sees right through their quest for dominance! I would suggest that we, together with the bacteria, adopt a five year moratorium on whether they should infect us. We now live in a culture where we need to contextualize infection; it is just not understood it in its depiction as a primitive virulent person-killer.

Beautiful Easter Hymn

2011-04-21T16:00:00.001-06:00

Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν,

θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας,

καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι,

ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!

My brother Brad’s translation:

Christ has risen from the dead

By death, death is trampled

And to those in the tombs

He gave life!

Christian Obedience

2011-03-24T18:03:00.001-06:00

You are, so become, or you’re not.

Thou art the man!

2011-03-15T06:07:00.001-06:00

"I must begin with myself and my own guilt whenever there is anything to be said about the world’s guilt. I cannot simply look out the window and be morally indignant over the great Babylon that lies spread out before me in all its godless darkness. No, what I see out there in global proportions must only remind me of my own “Babylonian heart” (Francis Thompson). And quite involuntarily I will be reminded of the prophet Nathan’s hard rebuke to David: “Thou art the man!” I am the one who needs forgiveness, and the sanitation of the world must begin with me."

Helmut Thielicke

The terror of God’s love

2011-03-12T18:04:00.004-07:00

Psalm 143:11-12
11 For your name's sake, O LORD, preserve my life! In your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble! 12 And in your steadfast love you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant.

It seems that many people simply assume that because “God is love” (so He is; e.g. 1 John 4:16), God will surely extend graciousness and kindness to them. Indeed, they feel that God’s love practically obligates Him to do so, for if He did not, He would be unloving. And since “God is love” is read as if it said, “love is God” (which it does not say), the only God there is overflows with unchecked, unqualified, universal, and endless love.

The monkey wrench in this conception can be illustrated from Psalm 143. Notice what the text says, paying attention to the words “in” and “for”. We read, “In your steadfast love you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant.”

In His love God will utterly obliterate the enemies of His people. In other words, God’s love can be terrifying. Salvation always comes through judgment; salvation always entails the vindication of God’s name and people.

However, there is a way to be found secure in the love of God. The Psalmist gives us a hint:

Psalm 18:50
Great salvation he brings to his king, and shows steadfast love to his anointed [LXX: χριστω, Christ], to David and his offspring forever.

The point of the genealogy at the beginning of Matthew is to point to Jesus as the anointed one, the Christ, the King of David’s line who could finally fulfill the promise (2 Sam. 7:13).

So if you want to be in the love of God, be found in Christ. Because if you’re not, the love of God for Jesus will be terror and destruction for you.

Psalm 18:26-27
… with the purified you show yourself pure; and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous. For you save a humble people, but the haughty eyes you bring down.

Behold the Severity of God

2011-03-12T17:02:00.001-07:00

[Hell] is a profound and dreadful reality. To speak of it lightly, or not to speak of it at all, or to speak of it in a way that changes suffering into feeling nothing, simply proves that we do not grasp its horror. I know of no one who has overstated the terrors of hell. We can scarcely surpass the horrid images Jesus used. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth,"⁴ "their worm shall not die" (Mark 9:48); "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12; Mark 9:43); "eternal fire" (Matthew 25:41); "the hell of fire" (Matthew 18:9); "eternal punishment" (Matthew 25:46); "anguish in the flame" (Luke 16:24). The point of all these is that we are meant to shudder. We are meant to tremble and feel dread. We are meant to recoil from the reality. Not by denying it but by fleeing from it into the arms of Jesus, who died to save us from it.

Revelation 14:11 is probably the most graphic New Testament statement of the eternal suffering of the unrepentant. "The smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day or night." Torment forever and ever. The endless suffering of unrepentant sinners is a reality taught in Scripture and therefore good for us to know about.

John Piper, The Echo and the Insufficiency of Hell

Liberal Christianity

2011-03-09T07:17:00.000-07:00

A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of Christ without a cross (H. Richard Niebuhr).

Goo-goo for Gaga - in lieu of reasoned discourse

2010-09-22T22:26:00.001-06:00

Trueman writes here: Goo Goo for Gaga- I Blame Bono (and Bush) (Carl Trueman). The whole post is worth a read. Here’s some excerpts:

“If the fact that the Senate did not repeal `Don't ask, don't tell' was a pleasant surprise, the tiresome role of celebrities (or, `slebs' as British journalist, Rod Liddle, calls them) in weighing in to campaign for such a repeal was not. This time it was `Lady Gaga,' who comes across as a cut-price knock-off of Madonna (as Camille Paglia has noted), speaking at a rally in Maine. Members of the crowd variously described her speech as "brave," "moving," and "touching;" I found it cliched, lacking in argument, and utterly lightweight. How a pampered celebrity, with a veritable army of bodyguards, playing to the gallery and going with the cultural flow is `brave' is somewhat unclear to me. Crossing a moderately busy road to buy a packet of cigarettes would seem in today's world to be a more physically, culturally, and professionally dangerous undertaking.

Listening to her on Monday, I was reminded of a comment made to me in the 80s about the student activism of that time: student politics is all about sincere people getting superficially involved in very deep issues. If that applied to relatively articulate and intelligent students at Cambridge in 1985, it would seem to apply in spades to the barely articulate synthetic celebrities who now consider themselves to have the right to lecture the rest of us (via ghost written speeches made up of emotive blather) on how society should be organised.

… Such celebrity authority brings to the fore a number of unfortunate aspects of the contemporary world. First, there is the assumption that what young people have to say is actually something to which it is worthwhile paying attention. Wrong, wrong, wrong. These are the same young people who think that the Twilight movies are actually watchable and that no English sentence is complete unless it contains the word `like' at least three times.

… The unspoken wisdom of the day seems to be that those with less experience of the world, and thus presumably less `baggage,' are better equipped to solve its problems. That's theologically Pelagian and technically nonsense. ”

Trueman also observes the apparent hypocrisy which is so often reinforced by the tragic vacuity of thinking endemic in our day.

“This aesthetic power is, interestingly enough, of a piece with the type of argument she, and other celebrity sources of wisdom, use, where the language of right and wrong is, by and large, subsumed by the language of taste and tastefulness. To be specific on the issue Lady G was addressing, those who disagree with her position were labeled `bigots,' and the idea that someone may have reasons for disagreeing with her that were rooted in anything other than mindless prejudice is not even an option. While I regard her arguments as stated on Monday as vacuous and emotive, I would at least like to give her credit for possibly holding her position for reasons other than mindless bigotry against social conservatives.”

That would, of course, require the rarity wherein the so-called ‘tolerant’ actually tolerate someone who absolutely and morally disagrees with them.

A reminder not to take the Bible for granted

2010-09-04T17:38:00.001-06:00

The man after whom this blog is named was executed for his efforts to translate the Bible into the language of the average commoner. We do not (yet) live in a day when we are executed for possessing a Bible, but this picture is a stark reminder that not all have the privilege of simply being able to read the Scriptures, a privilege we have at the cost of the lives of men and women, who were literally burned alive striving for it.

“… one of the primary signs of regeneration is found in a person's obedience to, love for, and respect of, the Word of God. Christians long for Scripture. They long to read Scripture, possess Scripture, meditate upon Scripture… God's enemies have tried to destroy it, but it is still the Word of Life to her. Oh, may God grant to His people a renewed love for His Word in the face of the hatred of the world!” An Image That Touches My Heart

Oh hilarious…

2010-09-01T21:18:00.001-06:00

Gordon Fee on Revelation:

On the other hand, a great deal of what has been written about it, especially at the popular level, tends to obscure its meaning rather than to help the reader understand it. In fact many years ago, when I was teaching a course on the Revelation at Wheaton College, one of the options for a term paper was to analyze the exegesis of Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth. Two of the students took me up on this alternative, both of whom independently came to the conclusion that the task was altogether impossible, since there is not a single exegetical moment in Lindsay's entire book. John himself would surely have found Lindsay's book as 'apocalyptic' as most modern readers do John's".

HT: Gordon Fee on Revelation

Trueman on mismatched pastoral priorities

2010-08-30T23:18:00.001-06:00

Read the whole thing.

“The church leader was simply too busy, with countless external demands on his time; and now, presumably protected by a praetorian guard of personal assistants and associate pastors, he was essentially as unavailable to the masses in his large congregation as the average rock star is to the punters who buy his concert tickets

…

I was reminded of a passage in Bonhoeffer's Life Together. OK, I'm aware that these days quoting Bonhoeffer is like quoting Bono: you have to do it if you want the soul-patched thirty-somethings to take you seriously. But, unlike quotations from the sayings of the insufferably pretentious and self-promoting Bono, the words of Bonhoeffer do not just sound as if they mean something; they often really do mean something. This is the passage: `The first service that one owes to others in the fellowship consists in listening to them. Just as love to God begins with listening to His Word, so the beginning of love for the brethren is learning to listen to them. It is God's love for us that He not only gives us His Word but also lends His ear. So it is His work that we do for our brother when we learn to listen to him. Christians, especially ministers, so often think they must always contribute when they are in the company of others, that this is the one service they have to render. They forget that listening can be a greater service than speaking.'

There is a great temptation these days to listen -- to what the culture is saying, to what the postmoderns are saying, to what the world is saying -- to put it bluntly, to what people who don't give a tinker's cuss for Christ or his church are saying. It would be tragic and a travesty of New Testament church life if, in spending so much time listening to everybody else out there, pastors ended up with no time on their schedule to listen to the voices of their own people. Of course, listening to the little people struggling with sin or temptation or who cannot come to grips with some basic doctrine is a whole lot less glamorous than appearing on stage somewhere, takes up oodles of time, won't get you on the front page of a glossy magazine or listed as one of the `50 Most Important Church Leaders,' and may well in practice impose a cap of some kind on the size of any given church (and thus maybe facilitate more proactive church planting); but it would be a whole lot more faithful to the New Testament model of what a pastor is and, indeed, it might help ministers more truly to reflect the character of God, who -- as noted above -- calls us each by name and cares even for the little things, not to mention the little people.

And one final word of wisdom: if you don't know the names of your people, then don't recommend that they read Bonhoeffer. Quote Bono to them instead. Invariably vacuous but oh-so-conveniently cool. If you start referring to Bonhoeffer, they might start expecting you to pastor like him too.”

Life Together - or Maybe Not (Carl Trueman)

True love?

2010-08-25T23:15:00.001-06:00

“The greatest expression of God's love is His giving His Son for the sins of believers - by crushing Him instead of the sinner (1 John 4:10-11, the way God loved is He "sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."; also John 3:16). Jesus willingly offering Himself up to bear sins. Buddhism has nothing to do with this, and in no way comprehends the love of God for this reason. If Buddhists did, they would worship Christ alone, and rely on Him for their righteousness, and they wouldn't be Buddhists at all.

That we do not have exhaustive knowledge of God does not mean that God has not sufficiently revealed Himself. He has, and the cornerstone of that revelation is the incarnation of His Son: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." Either Jesus was lying, or Jesus has sufficiently revealed God. God has definitively spoken through Jesus (Heb. 1:1-3), and the only way to God is through Jesus.”

As Carson has said, ‘an omniscient talking God changes everything.’

There comes a point, when…

2010-08-22T15:16:00.001-06:00

If you don’t like how God has run the world -

If you don’t like how God is running the world -

If you don’t like how God will run the world -

If you don’t like what God has said about you -

If you don’t like what God has said about your friend -

If you don’t like what God has said about the churches -

If you don’t like what God has said about preaching -

If you don’t like what God has said about the necessity of the Gospel -

If you don’t like what God has said about hell -

If you don’t like what God has said about marriage -

If you don’t like what God has said about sin -

If you don’t like what God requires of every single person -

If you don’t like what God has said about those who disobey -

If you don’t like what God likes (like holiness) -

If you don’t like God’s justice -

God’s holiness -

God’s righteousness -

If you don’t like what God has said about Himself -

If you don’t like how serious God is about His glory -

If you don’t like the exclusive revelation of God in Christ Jesus -

And that it requires the absolute allegiance of everyone on this planet -

And if you do like those things of which God disapproves -

There comes a point, when, despite all protests to the contrary, one fact becomes tragically obvious:

You just don’t like God.

And whatever you do like -

Well, whatever that is, it isn’t the true and living God.

The Damning Delusion of Saving Face in Marriage

2010-03-21T19:11:00.001-06:00

Today’s Sunday School lesson, tracing through Philippians 1:27-2:11, reminded us that while doctrinal agreement is a necessary condition of genuine and complete unity in Christ, it is not sufficient. For example, one historical premillenial complementarian five point Calvinistic baptist can begrudge another historical premillenial complementarian five point Calvinistic baptist over taking a parking stall irrespective of how closely aligned they are theologically. The problem is that sinful people seek their own interests instead of the interests of others – despite doctrinal agreement. I want to take a few minutes and share some eclectic reflections on one area where this is true far too often – marriage.

Philippians 2:1-4
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Self-interest is quite evident in marriage. A wife will deliberately do things to spite her husband, despite Christ’s commands to her. A husband will embrace his own comforts ahead of his wife, even though Christ died for His church. And the examples are endless. It is all too easy to act from conceit and rivalry in marriage.

When a wife curses her husband in their home, slandering him and highlighting his faults, she is embracing sinful selfishness in a high degree. To be sure, she has her excuses, most of them the failings and sins of her husband. Yet it evidences the singular fact that she is seeking her own interests, not those of her husband.

When a husband neglects to comfort and attend to his wife and ensure her spiritual and emotional welfare, instead preferring the television or his friends, and in such a way actually lives up to the grotesque stereotype of the pizza-consuming football watching couch-buffoon, he embraces sloth and his own sinful selfishness.

And let’s be honest, because the alternative is terrifying: You know full well when you do this.

There is a very dangerous aspect to such selfishness which is especially emphasized in marriage. We so often view our marriages as a private matter. And certain things are private. But some go so far as to actively set out to make the church believe something different about the situation within his or her marriage. This can be done in the individual sense, where the husband or wife may try to individually appear as the innocent party in the marriage, despite his or her great wickedness behind the doors of the home; or it may be done in a corporate sense, with the attempt to make the marriage itself appear less defective than it actually is. Both are examples of self-interest, because saving face is by definition a concern with how the self is perceived. And this is suicidal because they conceal something that so desperately needs healing from the means (i.e. God working through the church) by which it could be healed.

And we all know how to save face, how to put on the image of being ‘Christian’ as we see it, don’t we! And although one may try to put on the image that things are fine, or that he or she is truly holy, be it through attempts to be publically pious, whether by doing nice things for others (except our spouses!), or by trying to make it seem as though there is a genuine interest in holiness by highlighting our love for reading good books or listening to godly sermons, the reality is that it just doesn’t fool anyone. The facade is paper-thin, and a mere breeze reveals the truth.

And this some deadly effects. Such a facade and apparent acts of piety actually leave us worse off.

How is this?

On one hand, it potentially enables the delusion and feeling that we can or do ‘make up’ for our wrongs, which is a damning mindset if it becomes habitual, because it means that the heart rests upon works of penance rather than the forgiveness in Christ Jesus through His once-for-all-time sacrifice. Such thinking denies Christ's work. A person might do something nice for another, thinking it balances out the bad thing he or she did previously. And this shows such a profound misunderstanding of grace that I find it hard to believe such a person has genuinely embraced Christ and been reborn.

But there is another practical effect in terms of the body of Christ.

Other Christians who see through the facade find it even more difficult to do the necessary work of bringing the sinful wife or husband out of sin, out of the very real danger of apostasy and judicial hardening. They know that there will be endless excuses, that there will be appeals to such displays of piety. They know that these things, while not improving even slightly the internal holiness of a person who persists in sin, will serve as food for the defensive heart. See, it is the product of a dark and wicked heart, these roadblocks to sanctifying admonishment.

And sinful hearts are most defensive.

Defensiveness for sinful behaviour – especially the attempt to hide or justify sinful behaviour because of the sins of another – is particularly deadly for the Christian. It begins with “Well he does this…”, and the like. It is to spit in the face of God’s kindness, which is meant to lead to repentance. Personal defensiveness is indicative of a massive self-interest. Hiding behind the hypocrisy of another will be of no assistance to you on the day of judgment. Even men do not buy into this excuse. How much less God? And here’s the real danger about constantly looking at the hypocrisy of your spouse: You will simply smile and nod and agree with the warnings of your pastor and fellow believers, warnings which are directed at you, without actually taking them to heart, even while you are utterly blind to the fact that you are utterly blind. And you’re blinded by your self-interest and bolstered in this blindness by the justification you find in the hypocrisy of your spouse.

And that’s just it, isn’t it. I’ve seen it far to often. Wives who compare their husbands to the husbands of other women and then justify their ill treatment and disrespect of their own spouses on account of supposed comparative failings. Or husbands who despise their wives because of their caustic behaviour (cf. Prov. 27:15-16), and thus fail to exercise the servant-leadership and loving gentleness and self-sacrifice required of them by their Lord.

What is also genuinely remarkable in all this, yet honestly unsurprising, is how it can continue for so long. Sin is the sort of thing where you do things which actually work against what you are really trying to obtain – joy. And yet sin is addictive and habitual. The sheer stupidity of it is nothing short of mind-boggling. While we are often blind to it in ourselves, when you see it in others, it looks like insanity. It raises the question, “Why, oh why, would you keep treating each other like this? Why do you continually pursue your own misery just to uphold your own selfishness? Why don’t you understand?” And worse yet, the question may be rhetorical. Indeed, such persistent hidden wickedness may indicate a dead faith and a lack of regeneration, with just enough piety to let one coast in deception straight down apostasy lane and into hell.

The person who persists in sinful habits will become more defensive, more angry, more impatient, more caustic, and increasingly volatile, eventually to a point beyond any human assistance. Hypocrisy, self-interest, and hiding behind the hypocrisy of another, such as that of a spouse, are deadly. This is truly a terrifying thing. Self-interest is a deadly serious matter.

Let us therefore repent of self-interest, and rest in Christ for forgiveness, and live as those who actually consider the interests of our spouses ahead of our own.

Luke 12:1-5
In the meantime, when so many thousands of the people had gathered together that they were trampling one another, he began to say to his disciples first, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 3 Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops. 4 "I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!

Romans

2010-03-09T21:11:00.001-07:00

Right now I’m a quite in awe of this book.

About 2000 years ago, a man named Paul, a former Christian-hunter turned Christ-servant, wrote 7100 words to a church in Rome.

Today, Western civilization, whether they know it or not, has been profoundly shaped by this letter.

And that’s a mere 20+ pages.

Here’s one of the most influential sentences in human history.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

That phrase, ‘in it the righteousness of God is revealed’ is theologically and historically significant in ways that few others could even hope to claim.

Consider the staggering power of just a few inspired words.

There can be a more beautiful you

2010-01-25T23:05:00.003-07:00

***

A 16 year old girl gets scouted by a modeling agency while hanging out at a mall. She’s 5’10”, brunette, and naturally quite thin. She’s always thought she was pretty. Still, it was surprising. She liked what she saw in the mirror. Though she knew people who were prettier. She really wished she had her best friend’s eyes. But what can you do. And hey, it’s a modeling gig!

So for a few years, she models for various companies, walks the runway dozens and dozens of times, and even makes a few TV ads. Photographers and agents wax eloquent about her beauty, and the money rolls in. Sometimes they edit her photos. She didn’t mind the occasional virtual improvement. No one likes a bad picture. But most of the time they don’t bother. She’s just naturally photogenic. And she works out (the cameras aren’t forgiving, you know, and there’s no Photoshop on the runway), but she doesn’t starve herself. She just eats healthy and goes to a personal trainer a few times a week. She’s so busy that’s about all she can manage. It works well enough.

One day, she decides to drop her own name into Google. That can be a scary thing. Finding out what thousands of people think of you. Thousands who can hide behind the wall of anonymity. Sort of like the audience in a coliseum…

Of course, she sees a number of her modeling pictures come up. But near the top of the links, she sees that a recent photoshoot she did caught some less than stellar attention, as summarized succinctly in an editorial.

Apparently, says the columnist, this 19 year old girl is not a ‘real’ woman. She ‘looks like a little boy’. Too thin, too skinny. Not curvy enough. Apparently men don’t really like that. 33-24-34 is a little boyish. They want a real woman, not a ‘pre-pubescent’ girl like this.

… “But I’m 19!”

And her heart breaks a little. Whatever. Just brush it off.

She clicks back in the browser, and notices the next link.

Turns out that it’s a Christian site. And it has one of her pictures in the article. You know the sort. Where the author just needs to add some glitter to the page. Something visual to grab the reader.

Turns out she’s a visual foil in a piece written on ‘fake beauty’ versus ‘real beauty’.

She feels a little ugly for some reason.

***

A 16 year old girl walks into school. The eleventh grade can be brutal. Especially when you’re getting close to clinically obese.

The asthma doesn’t help. And the doctors said something about a problem with her metabolism. What was it, hypothyroidism? She never took bio.

And in truth, she didn’t really care about the details. Excuses didn’t make her any more attractive to the boys. Who knew that 'I have a thyroid condition’ never got anyone a date? There was nothing she could do at this point to get their attention. Well, the good kind of attention, anyway. They saw her alright. She could see them laughing at her now and then.

Sure, the fat jokes had all but disappeared by now. They were worse in elementary. But every minute of every day was a reminder that, well, she was fat. She knew that’s what others were thinking. And that’s what she thought too.

Anyway, with her dismal social life she has plenty of time to spend on the internet. The internet is always there to help you find something you’d like to read. Or that you think you’d like to read. One day she stumbles across an article saying some stuff about true beauty being on the inside. There’s a picture of a gorgeous brunette girl at the top of the article. “If that’s fake, I’ll take it!” she sighs.

But that’s not what really gets to her. Lots of people say models like that one in the picture are unhealthy. Too thin. Guys don’t like that either. And it’s a little comforting, really. Being able to see the flaws in another.

Still, there’s a bigger problem.

She doesn’t think she’s beautiful on the inside, either. She feels like a wretch. Inside and out. Years of bullying and abuse have left her hopelessly unstable, depressed, angry, and bitter. She has about as much of a chance of making herself beautiful inward as she does outward. She knows she’s awful. Who would want her?

She wouldn’t want herself either!

She feels a little ugly for some reason.

***

Give this song/video [by Jonny Diaz] a listen:

Now listen to the artist’s commentary:

I have a few thoughts on this. And up front, let me say I don’t have issue with Diaz’s problem with a purely materialistic view of beauty. Generally, in my view, the approach many Christians seem to take towards beauty is docetic. And it avoids the real hardships of the sufferings of being ugly. I don’t want to do that here. I don’t want to try to puff someone up for a week with some sentimental platitudes. Ugliness is real.

Anyway, my real problem with this song is this: I find it somewhat hopeless. As in, it doesn’t inspire, it doesn’t encourage – I find it saddening. And that’s because I pondered the statement, “There could never be a more beautiful you.”

O, my hope is that this isn’t true.

I’ll try to explain why.

I don’t blame a single person for wanting to be more beautiful.

Matter of fact, I long for that day.

(And don’t confuse any of this with the soul sapping self-esteem approach to dealing with ugliness.)

See, what this song neglects is the pervasive and destructive effects of sin, and the just punishment upon it. Yes, I realize it’s under 4 minutes long. I’m not asking for the Institutes here. And actually, it almost implicitly denies the doctrine of sin. Many people are not beautiful, and those that are, won’t be for long. And none of us are naturally beautiful on the inside.

Our mouths are open graves. Think about that for a minute.

The pretty model will die. And the fat girl will die. From dust we came, and to dust we go.

And this is because our sin has consigned us to death and decay. We are under the judgment of God. And ugliness is part of the punishment for sin.

However, there is good news.

What if someone could take the punishment for sin upon himself. What if someone else could bear it, so that you could be freed from it. What if someone else could be made ugly, that is, could bear your deserved ugliness, so that you could be made beautiful. What if someone could take your punishment so that you could be beautiful. And what if someone willingly did this for you.

The good news is that this has happened.

For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.

This suffering servant’s “appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind.”

This servant is Jesus the Christ.

And the reason why He was marred and killed was to save sinners from their sins. He bore the punishment from God in His own flesh so that all who believe in Him would be freed from that punishment.

In light of this, let me state this as plainly as I can:

There most certainly can be a more beautiful you.

Your body can be more beautiful.

Your soul can be more beautiful.

Which is to say, YOU can be more beautiful.

You can be more beautiful than you are now - As much more beautiful as the sun is brighter and more glorious than the moon.

1 Corinthians 15:41-42
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead.

So I would like to offer a different encouragement to all the girls. Your lack of perfection is a punishment for sin. Not just yours personally. But also because you were born of a sinner. You’re guilty.

But Jesus, sent from God, died and took up life again so that His followers would be raised with a physical body more beautiful than anyone can possibly imagine, where there will be no asthma, no too ‘thin’ or ‘fat’ - no imperfections whatsoever. Just perfection in the full diversity of beauty. And this renewal of body and soul is possible because the punishment for sin was put upon Him. Sin got us into ugliness, and the righteousness of another can get us out of it. People can be reborn, not of a sinner, but of a righteous man.

So if you rely on Christ your very body – that one you hate in the mirror - and your soul, will be transformed out of the wretched mess it is and into a dazzling form which would make the most beautiful human today look bland in comparison. Just turn from your sin and to Him in faith. And it’s the hope of this promise of renewal which will enable you to endure ugliness in this life. And if you already believe, hold fast.

The Christian HOPE is a BODILY resurrection.

We’re not Gnostics. And we’re not materialists. You are your body and soul together. That’s you. And thanks be to God that Jesus died to redeem us, both body and soul, from our sins, so that we could be renewed in glorious perfection. This isn’t just for girls. What of the physically deformed? What of the dying? The elderly?

I suppose my overall thought is that this song might actually undermine the Gospel itself. Sentimental and uplifting platitudes are no substitute for the message of the Substitute who took the very punishment which brings ugliness upon Himself, so that those who are united with Him in faith will know eternal beauty.

All that is to say, Jesus died and was raised so that, among many other things, there could be a more beautiful you.

Multipath signal correlation and the preservation of the Scriptures

2010-01-07T22:35:00.001-07:00

In a recent blog, Inspiration, Inerrancy, Preservation, on the tenacity of the transmission of the New Testament, James White wrote a comment which caught my attention:

We dare not apply modern standards derived from computer transfer protocols and digital recording algorithms to the ancient context for one simple reason: by doing so we are precluding God’s revelation and activity until the past few generations! What arrogance on our part! We must allow God to reveal Himself as He sees fit, when He sees fit, and we must derive our understanding of His means of safeguarding His revelation from the reality of the historical situation, not our modern hubris.

What I find interesting is that in a conversation with a group of engineers, I once used multipath signal correlation as it is used for information reconstruction in wireless communications as an analogy for explaining the means of the preservation and transmission of the Scriptures.

The means by which God has preserved His revelation is in some substantial ways not unlike the means we engineers employ to ensure the integrity of a wireless phone call. The analogy has its obvious limits, but it’s helpful in general terms.

And incidentally, to further the analogy, neither the average reader of the Scriptures, nor the average person who answers a call on his cellphone, appreciates the magnitude of intelligence and design which has resulted in abstract and easy-to-use access to the information.

What’s also an interesting aside is that the level of integrity in the transmission of the Scriptures (>99% over ~1900 years) is greater than that in a standard writable CD or DVD, which manufacturers seem to peg at around 10 to 200 years before significant irrecoverable corruption occurs.

Anyway, White’s reason for God’s use of a manuscript tradition to preserve His word, namely, preventing wholesale corruption by diversifying transmission, actually has a direct analog in modern transmission technologies. We could press this even further by observing that the basic idea of cyclic redundancy checks (CRC’s) was employed by the Masorete scribes, who, if my knowledge here is historically accurate, counted the number of words or characters on a page to help mitigate errors, thus employing a simple hash function.

And the practice of textual criticism (at least in its original intent) is not unlike the receiver’s act of correlating multiple signals.

Ever wondered why your router or laptop (they’re in the edges of your screen) has two antennae?

Ever wondered why God used a manuscript tradition?

I daresay that God has engineered the preservation of His word.

(And lest any should fret, I’m honestly not planning to use this as a sermon illustration.)

:-)

Think you’re not religious?

2009-07-14T22:17:00.001-06:00

Doug Wilson (HT: Turk) writes:

They do not see Tetzel in carbon offsets. They do not see shunning in the treatment the neighborhood gives the guy who doesn't sort his garbage according to the dictates of the regulatory bishops. They don't see a fierce imposition of morality in their crusades for the sake of saving us all from climate change. They do not see blasphemy laws in thought crimes legislation. They do not see their religion in everything they do, and this is because idolaters are blind.

Haykin on Canadian Cultural Contradiction

2009-05-25T18:26:00.001-06:00

“What a contradictory culture we live in. Militant about protecting young children from possible sexual abuse and physical harm (there is such a case going on right now in southern Ontario)—and rightly so—but also adamant about the right to slay unborn children—and yes, they are children too—in the womb. It is blatant hypocrisy.

Does not such government-condoned slaughter of utterly helpless babes here in Canada undermine any right we have to feel moral superiority to the Nazi regime in their treatment of the Jews or the slaveholders of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? For all our purported concern for the helpless and disenfranchised, is it not sheer hypocrisy when we will not extend that concern to the enwombed?”

Living in a Canadian cultural contradiction

Through Christ they are saved, not for their sake, for their fullness of joy

2009-05-10T00:08:00.001-06:00

In John 17:1-5, Jesus prayed that the Father would glorify Him so that the Father would be glorified, just like the Son has been given authority to grant eternal life to all the Father has given Him. The interpretive principle is twofold: First, it must be understood that the glorification of the Son entails the whole complex of His death and burial and resurrection and ascension. His glory is paradoxically in the simultaneous shame and magnificent triumph of Calvary. Second, it must be understood that eternal life and the glory of the Father are parallel: God is glorified in being known, and eternal life is to know God. To experience eternal life is to glorify God because it is to experience all the benefits of rightly perceiving and enjoying and regarding and exalting and magnifying the divine perfections. The salvation of sinners is the glory of Jesus Christ and the glory of God because it reveals and communicates the divine perfections and excellencies. Eternal life consists in all the magnificence of beholding in full experience and relationship the perfections of God, and the glory of God describes God’s possession and the emanation of His perfections. These are but two sides of the same coin. In other words, Jesus is praying in John 17:2-3 that He be crucified and killed and raised so that His people would have eternal life, which is fundamentally the same as to say that He be glorified so that the Father be glorified.

Those who behold a beautiful sunrise are liable to become lost in it, and in so doing, they find joy. This joy is in being lost to self, in the enjoyment of the beauty and light and warmth, in becoming fully enamoured with the emanations and brightness and splendour of the sun, and perceiving its rays, which, being refracted and reflected through the earth’s atmosphere, come together in a magnificent display. The sunrise is duly regarded, and the beholder is duly satisfied, and this regard is the very act of beholding the sunrise in satisfaction.

Driscoll criticizes Joel Osteen’s ‘health and wealth’ teaching

2009-04-18T15:09:00.003-06:00

Driscoll gives a good, succinct critique of health and wealth teaching. Health and wealth teaching is very dangerous, with its belief that Christians are entitled to and should expect material health and prosperity in this life – indeed, that blessedness entails this - and that such health and prosperity is indicative of your standing and faith before God. It is especially dangerous because false expectations and a false reading of the meaning of God’s providence are key ingredients in apostasy.

Driscoll points out that Osteen’s teaching, namely, that walking closely with God in maturity of faith means that you are wealthy, with good relationships, living in victory, without pain and anxiety, excludes Jesus.

Jesus was poor, hated by His people, rejected, persecuted, suffered hunger and anxiety, and experienced immeasurable pain and scorn.

And as Jesus said, when He promised the same to believers (John 15:18-21; 2 Timothy 3:12; note Hebrews 10:34 on possessions):

A servant is not greater than his Master.

Health and wealth teaching not only implicitly proclaims that God intends for the servants of Christ to experience better than their Master in this life, since Jesus directly connects the truth that a servant is not greater than his master with His own experience on earth (John 15:18-21; and see Luke 9:58 for whether Jesus had a nice house), but it also tends to encourage the very pursuit that Paul says will pierce one with many pains:

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

It encourages the pursuit of the very kind of security that Jesus’ so strongly warns against:

Luke 12:16-21
16 And he told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man produced plentifully, 17 and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?' 18 And he said, 'I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' 20 But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' 21 So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God."

And it attempts to tell a man that he should long for and pray for and seek after the very condition in which it is extremely difficult to be saved and then measure his standing before God by that condition.

Luke 18:22-25
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 23 But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 Jesus, looking at him with sadness, said, "How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

Your standing before God is not a function of your wealth and status, nor is your wealth and health and material status indicative of God’s favour in your life (2 Cor. 8:2; Luke 12:16-21; 1 Timothy 6:8; Hebrews 10:34; Psalm 73:3-4; Jeremiah 12:1; etc). In the Scriptures, the wicked often prosper, while the righteous and godly are poor and suffering throughout their lives. That truth is observed by the Scriptures.

To believe that you can measure your walk before God by your material status is very, very dangerous.

To aim principally, or even in a primary way (to the exclusion of the work of the Kingdom, and the proclamation of the true Gospel) at health and wealth and success in this world, is foolhardy.

Proverbs 30:7-9
7 Two things I ask of you; deny them not to me before I die: 8 Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, 9 lest I be full and deny you and say, "Who is the LORD?" or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.

Easter means that you are called to believe in Christ

2009-04-15T22:49:00.001-06:00

Your Response

Now, it is your turn. This is the meaning of Easter: That, in perfect obedience to the Father, Jesus Christ was willingly crucified and died and was buried and was raised from the dead and exalted to redeem His people from their sins and restore them to communion with God. God now commands a response:

Act 17:30-31
30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

See, the resurrection assures a judgment. Be saved – God is commanding you to repent and believe!

Romans 10:9
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

If you repent and believe, you will be saved.

All of this means that there is a way, through Christ Jesus, to be reconciled to God and to be able to live in His presence and enjoy Him. It means that those who believe are justified and have peace with God through Jesus Christ. It means that there is a perfect atonement, a restoration of that which is broken: We were alienated from God through sin, separated from Him – and now through Christ Jesus all who believe are restored to full relationship with the Almighty.

These are the paths before you – the joy of knowing God, or the horror of knowing His wrath. Believe in Jesus Christ and be saved!

Easter - What does it mean? – Part 5

2009-04-14T22:30:00.001-06:00

The Burial and Verification of Death

Mark 15:42-46
42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead [one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water], he granted the corpse to Joseph. 46 And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.

Matthew 27:62-66
62 Next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, "Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise.' 64 Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last fraud will be worse than the first." 65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can." 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard.

Here, Matthew reports that there was a Roman contingent at the tomb. The enemies of Christ saw to it that Jesus’ body could not be stolen. This is mentioned to show the events establishing the historicity and factuality of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

See, Galilean fisherman, trembling because their master was killed – fisherman who had fled from even the Jewish guards – don’t overpower trained Roman soldiers. Not only so, but the disciples hardly understood what Jesus was saying about His resurrection before this happened. They were a mess at this point.

Matthew 28:2-4
2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.

This was no grave robbery. The resurrection was an act of God. While the Roman soldiers could easily repel the disciples, they were no match for the angel of the Lord.

Matthew 28:1, 5-8
1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 5 But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you." 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

This is the greatest event in human history: Jesus was crucified (vs. 5). But He isn’t in the tomb.

By the power of God, Jesus is risen!

John 20:26-29
26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

See, this wasn’t the end. Jesus rose from the grave, not metaphorically or spiritually, but physically.

Let’s look at the Scriptural significance of the resurrection.

The Work of Christ Was Accepted by the Father[1]

The reason that this is significant is that if Jesus wasn’t raised, then we have no guarantee that He was successful in His mission to save His people. We have no guarantee that the offering was accepted.

John 10:17-18
17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

This passage tells us that the Father loves the Son because He lays down His life to take it up again. So if the Son did not take up His life again, He would not only be a failure, having prophesied wrongly, this reason for the Father’s love would be missing. Perhaps more clearly is this passage in Philippians:

Philippians 2:5-11
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Did you catch that? In verse 9 it says, “Therefore!” Put another way, “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name” because “He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,” even a horrible, agonizing death on the cross. So this exaltation was a result or was contingent upon the perfect obedience of Jesus. If His offering had been defective, if He had failed to ransom His people, if He had sinned at all, then the perfection of the offering would be lacking, it would never atone for His people’s sins, and Jesus would have failed to obey: He would not have been raised and exalted. Thus, the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead, and is now exalted, is the stamp from the Father or proof that Jesus was obedient and has thoroughly pleased the Father and satisfied His requirements. Jesus offered Himself, and this offering has proven to be successful because Jesus was raised because of His perfect obedience: If Jesus made an offering to the Father, and He was perfectly obedient, then this offering would be accepted. Thus the stamp of the Father’s approval of the Son and the proof that the offering was accepted by the Father is Christ’s resurrection and exaltation. He has “drank the cup to its dregs,” not missing a drop. He is risen!

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ[1]

While it would be impossible to even evaluate the tip of this iceberg in the Pauline corpus in the time of this study, I want to illustrate this point with a single passage:

Romans 6:5-10
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.

There are two ideas that I want you to see from this. First, Paul teaches that death has no dominion over Jesus because He was raised from the dead. He has conquered death. “Where is your sting, O death?” (1 Corinthians 15:55-56). He has freed those who are united with Him from sin. And that brings us to the second point: Those who are united with Jesus (by faith, Romans 5:1-2) are united with Him in such a way that they will be raised. Jesus has conquered death for them. Thus, we see the death of death in the death and resurrection of Christ, and we share in that victory through our unity by faith with Christ. Everyone who believes in Jesus will be raised physically, like He was.

Jesus Stood in the Gap

The final analogy that I want to highlight is, once again, found in the Old Testament.[2]

Psalm 106:16-23
16 When men in the camp were jealous of Moses and Aaron, the holy one of the LORD,
17 the earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram.
18 Fire also broke out in their company; the flame burned up the wicked.
19 They made a calf in Horeb and worshiped a metal image.
20 They exchanged the glory of God for the image of an ox that eats grass.
21 They forgot God, their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt,
22 wondrous works in the land of Ham, and awesome deeds by the Red Sea.
23 Therefore he said he would destroy them-- had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.

And in Ezekiel we read:

Ezekiel 22:29-31
29 The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice. 30 And I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none. 31 Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. I have returned their way upon their heads, declares the Lord GOD."

See, the people had committed great evil for a prolonged period of time. And God “sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none,” and so He destroyed them. The image is that of a hole in the wall – in ancient times this placed a city at a serious tactical disadvantage. Now when the Israelites had sinned during the Exodus, “Moses, [God’s] chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.” The people had Moses to “stand in the gap,” unlike those in Ezekiel’s time.

All of this points to the work of Jesus, the Son of God, God’s chosen one (literally, the Christ), who stood in the breach before Him, to turn away His wrath from destroying His people. We sinned. And for those who believe, Jesus Christ stood in the gap, taking the wrath of God upon Him – He drank the cup to its dregs. And all those who believe are thus saved by the substitutionary wrath-bearing righteousness providing life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So Jesus is raised from the dead. And since He is raised, He is alive as King and Lord. What are you to do? How can you be right with the risen King?

[1] John Owen. The Works of John Owen – Volume 10.

[2] Longman, T., Dillard, R. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Page 370.

[1] Al Mohler writes briefly here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1118. “As the New Testament reveals, the resurrection represents the Father's complete satisfaction in the obedience of the Son -- even unto death. Sin and death do not have the final word. Indeed, they are defeated through the saving work of Christ.”

Easter – What does it mean? – Part 4

2009-04-13T21:04:00.001-06:00

The Death of Jesus

John 19:28-30
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), "I thirst." 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Jesus has died. But in the moment before He let go of life, He cried out, “It is finished!” The work that He came to do has been accomplished, as Jesus emphatically declares that it is completely finished. In verse 28, we were told that Jesus knew that “all was now finished.” We must ask, what then did Jesus come to accomplish? We were given the answer by the angel at the birth of Jesus:

Matthew 1:21
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Jesus came to save His people from their sins. He did not come to save a people who are not His, but only those that belong to Him. That Christ died for sinners is a primary theme throughout the New Testament (and some of the OT). For example:

1 Timothy 1:15
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

Here Paul, in reflecting on the mercy that was granted Him through Jesus Christ, asserts strongly this truth: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.

Mark 8:31-33
And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly.

The disciples, with Peter speaking, have confessed that Jesus is the Christ for the first time. This revelation did not come from an external source, but rather the Father revealed this to their hearts (Matt. 16:17; John 6:45). Following this confession, Jesus revealed to them why He came, and what was to happen: That He would suffer, be crucified, and then rise from the dead.

When Jesus was betrayed, and a band of men came to arrest Him, Peter jumped to His defence:

John 18:10-11
10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) 11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?"

Jesus says, “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” See, Jesus willingly took upon Himself the wrath of God on that cross, and He did not let anyone deter Him. He came to die, and He did what He came to do. He came to give His life as a ransom for many, and when He says, ‘It is finished,’ He is claiming that He has successfully ransomed them from the wrath of God by substituting Himself in their place.

So we see that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, that He came to die and be raised from the dead, and that He finished all that He came to do. He accomplished the salvation of His people on that cross. God’s people are saved!

He Gave up His Spirit

This statement struck me as most profound. It seems to be such a small, passing statement that merely tells us that Jesus died at this point. It certainly does tell us this, but it tells us much more than that.

First, in saying “He gave up His spirit,” we are told that He did not die prematurely. While this can certainly be deduced from His cry, “It is finished,” it is implicit here as well. Jesus did not give up His Spirit until it was finished.

In saying “He gave up His spirit,” we are told that He died when the purpose for which He came was completed. He did not remain on the cross after the salvation of His people had been accomplished. He did not get off the cross before the salvation of His people had been accomplished. He did precisely what He came to do. He drank the cup to the dregs.

Second, He gave up His spirit. Remember that Jesus said, “Shall I not drink the cup?” (John 18:10-11). Jesus willingly went to the cross, and more astonishing, He willingly remained on the cross, in utter agony. No one held Him there. He held onto His life until the purpose for which He came was accomplished, and then He let it go. He died because He chose to die, and He gave up His spirit when the Father’s wrath had been satisfied. He willingly remained on that cross and suffered amidst unimaginable physical pain, the emotional anguish of the desertion of His closest friends, and the mockery of all around Him. Ultimately, He did not die from blood loss from the flogging, or suffocation from the crucifixion. These were instrumental, but not determinative – He ultimately died because He did what He came to do, and He gave up His life as soon as it was accomplished. He did not suffer any more or less than was needed to satisfy the wrath of God. Such would have been insufficient in the latter case, and unjust in the former. Jesus Christ, the God-man, deliberately remained on that cross, suffering in anguish, willingly paying the price, not because He was forced or coerced, but because He loved the Father and was perfectly obedient to Him.

I want to recall just a few other Scriptural truths. I want to show these so that you see the meaning of the death of Jesus: that it was no mere accident or weakness on the part of Jesus.

Jesus Gave Himself as a Ransom

The first is Jesus’ self-awareness of what He was doing.

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Jesus understood that He was to give His life as a ransom for many. The word “ransom” is the payment made to deliver or free someone or something. Ransoming or redemption is the idea of releasing by payment of a price, and the payment is called a “ransom.” So Jesus was giving His life as a payment to free or deliver many people. He would die, He would give His life, and these people would go free. This is the first concept: That Jesus gave Himself as a payment to free many. The core principle underlying ransoming is that of substitution. The payment is accepted instead of that which was captive.[1] Paul said that Jesus was “was delivered up for our trespasses” (Romans 4:25) and that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Jesus is teaching us that He understood His death as a substitutionary atonement. We see that Jesus has drank of the cup of the wrath of God, and we can see that, though He did not deserve the horrors of this cup, He drank it willingly, taking upon Himself the wrath of God in place of many. He bore the wrath in place of sinners. As Isaiah wrote centuries before Jesus walked the earth:

Isaiah 53:4-5
4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes[2] we are healed.

See, Jesus was crushed by the Father: “It was the will of Yahweh to crush him; he has put him to grief.” It was not the Jews or Romans who killed Christ, ultimately, but it was the Father Himself. He gave Jesus this cup, and Jesus obediently gave Himself as a ransom, taking in the place of His people the crushing wrath of God.

Jesus Offered Himself as a Sacrifice

The sacrificial system of the Old Testament was a major pillar of Jewish religion. The sacrificial system was essential for the communion between a holy and perfect God and an unholy and sinful people. For example, Leviticus 4 describes the regulations for a sin offering, [3] while Leviticus 5 describes the regulations for a guilt offering.[4] These, along with other types of sacrifices, dealt with different issues such as atonement for sin and purification of the sinner. An animal would be personally identified with the sinner, and it would die in place of the sinner.

This was the system that God set up thousands of years ago: A sin offering was intended to provide atonement between God and the sinner, placing the sinner in right relationship with God. It made a person pure. The guilt offering restored and repaired, making the sinner whole, leaving no need for guilt. I want to note a few things about these offerings.

First, the offering was costly. The person had to provide the offering, usually a goat, bull, or lamb, from his own herd. Second, the offering had to be pure. The animal had to be without blemish, without imperfection. Only a perfect offering would suffice. This leads us to the third point: Third, the innocent had to die for the guilty. Innocent blood was shed to provide atonement and restoration, in place of the guilty.

This system of justice was given long before the cross occurred. It was the way for an unholy people to live with a holy God. Now, once a year, the Israelites were required to cleanse themselves through offerings on what was called “The Day of Atonement.” The regulations for this Day of Atonement are described in Leviticus 16. The Day of Atonement was established by God in the Law “that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins” (Lev. 16:34). The day was designed to cleanse the people and purify them for all their sins, and they had to do this every year, repeatedly. The Day of Atonement actually pointed forward to the work of Jesus Christ on the cross (Hebrews 13:10-11).[5] The problem with the old sacrificial system is that while “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins,” (Hebrews 9:22) “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

Hebrews 10:1-3
1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

The offerings of the Law did not purify people in themselves. They were only purifying when done as an act of faith in God, a faith that ultimately hoped in Christ. Animals could not take away sin, but blood is required by that same law for forgiveness of sin.

Hebrews 10:5-18
10 And by that will [the will of God for Christ] we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, 16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds," 17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." 18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

While the Day of Atonement was repeated over and over, it was merely a pointer or a shadow of the true Day of Atonement – that day when Jesus Christ was crucified once, outside the city, as a sin offering for His people. So we see that Christ was Himself an offering, like a lamb without blemish (1 Peter 1:19), who atoned for our sins. The lamb of Passover was killed instead of the Jews in Egypt, and so too Jesus was killed instead of His people. The shedding of His blood, in one single offering, perfected, at once, for all time, those who hold fast in belief to the end; that is, those who are being sanctified, who are called according to God’s purpose (Romans 8:28; Acts 2:39). Christ Himself fulfilled this requirement of the Law: And this offering was so perfect and so sufficient that it was done once, perfectly, and atoned once for all time the entirety of God’s people, upon whom He graciously set His love before time.

Hebrews 7:26-28
26 … it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

Jesus offered Himself! He was both the Offering and Offerer. See, His dual role is only possible because He is Himself holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners – He had to be pure to, in the first place, be able to be a priest who doesn’t have to provide a sacrifice for Himself, and secondly, so that He had a pure offering to give. The whole priesthood of Christ rests on His sinlessness: If He was sinful, He would have no offering to purify Himself, since He would not be an acceptable offering, and if He had no offering, then He would have been useless as the Savior since He could not be a Priest. The perfect sinlessness of Christ is absolutely essential to His whole work, and dual role as both Offerer and Offering.

So Jesus has died for the sins of His people so as to satisfy the wrath of God. Did the Father accept His work? Or was Jesus left to rot, like all other men…?

[1] Leon Morris gives a thorough treatment of the concept in antiquity in his work The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.

[2] Refers to a whipping or beating (cf. Deut. 25:1-3). The ESV footnote on “scourged” in Matthew 27:26 reads, “A Roman judicial penalty, consisting of a severe beating with a multi-lashed whip containing imbedded pieces of bone and metal.” Note the prophetic statement: Jesus was flogged by Pilate.

[3] “Atonement is the dominant concern of the sin offering (all offerings make atonement to some extent). Sin and uncleanness make a person unfit to be in God’s presence and also pollute the sanctuary, making it impossible for God to be there. The sin offering is designed to cope with this aspect of sin by purifying both the sinner and the sanctuary. The distinctive feature of the sin offering is the use to which the sacrificial blood is put. In other sacrifices it is splashed over the side of the altar, but in the case of the sin offering it could be applied to the horned corners of the altar, or sprinkled inside the tabernacle tent, etc.” ESV Reformation Study Bible. Note on Leviticus 4.

[4] “While the focus of the sin offering was upon the purification of the sinner, the guilt offering was concerned with restitution or reparation. Three types of sins required guilt offerings: Misuse of the hole things of the Lord, supposed sin involving things that “ought not be done” (ignorance does NOT excuse), and trespass against a neighbors rights and property.” ESV Reformation Study Bible. Note on Leviticus 5.

[5] “10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. 11For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.”

Easter – What does it mean? – Part 3

2009-04-12T20:28:00.002-06:00

The Arrest

Matthew 26:47-56; John 18:2-12
47 While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I will kiss is the man; seize him." 49 And he came up to Jesus at once and said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" And he kissed him. 50 Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you came to do." Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. [11 Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?] 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left him and fled. So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.

Notice His willingness and intent! Jesus is walking deliberately to the cross: “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” Here He stands, alone, abandoned, betrayed, bound, heading to death – and He is telling His disciples that these things are happening that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. Jesus is beginning to drink in this horrible wrath of God, this cup of “scorn and derision.”

Jesus Before the Sanhedrin

Matthew 26:57, 59-68; 27:1
57 Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. …59 Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'" 62 And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"
63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death." 67 Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, 68 saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?" 27:1 When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death.

The Jewish authorities found Jesus guilty of blasphemy. The Son of God, who was born of a virgin, the eternal Word of God, who shares eternal glory with the Father, was found guilty of blasphemy. The only one who did not commit blasphemy is condemned for it. As Jesus raises the cup, letting the wrath poor in, and ruin and desolation mount, He is sustained by the “joy that was set before Him,” (Hebrews 12:2) as He endures the increasing rejection and suffering. He looks forward, and rather than making a defense or answering them,[1] He says, “I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This is not going to be the end. Even in the midst of condemnation and impending death, Jesus proclaims that He will be victorious!

Jesus Before Pontius Pilate

John 18:28-32; Matthew 27:2
2 And they bound him and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate the governor: 28 they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate went outside to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" 30 They answered him, "If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you." 31 Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." The Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death." 32 This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

John mentions that there was a kind of death that Jesus had previously mentioned. I hope that you can see the sovereign work of God in orchestrating history so that it would be illegal for the Jews to execute Jesus, for the very reason that the Romans would crucify Him. Where did Jesus talk about the kind of death He would die?

John 3:14-16
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 For God loved the world in this way, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

In verse 14, Jesus is talking about an incident that occurred in the Hebrew camp some fourteen hundred years ago as they were traveling to the promised land. They had sinned against God, and He had sent a plague of poisonous snakes upon them – and they ravaged the people, killing whoever they bit. Moses interceded for the people, and God told Him, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." (Numbers 21:8) Jesus is explaining that He is going to be like that snake: He will be lifted up, like the snake, which is a play on words to mean both physically and referring to His glorification. Jesus would be lifted up on a cross, publicly, before all people, so, “that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life.” (John 6:40) See, most people misunderstand John 3:16. That word “for” isn’t saying, “because God loved the world so much.” That word “for” is connected to the previous section. The idea is this: “Because God loved the world by giving His only Son, to be lifted up on a cross, like the serpent in the wilderness who saved people from death, everyone who believes in Him and looks upon Him shall have eternal life and shall never perish and will be raised on the last day.”[2]

So this is the kind of death Jesus would die: Being lifted up on a tree, cursed, that everyone who looks on Him and believes will have eternal life.

John 18:33-19:16
33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" 34 Jesus answered, "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?" 35 Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?" 36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." 37 Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." 38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, "I find no guilt in him. 39 But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?" 40 They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barabbas!" Now Barabbas was a robber. 19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him. 2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe. 3 They came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands. 4 Pilate went out again and said to them, "See, I am bringing him out to you that you may know that I find no guilt in him." 5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" 6 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him." 7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God."
8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. 9 He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?" 11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin." 12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar."13 So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" 15 They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus, 17 and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.

The Crucifixion

Mark 15:24-32
24 And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. 25 And it was the third hour when they crucified him. 26 And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews." 27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. 29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!" 31 So also the chief priests with the scribes mocked him to one another, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

Jesus is nailed to a tree, cursed, insulted, rejected, scorned, despised. He is now drinking the wrath of God, that horrible cup.

Hours pass by…

[1] When the Scriptures, like Isaiah 53, say that Jesus was “silent,” this means that He did not attempt to make a defence. It is not that He did not speak at all, but that He did not struggle or try to prevent His execution – He walked willingly to it.

[2] John 3:16 communicates how God loved the world, not the magnitude of the love. It speaks of how God’s love is expressed. See the HCSB rendering or the ESV footnote (which serves as a clarification, since the old term “so” has been misunderstood in recent years).

Easter Videos

2009-04-11T14:55:00.001-06:00

THAT'S EASTER Life to Death from St Helen’s Church on Vimeo.

THAT'S EASTER Death to Life from St Helen’s Church on Vimeo.

HT: Justin Taylor.

Easter – What does it mean? – Part 2

2009-04-11T14:36:00.002-06:00

Before the arrest of Jesus

To help us understand what is happening, let’s trace some of the events leading to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Let’s begin at the end of the last Passover meal of Jesus’ life. Jesus has just shared an intimate evening with His closest disciples, as together they observed the Passover. Before they get up and go to the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus will be arrested, He concludes with these words.

John 14:40-31
30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me, 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.

He gives us a great insight into the events that are about to take place. He is about to be crucified, and He tells us that “the ruler of this world is coming.” He is talking about the Devil. So Satan is about to do something significant here. He was already arranging to have Jesus betrayed, and we know that he had put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus (John 13:2). So Satan played an instrumental role in having Jesus killed.

However, look at what Jesus tells us: He has no claim on me. The idea here is legal - Satan has no legal claim or hold over Jesus, and cannot accuse Him before God; rather, Jesus does as the Father has commanded Him. So the first thing that I want you to see is that Jesus is not helpless – He is going to be crucified out of obedience to the Father, not because of inability or weakness. He even says that He does as the Father commanded Him so that the world may know that He loves the Father. So this is no cosmic child-abuse.[1] Jesus is not being coerced or forced. He is willingly about to lay down His life because He loves the Father, so as to show that He loves Him, in perfect obedience.[2] Jesus even said elsewhere that:

John 10:17-18
17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

So we see that Jesus is going willingly to His death and that the Father loves the Son because of this, and the Son loves the Father and so obeys Him in going to His death.

From here we go to Gethsemane, and there we see the sorrow of Jesus, and how His heart was deeply troubled as He considered what awaited Him.

Matthew 26:36-39
36 Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, "Sit here, while I go over there and pray." 37 And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me." 39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."

Now, what was so troublesome about this moment? What was it that Jesus found so sorrowful and so troublesome that His sweat became like “great drops of blood” (Luke 22:34), that would stir Him to cry out to God to allow what was about to happen to pass over Him? What could stir the Son of the Most High God to say these things -- what could trouble Him so much?

Jesus tells us right here. He says, “let this cup pass from me.” The key idea in this request is that of a cup. This term appears in the Old Testament of the Bible. And it is the Old Testament where we now turn to find out what this means.[3]

Psalm 75:6-8
6 For not from the east or from the west and not from the wilderness comes lifting
7 but it is God who executes judgment, putting down one and lifting up another.
8 For in the hand of Yahweh there is a cup with foaming wine, well mixed, and he pours out from it, and all the wicked of the earth shall drain it down to the dregs.[4]

Isaiah 51:17
Wake yourself, wake yourself, stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of Yahweh the cup of his wrath, who have drunk to the dregs the bowl, the cup of staggering.

This is the cup that is “large and deep,” bringing “scorn and derision, for it holds so much.” The one who drinks will be filled with “drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of ruin and desolation,” and the one who drinks must “drain it dry.” (Ezekiel 23:32-34). It is the “cup filled with the wine of God’s wrath,” and those who drink it “will stagger and go mad because of the sword God will send among them.” (Jeremiah 25:15-16) This cup of wrath is a cup of staggering, and as Jesus brings it to His mouth, and willingly, He is staggering. He is filled with sorrow as He sees the ruin and desolation coming upon Him in a way that only the Son of God could comprehend prior to its experience. He fathoms exactly the full horror of this bitter and burning cup, and as He begins to smell the horrid and searing stench of the wrath in the cup as He brings it to His lips, He turns to His Father and asks, if it be His will, to allow it to pass. It is because of the magnitude of this horror that Jesus sweats blood. It is not because of the beating or crucifixion alone, but because of the wrath of God poured out from this cup. It is that this cup stands for a punishment from the holy God. Let your heart dwell on this, that Jesus would drink this most wretched cup – and think about this in light of the fact that every human being is born a sinner before God, with wrath coming upon him. Jesus is going to drink the cup of wrath for His people, so they do not have to. As He said:

John 10:11
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

So what did Jesus experience as the wrath of God came upon Him? …

[1] As some supposed “Christians” has so blasphemously called it. Steve Chalke and Alan Mann popularized this in their book The Lost Message of Jesus. This horrid claim is an emotionally driven charge that is predicated on an understanding of John 3:16 as “God loved the world so much,” which is particularly ironic considering that the text does not say this at all. On page 182-183 of their book, they write: “John’s Gospel famously declares, ‘God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son’ (John 3:16). How then, have we come to believe that at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent his anger and wrath on his own Son? The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith.” Not only is this straw man (“suddenly,” cf. Titus 1:1-5) a butchery, but it is remarkable to see how the misuse of Scripture as we have in John 3:16, which is hardly the “translation” they have provided, can result in a denial of the core of the Gospel. They have failed to “rightly handling the word of truth” and are in danger of “twisting it to their destruction.” See Pierced for Our Transgressions, pp. 228-229.

[2] In John 5, we observe that the fountain and source of our salvation is first the love of the Father for the Son. We see that there is a wonderful reciprocal love between the Father and Son, wherein the Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He is doing and has handed all authority and judgment to Him, and the Son loves the Father and obeys Him and does all His will and pleases Him in everything that He does.

[3] Jeffery, Ovey, Sach. Pierced For Our Transgressions. Page 68-69.

[4] “Dregs” are the sediment or residue or deposits at the bottom of the cup. The expression is communicating that whoever drinks the cup will drink every last drop. See Ezekiel 23:32-34 for explicit confirmation of this.

Easter – What does it mean? – Part 1

2009-04-10T08:59:00.001-06:00

Introduction

Every year, our culture makes a note of Easter. For some, it may be no more than the sight of thousands of chocolate rabbits and eggs throughout our stores. For others, it is the beginning of spring break and the kickoff to a week of sorrowful, shameful and dangerous drunkenness and debauchery.

And in the midst of these things, some of which are trivial, and still others tragic, surely it is true that most of our nation has little idea of the true meaning of Easter.

Do you know the significance of the Christian tradition of Easter? Could you explain it to me if I asked you?

Most people have some vague idea that, traditionally, it had something to do with Jesus. This is true – it does have to do with Jesus. It has everything to do with Jesus. And if you are unsure as to the meaning of Easter or its significance for your life – personally speaking – then I invite you to hear the words of this blog series. It is my hope that you will see the beauty and glory of the true meaning of this Christian tradition.

If you are a Christian, and you call Jesus Savior and Lord, which is to say that, among other things, you truly believe in His substitutionary sacrifice and resurrection and continual intercession, then much of this will probably be very familiar. I want to direct your attention to something the apostle Peter wrote before his death. He begins his letter by encouraging his Christian readers to pursue godliness and assurance, and to continue to build up their faith. But then he says this:

2 Peter 1:13-15
13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

See, Peter was going to die. Jesus told him that his time was coming to an end, and in response he makes “every effort” to remind Christians, who were established in the truth, of things that they already knew! He desires that the believers who had flourished under the apostolic ministry would not be left helpless and floundering upon their departure. Peter set a precedent and modeled an essential behaviour for Christians: The practice of repeated reminder of the truth. If you are one who thinks, “Oh, I’ve heard this already. I heard this on Sunday. We were just talking about this last night. I know this already… I could be doing something else with my Wednesday evening,” I would beg with you to be doubly careful. Peter wanted to “stir up” his readers “by way of reminder,” and I desire to do the same. I want you to be firmly rooted in the truth and meaning of the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ so that, when the wolves rise up among you,[1] every one of you will be ready to make a defence for the truth. The wolves are among us, and Satan seeks to devour you, and it is this core Gospel truth upon which you stand and by which you are being saved – if you hold fast to the end. Do not be arrogant and presume to think that you are above corruption, or that you have this in your back pocket, so that you can loosen your grip.

Our Desperate Need[2]

Romans 3:9-18
9 … we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one."
13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.",
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
… 23 all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

This is the situation of every single human being born into this world, except for Jesus, who was divinely conceived. We are all together under sin, doomed, children of wrath.

Romans 1:18-20
18 … the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The only just and righteous response is for God to punish us and pour out His wrath on us. We do not seek God, we have all fallen short of His glory (we all lack His glory), and we have together become worthless (Romans 3). What does God’s wrath look like? Is it just some impersonal natural reaction of the universe to ungodliness? Not at all: The wrath of God is personal.

Deuteronomy 7:9-10
9 Know therefore that Yahweh your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, 10 and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face.

The righteous judgment of God will be revealed:

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
7 when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

This horrible punishment will be most conscious, with great weeping and gnashing of teeth, and even if the poor souls doomed to it cry out, God will not hear them. They will be burned and consumed for all eternity, in everlasting torment (Luke 16:23).

This is the fate of all humanity. It is this wretched and horrid and conscious eternal torment in the hell of fire, the trash-heap of eternity.

Since this is our state, how is Jesus our hope? …

[1] Act 20:29-30: 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Matthew 24:23-25: 23 Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.

[2] This section was a brief adaptation from a longer treatment in my study Oh Hear the Angel’s Voices, delivered on December 19, 2007.

Wisdom and Wealth

2009-04-04T11:25:00.001-06:00

Many people use wisdom and understanding to gather gold.

Ezekiel 28:4-5
4 by your wisdom and your understanding you have made wealth for yourself, and have gathered gold and silver into your treasuries; 5 by your great wisdom in your trade you have increased your wealth, and your heart has become proud in your wealth--

But the wise use gold to gather wisdom and understanding.

Proverbs 23:23
Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.

Proverbs 16:16
How much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.

Which man is pitiable? The man who employs all his wealth to attain an understanding of the Lord? Or the man who employs all his understanding to attain a transient wealth to be consumed by moth and rust?

If we have believed in Christ, if He was not raised, we are above all most to be pitied.

Do you really know what this means?

Experiencing the flow of Divine love

2009-02-24T21:59:00.001-07:00

I came across this blog by Trevin Wax a short while back, and I found it interesting because the analogy depicted is similar to something that I have come to picture myself. He speaks of a 'faucet Christian':

There are two kinds of Christians.

“Sink Christians” view salvation like they would a sink. The water of salvation flows into the sink so that Christians can soak up all the benefits: eternal life, assurance in the present, strength in times of trial. Those who adopt this mindset concentrate solely on what the Bible says God has done and will do for them.

“Faucet Christians” view salvation differently. They look at the world as the sink and themselves as the faucet. The blessings of salvation flow to them in order to flow through them out to the wider world. They rightly see that the Bible describes salvation as something that God not only does for them, but also through them.

Here's the notes from the Bible Study notes on the text of John 15, which led me to a very similar illustration:

John 15:9-10
⁹ As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. ¹⁰ If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

Previously, I showed you why I think that in John 15:10, Jesus is not finger-wagging at His disciples (although those who think they can simply cast obedience to the Christ to the side should take heed); that is, threatening them with the withdrawal of His love if they do not keep His commandments. Rather, He is telling them how it is they will experience the realm of Christ’s love. I want to walk through this again because it ties into verse 12.

In verse 9, Jesus tells us that His love for us depends on the Father’s love for Him: The logic in the passage (though not the emphasis) is ‘I have loved you the way that the Father has loved me.’ Jesus then tells us in verse 10 how it is that He Himself remains in the Father’s love, a love which is mirrored in His love for the disciples: He keeps the Father’s commandments. Obedience is how Jesus abides or remains or continues in the Father’s love. Now, this means that the basis or foundation of the Son’s love for us is that the Son keeps the Father’s commands perfectly, because the Son’s love for us is predicated upon or founded in the Father’s love for Him - it is a reflection or communication or recapitulation of the Father’s love for the Son.[1] Jesus has loved us the way the Father loves Him - but the Son continues in this love by obedience - so it is by obedience that the Son remains in the Father's love which He reciprocates to us. The Father loves the Son, and the Son obeys the Father (cf. John 5:19) and on the basis of this vital dynamic and union there is an outflow of love to us from the Son that is like the love of the Father for the Son, a love that ultimately finds its source in the Father. [2]

Jesus connects this same dynamic to the relationship of His disciples with Himself when He says, “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept…” in verse 10. So, translating what we’ve just seen into our own experience, this means that the Son loves us, and we continue in this love by obedience, and the result of this dynamic is an outflow of love that is like the love of the Son for us. In other words, our love for each other finds its source in the love of the Son for us, which finds its source in the love of the Father for the Son. This remarkable passage, far from threatening finger-wagging, is talking about the flow of love in vital union with the Vine and tells us how it is that we who believe in Christ will experience the love of the Father for the Son manifesting itself in our own lives in love for the brothers. When you keep the Son’s commandments you will continue in His love the way the Son continues in the Father’s love and you will experience the flow of love from the Godhead out into your life. Now, how do I know that this abiding in Christ’s love by obedience results in loving the brothers? Because of verse 12, which says:

John 15:12
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

Our very obedience to the commands of Christ is to love one another. Since we abide in Christ's love by obedience this means that we abide in Christ’s love by loving each other. This means that by loving each other we remain in His love the same way that Jesus remains in the Father’s love. And the Father’s love is the basis for the love of the Son for His people, and so it is most natural that our love for each other has its basis in the love of the Son for us, which is exactly that to which this verse exhorts us - we love just as the Son loved us. And the Son loved us just as the Father loved Him. Hence, our experience of the love of the Son for us continues in our loving each other. I think that the best thought that makes sense of this is that this is the description of a vital connection and a flow (especially considering the immediate context, which teaches that a vital connection with the Vine, Jesus, is absolutely necessary for the branches, Christ's disciples, to produce fruit): The love flows through the connection, and the connection is our abiding in Christ, which is our persevering in faith, and the continual receiving of this flow of love is our own obedience, like a faucet that continues flowing. We remain in Christ’s love as we love one another as Christ has loved us. That is flow, overflow, and source. It is beautiful. Now think about this in light of what we have seen (noting carefully that love for God and obedience to God identifies love for His children):

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.

1 John 4:20
If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

It is thus not surprising, but nevertheless striking, that our obedience in loving the brethren is really the love of God in us reaching its goal (which is the sense of the expressed 'is perfected') in believers:

1 John 2:4-6; 4:12
4 Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
...
4:12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

When we love one another it means that God abides in us and that His love reaches its goal in us. It is not just love to us or for us. This strongly suggests that our obedience in loving the brothers is the very love of God poured into us through the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5) being made manifest and reaching its goal (cf. 1 John 4:16-17). Consider also that the evidence that God's love is not abiding within a person is that this person does not love the brothers (1 John 3:17); indeed, for the apostle this is an impossible situation: Without the love of God, there is no love for the brothers; with the love of God, there is always love for the brothers, so the difference lies not with the disciple, but rather the love for the brothers and sisters is the love of God Himself working and manifesting through His people. This reinforces the idea that our obedience is an overflow of a divine love from the Father for the Son which in turn flows (logically speaking) from the Son to us, and this love is seen in our obedience, which is the love of God reaching its goal in us as it manifests in a love flowing out from us for Christ and for His church.

And it does seem to shed some light on John 17:26, where Jesus says "that the love with which you loved me may be IN them."

John 17:26
I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."

This means that the very love of the Father for the Son is in His people, so that they love the Son and His Church as the Father does.

The implication of all this is, of course, that there is no such thing as a Christian who does not love the brothers (cf. 1 John 4:20):

1 John 3:9-10
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

This means, friends, that you will never experience the vital flow of the love of Christ if you are not abiding in Christ; which is to say, if your supreme treasure and attention is not the Lord, for it is by abiding in Him - not by mere determination - that you will bear fruit. You will never experience this love of Christ if you are not loving one another. Look at each other and consider how it is that Christ has loved you and make every effort to recapitulate this love in your own lives and experience the flow of Triune love.[3]

[1] Kostenberger writes similarly in his commentary on John (page 456): “In 10:17, the Father’s love for the Son is mentioned in relation to the Son’s willingness to lay down his life (cf. 15:13). The Father’s love for the Son is also the basis for his entrusting the Son with his mission (3:35; 5:20).”

[2] Cf. John Piper, of whom I am grateful to the Lord for helping me to see this: “Jesus said the key to his love was his relationship with God the Father: “I abide in his love” (verse 10). Jesus lives in constant and perfect union with the Father. The effect is that the Father’s love moves into Jesus and lives there as a divine power to love. Then Jesus says at the end of verse 9, “Abide in my love.” So he abides in his Father's love, and we are to abide in his love. That’s how we are able to love each other “as he loves us.” He loves us by abiding in the love of the Father. We love each other by abiding in the love of the Son—which is the love of the Father” Retrieved from: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2008/3241/
See also Kostenberger, page 457: “Thus, John 15:9-12 features a chain of love… that unites the Father with the Son, and believers with both Son and Father…”

[3] Cf. Carson, John, page 520: “These two verses [9 and 10] do not impose on the believer an absolute alternative, perfect obedience or utter apostasy; rather, they set up the only ultimate standard, the standard of Jesus himself. The practical tensions of this supreme standard and the faulty steps of obedience practiced by Jesus’ followers are more fully explored in 1 John.”

A caution from Edwards for spouses

2009-02-16T21:45:00.001-07:00

He writes:

Husbands do sometimes greatly sin against God, in being of an unkind imperious behaviour towards their wives, treating them as if they were servants; and (to mention one instance of such treatment in particular) laying them under unjust and unreasonable restraints in the use and disposal of their common property; forbidding them so much as to dispose of any thing in charity, as of their own judgment and prudence. This is directly contrary to the word of God, where it is said of the virtuous wife, Proverbs 31:20. that “she stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.” If God hath made this her duty, then he hath given her this right and power, because the duty supposes the right. It cannot be the duty of her who hath no right to dispose of any thing, to stretch forth her hand to the poor, and to reach forth her hands to the needy.

On the other hand, are not the commands of God, the rules of his word, and the solemn vows of the marriage-covenant, with respect to the subordination which there ought to be in this relation, made light of by many? “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord:” so Colossians 3:18. What is commanded by God, and what hath been solemnly vowed and sworn in his presence, certainly ought not to be made a jest of; and the person who lightly violates these obligations, will doubtless be treated as one who slights the authority of God, and takes his name in vain.

That is Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), from Christian Cautions, Or, The Necessity of Self-Examination. The Works of Jonathan Edwards (eyestrain edition), Volume II, page 454.

He held that the husband and wife held their property in common - so it was the not the man's property only, and he did not have totalitarian rights over it - and he adamantly insists that a man's wife is not his servant, and that she should not be treated as such, but rather that she should be considered trustworthy and able to administer their possessions in obedience to God. He calls a man's distortion of this a great sin. He also has an equivalent chiding for women who would usurp their husbands' God-entrusted headship. Notice, it is the woman's responsibility to submit, not the man's to subject her, and the man's responsibility to not be harsh and domineering, but to entrust his wife. The woman has a responsibility to obey God herself, and the man is not to hinder this obedience.

Long before feminism and evangelical egalitarianism were in vogue, women would usurp their husbands, and husbands would domineer their wives, treating them as property. Jonathan Edwards would have nothing of this, and proclaimed the biblical model of the ontological equality of man and woman as made in the image of God, as co-heirs in Christ, at the same time as upholding the God-designed beauty and distinctives of manhood and womanhood.

Once again, Edwards was a Calvinist New England Puritan pastor, theologian, and philosopher who lived from 1703-1758. It is striking that this man also gave his life on the altar of science, for its advancement: he died after taking an experimental vaccine, as he had a keen interest in the increase of scientific knowledge.

On whether you can judge if a person is saved...

2009-02-07T18:27:00.002-07:00

This particular example is striking, when you ask the question, "As fallible, limited humans, can we actually know if someone is truly saved?"

Paul writes this to the Thessalonians:

1 Thessalonians 4:13-15
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Notice why Paul is saying this: "That you may not grieve as others do who have no hope." So Paul is giving his readers something to hold on to, which, if believed, would be very comforting. These Christians have lost, to death, people that they know. Paul isn't speaking in abstracts here. He's comforting grieving people who lost people that they know and love.

How does he do it? He goes on to reiterate the promise of salvation on the basis of the Gospel.

Why is this comforting? It is only comforting if these believers know that their late brethren truly loved Christ. Paul writes presupposing that they do indeed know this. And such a presupposition itself presupposes that ordinary believers can know this.

Why would this be comforting to other Christians, if they could have no assurance of one another's salvation? Paul didn't write, "Brothers, it may well be that those who have died, even though they professed Christ and loved the brethren, were really false believers. You cannot see their hearts, and you cannot know for sure. We have no real basis to think that these will be raised again, but we have no real basis to think that they won't be! Let's just hope that they were on the right track."

If Paul can comfort those who are alive based on the truth of the Gospel regarding those who have died, then we are able to have a genuine assurance of the salvation of our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Paul's argument is unhelpful otherwise.

I find this quite compelling.

Apostasy and repentance

2009-02-07T17:45:00.002-07:00

Moral error will lead to theological error.

Theological accuracy will lead to moral uprightness.

To put it another way:

If you have good doctrine, and you enter into persistent sin, eventually you will adopt theological perspectives that allow you to justify your sin as righteousness, once your heart has been hardened. Hence, the deceitfulness of sin.

If you are in serious moral error, and you come to accept and understand good theology while in that sin, your inclination will be to abandon that sin.

Sound doctrine will lead you out of sin if the latter preceded the former.

Sin will lead you out of sound doctrine if the former followed the latter.

Arturo Azurdia speaking in Calgary, January 24-25

2008-12-31T14:25:00.001-07:00

For those in Calgary, Calvary Grace Church is hosting a conference (Calvary Grace Conference January 24-25):

"Calvary Grace Church in Calgary invites you to come and consider the role of the Christian in the world as speaker Arturo Azurdia shares God’s Word on the subject of ‘A Call to Worldly Christianity.’".

If you are interested in attending the conference please visit the following websites:

Online Registration

Conference Schedule, General Info

Does disaster come to a city, unless...

2008-12-29T19:42:00.001-07:00

This is sobering:

Natural disasters killed over 220,000 people in 2008, making it one of the most devastating years on record and underlining the need for a global climate deal, the world's number two re-insurer said Monday."

Non-Christians frequently point to these horrors and suggest that the loving God of Christianity doesn't or couldn't exist on account of them. How could He? He just lets these things happen, and innocent people are killed. Undeserving children are killed.

But they don't know the God of the Bible. If they did, they wouldn't say this. The Bible is very blunt about how this works.

The thing is, the God of the Bible doesn't let or permit these things to happen. Not at all.

He does them.

Amos 3:6
Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?

Isaiah 45:7
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

God takes credit for these things.

The creation is groaning under the weight of God's wrath on account of human sin and human indifference to the glory of God. But God is not indifferent to His glory, which we have together cast aside. We have all exchanged the glory of God for lesser things.

So if you were to ask Jesus of Nazareth, "Why did this happen? Why did 220,000 of the poorest people in the world die this year while many of the wealthiest lived?" or "What did these people do to deserve this?" I think His answer would be something like this:

"Do you think that these people in Myanmar were worse sinners than all the other people, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or the Chinese in Sichuan who were struck by the earthquake, which killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived on earth? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

The meaning of natural disaster is that you are going to die too.

Stop looking for the particular reason for why those people died while you didn't, because the same reason that they died holds true for you. You are condemned in Adam, in Adam's sin, and sin is an inconceivably horrid affront to the one true God. If you do not repent, you too will die in your sins. And to die in your sins means to go to a judgment that will result in condemnation. You won't solve this problem with "climate deals." You're going to die anyway.

Hebrews 9:27
… it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.

But by the grace of God, God the Father sent His Son Jesus with an offer of peace with God by way of the sacrifice of the Son. The mission of Jesus is the demonstration of God's love to the world. And Jesus was deadly serious about this. He willingly died as the Father crushed Him because sin must be dealt with, and in Him alone, in the risen Lord, there is peace with God. The Son of God absorbed the due punishment for His people.

And you need this peace with God. Desperately.

You can't put it off - because an earthquake or cyclone could wipe you out in a moment. Repent and turn to Christ for salvation from your sins, so that you do not die like they have died - in sin.

Jesus, Luke 13:1-5
"Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Ask whatever you wish in My name...

2008-12-28T22:25:00.001-07:00

Patton posted: Permanent Link- Open Forum- Question from a Reader

My two cents… hopefully its not too all over the place.

So it’s clear where I’m coming from, I’m a Calvinist with a VERY high view of the sovereignty of God.

Now, with that said, I don’t think that we should diminish the promises from Christ on account of the secret will of God. Understanding that God is sovereign over ever detail (as I do) tells me the mechanics of how things work and guarantees that they will be worked towards the purpose of God. This doesn’t take away from Christ’s promise to give anything if you ask in His name.

And I think that it is sad to pre-emptively deal with your disappointment in prayers you haven’t even made yet by appealing to the sovereignty of God. That just isn’t compatible with Christ’s exhortation.

Joh 14:13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

This is a tricky thing. It is tricky because, on the one hand, Jesus makes a huge promise here: On the other hand, we see James say things like, “2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.” (James 4:2-3 ). How do these fit?

Asking in His name isn’t tacking an “if you will” onto the end.

Praying and asking in the name of Christ means that, as has been observed elsewhere, "prayer is to be in accordance with all that that name stands for. It is prayer proceeding from faith in Christ, prayer that gives expression to oneness with Christ, prayer that seeks to glorify Christ."[1]

There is Old Testament precedent: Frequently the saints would appeal to God to act on their behalf for the sake of His name. I think that you cannot separate the name of Christ from the glory of the Father, and that this is implied in the idea here: That we should pray for the sake of the name of God. For the upholding of His purpose. And I think a similar thing can be seen in the passages cited in the other Gospels (e.g. as has been observed, praying for the Holy Spirit)

How does this fit into losing a job, etc?

I think that John 15 is telling.

John 15:7-9 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.

“By this” refers backward and forward. God is glorified by you asking for whatever you wish and it being done for you. God is glorified by you bearing much fruit. So there seems to be a connection between the two even here…

Again, the contextual limitation is ‘in my name.” This isn’t the same as saying “your will be done,” or even, “in Jesus’ name.”

And I don’t think that tacking a “your will be done” on the end of a prayer to prepare for disappointment grasps the point of this verse, either:

1 John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.

Instead, look at the logic here:

Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

The disciples have been appointed to bear fruit SO THAT whatever they ask will be given. Your prayers are to be for fruitbearing, and God provides a fruitful life so that your prayers are answered. This is how God views your daily life and its relation to your prayers.

So the true sense in both of these verses is to pray with confident expectation for those things that Christ HAS promised, namely, fruit-bearing.

Pray for the peace that Christ gives knowing that He has promised that He will provide rest and that He gives His peace, not as the world gives, and that He has promised that if you ask anything in His name, according to His will, the Father will answer you.

There are many things that I cannot promise you. I cannot promise you that God will give you a job or that He will heal you physically.

But I can say with ABSOLUTE certainty that if you abidingly believe in Christ and you pray for the peace which He gives, you will receive it. If you pray for fruit-bearing, it will happen.

So pray for it. God hears the prayers of the faithful. Don’t underestimate or denigrate prayer. Don’t diminish His promises by using the sovereignty of God as a means to reduce their effect. I think that this is tragic. It makes God’s promises functionally void. And it misunderstands the relation of the secret will of God to our asking and God’s giving.

Rather, adjust your prayers. Pray for that which is totally in line with the purpose of Christ, namely, fruit-bearing.

If you think, ‘I lost my job’, then think,’ How can I demonstrate the value of Christ to my soul in this?’ and pray for a material-worries transcending peace and trust in Christ that others might see His value. That’s just one example. You could multiply the prayers for fruitbearing. Use your tragedies as occasions to do so.

We must raise our prayers a little and focus them on our real mission here. Then we can pray expectantly, and confidently, believing that we will be given what we request.

Hope that helps.

...

CT said:

According to Mike J, one condition that you must meet in order claim the promise “Ask and you will receive,” is this: your prayers must be such that if they are answered, then they’d glorify God. One might think that this should be a very easy condition to meet. Surely God could be glorified by miraculously answering my prayer for a new job.

But Mike J also advises us to “Pray for that which is totally in line with the purpose of Christ.” This might be a harder condition to meet. Maybe what’s totally in line with Christ’s purpose is that I remain unemployed, or that through starvation I learn to empathize with the destitute of this world. Given that Christ’s perfect will (at least with regard to many specific details) may be quite difficult to determine, perhaps one can only expectantly pray for rather general stuff like: “Thy will be done”, “Let me bear fruit to your glory”, or “help me to me abide in You”.

Jason C said:

Actually CT, I think Mike J’s full of it. But then I’m not a Calvinist. I don’t see prayers being answered to further God’s glory (how can the glory of God be enhanced anyway?) I see them as being answered out of God’s kindness.

Faith is trusting God, so I pray trusting Him then continue to do the best I can to achieve the desired end. I guess I follow the little mantra I learned as a child. “Pray as though everything depends upon God, then work as though everything depends upon you.”

JP points out in the link above that hyperbolic language is a characteristic of Semitic speech and that taking “whatever” as “whatever” is a recipe for presumption.

MIKE SAID IN HIS POST ABOVE:

“So the true sense in both of these verses is to pray with confident expectation for those things that Christ HAS promised, namely, fruit-bearing.”

Now. With that established:

Hi CT,

Thanks for the thoughts.

You said:

“According to Mike J, one condition that you must meet in order claim the promise “Ask and you will receive,” is this: your prayers must be such that if they are answered, then they’d glorify God. One might think that this should be a very easy condition to meet. Surely God could be glorified by miraculously answering my prayer for a new job.”

Actually, I think you might have missed my point by missing a critical step.. I said that Jesus is saying to pray for fruitbearing. While this IS glorifying to God, fruitbearing is more concrete than this. For your prayers to be answered they must be prayers for concrete fruits in a Christian walk.

e.g. Fruitbearing is not having a particular job. Fruitbearing is about a particular character that expresses in particular conduct in whatever your calling or station or place or job or whatever. For example, fruitbearing entails striving to obey the command to provide for your family. Ergo, pray for the fruit of a desire to provide for your family and the means to provide for your family.

“But Mike J also advises us to “Pray for that which is totally in line with the purpose of Christ.” This might be a harder condition to meet. Maybe what’s totally in line with Christ’s purpose is that I remain unemployed, or that through starvation I learn to empathize with the destitute of this world. ”

Don’t make what I’m saying more abstract than I mean it. That purpose is fruitbearing in a believers life. That’s described in detail throughout the NT. Pray for that.

So I’m saying that we need to raise our prayers a little. We need to stop thinking so shortsightedly (I’m not saying that pejoratively, I just mean - look beyond what you think you need by looking at what Christ has promised in promising to answer prayers for fruitbearing).

Moreover, I’m just can’t assume that you understand what I mean when I say “the glory of God…” Though since I’m talking about something more particular to our actions in our experience as believers, I don’t need to go into this right now.

To my more gracious and loving interlocuter, Jason C:

You said:

“Actually CT, I think Mike J’s full of it. But then I’m not a Calvinist. I don’t see prayers being answered to further God’s glory (how can the glory of God be enhanced anyway?) I see them as being answered out of God’s kindness.”

The fact that you just put a dichotomy between God’s kindness and His glory shows that you do not understand what I am saying. God’s kindness is His glory.

Moreover, the fact that you apparently don’t understand the difference between glory as an intrinsic possession, glory as an emanation, and glory in perception renders your objection mute in the first place. Please do some reading on a Calvinistic understanding of glory. Start with Jonathan Edwards. All his works [needed for this subject] are available online.

Also, please actually interact with what I write if you’re going to say I’m full of it. That includes interacting with my brief exegesis. Go read it again if you need to.

Focus on the fruitbearing. That is concrete. It’s not left up to the imagination. It is obedience to Christ as defined by Christ in His revealed word. I’m saying that a believer’s prayers are guaranteed to be answered if a believer is praying for fruitbearing.

“Actually CT, I think Mike J’s full of it. But then I’m not a Calvinist. I don’t see prayers being answered to further God’s glory (how can the glory of God be enhanced anyway?) I see them as being answered out of God’s kindness.”

Oh, I might add that Arminian theologians have acknowledged that God’s ultimate purpose is His glory too. This isn’t unique to Calvinism:

“[God's] ultimate purpose of glorifying himself by demonstrating his love to all persons is fully achieved even in the event that some persons persist in rejecting it . . . [this is because] If we accept his love, he is glorified in our flourishing; if we persist in rejecting it, he is glorified when it becomes utterly obvious that we cannot be truly happy apart from him.” Jerry Walls, “Reply to Talbott” in Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion, (eds. Peterson and Vanarragon), Blackwell, 2004, p. 288. (HT: Manata.)

[1] Morris, The Gospel According to John. Eerdman’s Publishing Company. Page 574.

Peace on earth among those of God's favour

2008-12-23T21:56:00.002-07:00

What is Christmas all about? The world’s tradition includes giving gifts, contributing to charity, showing acts of kindness and love, and speaking about vague notions of peace and joy. We hear every day on the radio and TV, through songs, programs, Christmas specials, and movies that the message of Christmas is peace and love and charity. I’ve heard this on secular radio:

Let us not forget the meaning of the season: Peace and love and good will to men.

This has some basis in the more familiar rendering, in the King James Version, for Luke 2:14:

“Peace on earth and good will to men.”

But how do we explain global “peace” between all mankind on earth, especially to the grieving mothers of the children slaughtered by Herod? Or good-will? Jesus’ birth did not begin with peace on earth, as the United Nations would define it. He is born, and because of His birth an infant genocide occurs. And moreover, this slaughter was part of God’s sovereign plan, having been prophesied centuries before. Jesus’ birth is followed by Jesus’ parents fleeing to a foreign nation to avoid the wicked violence of King Herod. Even in the last century we have seen some fifty to sixty million people killed in World War 2, and millions more in other conflicts and genocides. We have seen forty-three million babies slaughtered in the United States alone, with some 950 million killed before they saw the light of day worldwide. There are numerous brutal and bloody conflicts throughout the world even as I write this.

See, this isn't really what the angel said. Consider the ESV rendering:

Luke 2:14 (ESV)
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

The difference isn't a matter of translation; rather, it is due to a textual variant: There is a difference in the case of the word translated "favour" between the manuscript tradition upon which the KJV was based and the more eclectic manuscript reading underneath the modern translations.

Byzantine reading (KJV): ευδοκια
Alexandrian/Western reading (ESV, NASB, etc): ευδοκιας

One letter can make a big difference. Note that the difference is a single sigma on the end of the word. This changes the meaning to be the difference between “favour” in the objective or subjective case without the sigma (e.g. “He gave favour” is objective, “Favour found him” is subjective), and “favour” in the genitive case (e.g. “he was of favour”) the idea being that of belonging to favour. Consider the difference:

Luke 2:14 (ESV)
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”
Luke 2:14 (KJV)
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Here is the late renowned textual critic Bruce Metzger's textual commentary on this verse.

The difference between the AV, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men,” and the RSV,
“Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”
is not merely a matter of exegesis of the meaning of the Greek, but is first of all one of text criticism. Does the Angelic Hymn close with ευδοκια or ευδοκιας?
The genitive case, which is the more difficult reading, is supported by the oldest representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western groups of witnesses. The rise of the nominative reading can be explained either as an amelioration of the sense or as a palaeographical oversight (at the end of a line ευδοκιας would differ from ευδοκια only by the presence of the smallest possible lunar sigma, little more than a point, for which it might have been taken – thus ευδοκια).
The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it was sometimes argued that “men of [God’s] good pleasure” is an unusual, if not impossible, expression in Hebrew. Now, however, that equivalent expressions have turned up in Hebrew in several Qumran Hymns (“the sons of his [God’s] good pleasure,” 1 QH iv:32f.; xi:9; and “the elect of his [God’s] good pleasure,” viii:6), it can be regarded as a genuinely Semitic construction in a section of Luke (chaps. 1 and 2) characterized by Semitizing constructions.

Not only is the genitive the more difficult reading (generally making it preferable to critics, ceteris paribus), but the oldest manuscripts support it. The genitive is almost certainly original. Now, keep in mind that the broader understanding of the message of peace is safeguarded and informed by the whole of Scripture. The KJV reading is significant, but it is hardly fatal, and it affects no core doctrine. If you read the KJV in full, you will get the same Gospel and the same message.

But, we can see that this text is not even implying or saying that Jesus came to bring a global end to war and suffering – not yet, anyway. And not before Jesus comes back on a warhorse in judgment.

So, is there an immediate message of peace in Christmas for anyone? Indeed there is – a far more important and profound message than the objectives of non-governmental organizations or peace activists.

The reading in both the NIV and the ESV is undeniably particular - the promise of peace is only given to those upon whom God's favour rests. There is no promise for those who are not in God's favour. This passage is not telling us that the meaning of Christmas is some generic peace and good will to men. The angel is not talking about all people.

But, those individuals upon whom the favour of God rests not only ultimately enjoy true culturally transcending peace with one another in their common identity in Jesus Christ, but they have true peace with God Himself, having been reconciled to Him through the gift of faith by the perfect and sufficient and efficacious wrath-bearing atoning work of Jesus Christ on their behalf.

That is the message of peace at Christmas: God is coming in His great might to exact judgment against all unrighteousness of men, and the Father has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, in the flesh, who has come with a preemptive offer of mercy, an offer of peace with God, granted to all who repent and abidingly believe in Jesus as the Christ. And for those of favour, they shall enjoy the peace of Christ, the state and experience of blessedness before God, and so escape the judgment of the hell of fire, to the praise of the glory of God.

Eclectic thoughts on uniquely Christian weddings and the role of a groomsman or bridesmaid

2008-12-22T21:13:00.002-07:00

Having been in a number of weddings recently, I have some eclectic and non-exhaustive thoughts regarding the role of the groomsmen and bridesmaids, and the essence of a distinctly Christian wedding (i.e. what makes it uniquely Christian).

The first thing I'll say is that since marriage is a creation ordinance, this means that a wedding is implicitly a creation construct - the entering into of marriage before God and man (however that culturally plays out). Therefore there is a lot of affinity between secular weddings and believer's weddings - because, by the grace of God, although people despise God, He has not withdrawn the grace of marriage from them. I think the fundamental difference is that unbelievers not only take the attention and fail to give the glory to God, as I'll explain below somewhat, but they do not proclaim the word of Christ at their wedding. That, and they don't acknowledge the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, what place does the bridesmaid or groomsman have in a Christian wedding?

1) The groomsmen and bridesmaids are there for the groom and bride, not the other way around.

The duty of the 'best man' in biblical times (and this is a cultural role at that time, too - I'm not making an appeal to 'the good ol' days', so don't misunderstand) was to make sure that the groom would receive the bride without a problem. It was his duty to make sure the ceremony went over without an issue. It was his duty to stay out of the light and point the attention at the groom, and the groom receiving the bride. This forms the backdrop for the words of John the Baptist.

John 3:29
The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.

John the Baptist expressly uses this as an analogy for Christ coming onto the scene: "He must increase, I must decrease," and he rejoiced in it. (cf. John 3)

I think that this is the closest thing in the Bible that we'll find to an attitude of those who are helping at a wedding or who are asked to be in it (not to moralize that particular narrative - that is not the point of it, just an implication, when you understand the meaning of marriage). The role of the best man is to exalt the groom and not look to his own interests. By extension, I think the aim of a bridesmaid is to make the bride look and feel incredible that day, to exalt her, and not look to her own interests.

So the role of the groomsmen and bridesmaids in a wedding is to help the couple in every way, to fulfill their desires about the wedding, and so on. That is the job. They should not think that the couple is inconveniencing them or imposing, or become begrudged or cynical toward them. The job is to be there to be imposed upon and inconvenienced, and to point the spotlight at them.

While some may say that it's bad for the bride and groom to be the centre of attention, they should be the centre of attention. That is the definition of a wedding - to hold up the bride and groom and their new marriage before everyone, and this is a proclamation of the glory of Christ and His church in marriage, because this is the meaning of marriage. See (2).

As for gratefulness to those in the wedding party on part of the bride and groom, one who serves may find himself expecting or demanding thanks for it. Bridesmaids have the option not to be a bridesmaid. Groomsmen could refuse the request. Yes, it would be dishonourable for a person to refuse to be a bridesmaid or groomsmen. And that says something. They are asked precisely because they are the closest and most trusted and reliable people - people upon whom demands can be placed. Trusted people who can be inconvenienced and do so joyfully. That is what it means to be a bridesmaid or groomsmen (consider the example of John the Baptist before Christ).

Those who serve at a wedding must adopt the attitude of John the Baptist - not having a requirement that the bride and groom be grateful to them. Rather, they should be grateful to the couple for the honour placed upon them in asking them to take on this responsibility. The couple asking the groomsmen and bridesmaids is the favour, not the other way around. Should Christ be thanking John the Baptist? The groomsmen and bridesmaids should be saying, 'they must increase, we must decrease.'

Now, with that said, generally, married-to-be couples are quite grateful for the help and burdens that others take on for their sake in a wedding. I have been in five wedding parties in the last several years, including two as best man (and one as groom), and I've been to even more weddings. Never have I encountered a couple that wasn't overtly thankful. But those who serve aren't there on the condition that the couple is thankful. They should be thankful for the honour they have in sharing with the couple like this!

2) A wedding ceremony is by definition centred upon the bride and groom.

You can't get around this. There is no way. And Biblically, it isn't bad at all for a person to be exalted. God does that throughout the Scriptures. He puts His people in positions where they earn praise. Here's the trick, though: The onus is on that person to give the glory to God. Failing to do this makes it bad, and as it turns out, can be a fatal error. (cf. Acts 12:23). But being the centre of attention is not unbiblical nor unchristian.

This isn't bad, if the bride and groom, in having the attention upon them, use their wedding to exalt and give glory to Christ. That and the attention being on them is glorifying to Christ since it exalts marriage, which points to Him (in the context of a Christian wedding, where this is clear). Now, an unbelieving couple simply takes this glory upon themselves, and doesn't say, "The meaning of this is that it corresponds to Christ and His church."

God has put the bride and groom at the centre of attention on this day.

Now what will they do?

Now that they look incredible, now that all eyes are upon them, now that everyone is listening to them, now that there is much glory in the appearance - what happens now?

3) The word of Christ preached is primarily and sufficiently what makes the wedding distinctively Christian.

We cannot diminish the preaching of God's word as delivered by the pastor, other speakers at the wedding, and in the vows. This is the definition of giving the glory to God. Considering the scorn that one can incur for praising God, even at a wedding, this can't be overlooked.

This is a massive distinguishing point between a Christian wedding and a non-Christian one. Indeed, the preaching of God's word at a wedding is an immeasurable difference.

Consider what it implies:

a. It means that the bride and groom are publicly entering into union before God and in the name of Christ.

b. It means that the bride and groom are proclaiming that the Scriptures, which are God's word, are authoritative in their lives and over their marriage.

c. It means that they recognize and proclaim to everyone there that marriage is God's creation and its sanctity and institution are founded in Him.

d. It means that they acknowledge the grace and goodness of God as they stand before everyone. He is their God, and He deserves the glory for their marriage. This wedding is a celebration of a marriage is fundamentally about Christ and His church.

e. It means that they are testifying to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If we think that a wedding hardly portrays a focus on Christ, etc. aside from the message delivered, it implies that there is some superior way to make known a focus upon Christ other than preaching God's word.

But God's word is how He makes Himself known. It is how He accomplishes His purpose. And Christians are commanded at a most basic level to preach and proclaim the word of God to the world. There is no substitute for this. There is no superior way to exalt God than to preach the word of Christ.

And since the wedding itself, from the perspective of liturgy, probably consists mostly in the preacher speaking (and the vows), even from a pragmatic point of view, this dominates the wedding.

It means that sinners have the Gospel proclaimed to them at a wedding. Unbelievers can't go without hearing Christ's word before them.

The preaching of the word and acknowledgment before God of the covenant of marriage is the distinguishing point between weddings.

The building is irrelevant. The dresses are irrelevant (unless, I suppose, they were promiscuous or something). The food is irrelevant. We all have the wedding somewhere. We all wear something. And we all eat something. The ceremony will take place in one order or another. These things have no bearing on what makes a wedding uniquely Christian.

So the answer to the question, 'what makes this wedding uniquely Christian?', is multifaceted.

a. The word of God and the Gospel of Christ is preached at this wedding.

b. This marriage covenant is entered by the bride and groom before the one true God.

c. The bride and groom are children of God (i.e. true believers in Christ).

d. The bride and groom publicly give glory to God and proclaim Christ as Lord.

Additionally, one might add that the Christian view of marriage is explained to everyone there.

None of these are present at an unbeliever's wedding. And I think they should all be there for a wedding to be distinctively Christian.

The couple may be nice, generous, people. But no matter how easy-going or generous or kind or patient a bride might be, she'll still stand up there and have all eyes on her, and if she's not a believer, she won't give the glory to God for being exalted.

Continuing on this thought with another example, the disposition of a bride or groom doesn't highlight anything uniquely Christian (indeed, the fact that 'nicer' brides can be found in unbelievers than in believers at times is a testimony to this). A kind or easy-going disposition doesn't say, Christ is supreme in this wedding. It isn't even necessarily rooted in a desire to show that. It just reflects that the bride doesn't have a particular preference, or that a bride is generally a socially nice person. Moralism is never uniquely Christian. Neither is good behaviour.

Such only appears "Christian" to someone whose conception of Christianity is wrapped up in mere outward behaviour, rather than the Gospel.

From the perspective of a groomsman (or bridesmaid) I think we must be careful not to equate a Christian wedding with a non-authoritative wedding. A wedding isn't about the convenience of a bridesmaid or groomsman. If we think about it, fundamentally, John the Baptist was beheaded for being a good best man. For being faithful to the Bridegroom.

This was, to put it mildly, inconvenient.

4) Aiming for perfection at a wedding is a good thing - this can be a good aim of the bride and groom.

A bride desiring perfection at her wedding day is completely acceptable. Trying to make things beautiful and orderly (as opposed to chaotic or uncontrolled) and 'perfect' at a wedding is not a bad thing, as it actually reflects a biblical concept - the church, which represents the bride of Christ, will be presented pure and blameless to Him, and it should desire this and work toward it. It's a pointer. I would even say that a bride's desire to be beautiful and perfect for her husband and before all the people should be reflected more in the church! And the bride should reflect the ideal desire of the church.

Further, I am inclined to the opinion that it is God-honouring when the bride and groom aim to make it beautiful, rather than just allowing things to fall as they are, however they come out, for this can be an outward pointer to the importance of marriage and the sanctity of the event. I mean, there was some significance to all the magnificent dress of the priests under the Mosaic Law.

Of course, sometimes the sinners involved become impatient or frustrated, or they buckle under the anxiety of the whole event and marriage. Sometimes they are unrealistically perfectionistic in light of the realities of a fallen world. They aren't able to joyfully accept the often insufficient and disappointing but nevertheless genuine efforts of those who are helping with the wedding (we're not talking a moral matter here). They may be impatient with things not being their way. But that's a different thing altogether.We live in a fallen world, and it won't be perfect. They do have to reckon with that and not sin on account of it. But they can certainly aim for perfection. And those who serve must be patient with the bride and groom when they aren't perfect.

Besides, it is the job of the groomsmen and bridesmaids in a wedding to try their best to see that the event is as perfect for the bride and groom as possible.

The wedding is not about the groomsmen and bridesmaids. If you serve as one, you're largely ornamental. The wedding is about exalting a picture of Christ and His church by exalting the groom and bride as they come together in the marriage union of a man and woman.

These thoughts aren't exhaustive. Nor do I intend to deal with every "what if" scenario. But I've been in several weddings now, and I've been to multiple believing and unbelieving weddings. Hence these eclectic meanderings.

Borderline illiterate

2008-12-20T19:35:00.002-07:00

I just heard of someone who called this a contradiction:

Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

I find it ironic that radical fundamentalists and 'enlightened' liberal scholars (or even 'Christians') share the same rigid literalistic hermeneutic, a hermeneutic that is the functional equivalent of illiteracy.

In the interest of not throwing pearls to swine, I'm not going to explain any further. Instead, I'm going to give a short and simple comment:

Anyone who thinks that this a contradiction is by definition a fool.

Think on that.

Seriously.

Bible Study Night - Thursday, December 18/2008 at 7 pm

2008-12-16T21:20:00.001-07:00

Matthew 1:18-23
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

We're going to take a detour from our voyage through John and step into the Christmas mode for a study. I hope to cover just some of the biblical meaning of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus, and answer the question: What is the true meaning of Christmas?

Feel free to invite your friends and family, particularly those who do not know much about Christianity, as this study will hopefully be quite accessible.

Contact me if you're interested in coming out.

Mike said on Piper said about glory

2008-12-15T21:42:00.002-07:00

http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2008/12/volf-glory.html

Jeremy said:

"As for intra-Trinitarian love, I don't know if he [Piper] ever comments on that. In the statement I just linked to, he's clearly restricting himself to God's love for us. I don't believe I've ever seen him apply it to intra-Trinitarian love."

Yes, he does comment on it quite heavily. You can find his commentary in his series on 1 John.

For Piper, who takes an Edwardsian look at the Trinity, who in turn speaks about the Trinity in Lockean terminology (in an unpublished essay), the Trinity consists in Love, and that Love is the Person of the Holy Spirit. So Love is personified, and loving, in the regenerate believer, is the activity of the Holy Spirit.

Jeremy said:

"The reason it's good for God to promote his glory is because that's promoting recognition of what's good, and it's good to promote what's good. He is glorious precisely because he's metaphysically good. I'm sure Piper does agree with this. What he doesn't seem to agree with, though, is my claim that this is means God's seeking of his glory isn't the most basic fundamental truth about God's motivations."

I would agree that Piper would say that is right.

For Piper, the display of the love of God is a component of His glory, from what I've gathered. So you can say His love is His glory, but its not the totality of it. That might create some confusion, but it seems that the love of God is also a motive for the revelation of His whole glory.

So His love is His glory, and He loves for His glory, but His love means He'll show the rest of His glory, or something to that effect.

John 11:5-6
4 But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.

Jesus loved them - SO He allowed Lazarus to die. Why? Because the illness is for His glory.

I think that's the relation. His love is a component of His glory because His glory is His perfections. And it would be unloving for God not to show His glory. His love means that He will display His glory.

"Love" isn't a real good overall motivator for God. It doesn't seem to reckon with Romans 9. Perhaps particular love for the elect.

Bruce said:

"i'm not sure if its adequate even for God's particular love for the elect, "thus says the LORD God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came." Eze 36:22,cf. v.32"

That's where I was going, actually :-)

For Piper, "glory" is the perfections of God.

So His goodness is His glory. His goodness may be a motivator for the rest of His actions. But I'm sure Piper would say that goodness is the glory of God because goodness is one of many manifold perfections of God. Once again, remember the Edwardsian backdrop to Piper. And this was Edwards understanding of glory, based on his analysis of Scripture. Basically, glory has three senses: An intrinsic possession (e.g. my beauty is my glory, my money is my glory, my power is my glory), the communication of that perfection, and the perception of that communicated perfection. e.g You glorify the glory of God when you perceive the love of God for you.

I think a lot of it might come down to semantics - important ones, mind you.

Piper said:

"The cure for this bondage is to see that God is the one being in the universe for whom self-exaltation is the most loving act."

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2000/1515_The_Goal_of_Gods_Love_May_Not_Be_What_You_Think_It_Is/

We should be quite careful about attempting to drive wedges between Piper's conception of the glory of God and particular perfections of God. That would be making a mistake, I think.

Commentary on John 10:28-30

2008-12-13T16:54:00.001-07:00

John 10:28
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

The eternal life in view here is a life of infinite duration (“they will never perish.”) I have heard some prominent emergent conversation facilitators diminish this idea of eternal life. But here, it is the experience of life everlasting, without ceasing. And it is promised unequivocally to those who belong to Christ, those who are of His flock.

Now, it is sometimes said that the believer, the lamb, can remove himself from God’s hand. It is said that this is simply speaking of others snatching them out. By way of reply, I contend that this does a great disservice to this passage, and offer these answers. First, I am amazed that any sinner would want to trust in his own will and power to keep himself in God’s grasp. I am glad, for one thing, that this is not the case. My wicked and rebellious nature loves sin too much. If it were not for God’s efficacious and sovereign grace, I would be lost in an instant. But I suppose some men prefer to hold their destiny in their own hands, rather than have it be in God’s. Second, this answer militates against the whole allegory of the sheep and the Shepherd. The Shepherd, if He is any good at what He does, will prevent this precise thing from happening! Sheep wander, and a good shepherd brings them back and keeps them from going into danger. He rescues them. He doesn’t respect their desire for something else. And we might note that the term for bring (vs. 1-5) has an air of force about it, and in verse 16, when Jesus says that He must bring the sheep of the other fold, the word ago means to bring by laying hold of when used of animals. So the text even directly militates against the idea that one could leave of his own will. Not only so, but to turn from Christ is to sin, and to sin is to be a slave to sin, and this is not freedom, but bondage to do the devil’s desires (cf. John 8). Third, the one who objects in this way, saying the sheep can remove himself, has missed the real thrust of the passage. It speaks of the power of Christ to keep the sheep in His hand, for one thing. But even more than that in this passage, Jesus says that He gives these sheep eternal life and they will never perish. Is this promise a lie? It cannot hold true for “his own” and the sheep of the other fold, if they can remove themselves from his hand. But He says that they will never perish. So the idea that they can remove themselves is eliminated because He has declared that they will never perish. Fourth, we have already seen throughout John that the teaching is that God’s own believe because they are God’s own. Those who do not believe do not believe because they are not His sheep. But to remove oneself from Christ’s hand would be to disbelieve. Otherwise, one would be following the Shepherd and believing. But Christ has said that the reason one does not believe is because this one is not His sheep. So how is it that one who is His sheep could disbelieve, since this one fails the condition for disbelieving – since the reason that anyone does not believe is because he is not of Christ’s flock? And moreover, Jesus says that all who are His own will follow Him and will hear Him and they do follow Him and they will certainly not follow a stranger. All who are given to Him for salvation shall never perish, because the power of the Father and the Son sustains them. “Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

This ties into the present theme: Why do the Jews for the most part reject Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God? We have our answer. Hence, this may be likened to John’s version of Romans 9. God will mercy whom He mercies and compassion whom He compassions. Remember that John has to account for this too in making his case for the fact that Jesus was the Son of God. If this is true, if He is the Jewish Messiah, why oh why do His own people reject Him? (John 1:11-13; Romans 9:1-13).

John 10:29-30
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

Now Jesus reinforces His statement. The Father has given them to Him – remember John 6:35-45? These are given to the Son to be saved by the Son. And if you recall from John 5, Jesus read:

John 5:19
Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Jesus does all and only he works of the Father, and He does them perfectly. In this passage you can see the unity in what they do. For one to snatch these sheep from the Son would mean that this one must snatch them from the Father. This is the security of the believer: The will and power of the Father Himself, and His love for the Son, from which our salvation pours forth. Carson comments well, “Indeed, at certain junctions in the history of redemption, the preservation of those the Father has given to the Son is explicitly and immediately assigned to the Father. In particular, when Jesus is about to undergo the isolation and grim agony of the cross, he formally hands over the responsibility for the preservation of his own to his Father (17:12). If the Father is greater than all things or persons, there is no force or being sufficient to sever the relation between the true believer and Jesus Christ. In short, as Paul would say to the Colossian believers, ‘your life is hid with Christ in God’ (Col. 3:3). There can be no greater security.”[1]

Now, I wish to take a look at the statement, “I and the Father are one.” It has been the source of massive theological debate over the centuries. There are three primary interpretations. Rob Bowman summarizes them this way:

(1) One in person: Jesus is the very same person as the Father. This is the view held by Oneness Pentecostals. This view agrees that John 10:30 identifies Jesus as God, and concludes that it also identifies Jesus as the Father. (2) One in power: Jesus is one in divine nature, essence, or power with the Father yet personally distinct from him. This is the view usually favored by Trinitarians (orthodox Christians). (3) One in purpose: Jesus is united with the Father in purpose; that is, he is in full agreement with the Father, always acting in line with what the Father wants. This is the explanation typically given by those who deny the deity of Christ, including Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is also the answer that Mormons typically give, although they also usually claim to affirm that Jesus is God.

As you can see, orthodox Christians think the two anti-Trinitarian interpretations both get something right and both miss something. Oneness Pentecostals rightly see John 10:30 as attesting to Christ’s deity, but miss the distinction between Christ and the Father. Other anti-Trinitarians see this distinction between Christ and the Father but not the divine unity of nature, essence, or power that they share.[2]

Bowman’s defence of the Trinitarian position[3] is worth reading, and obviously more accessible than the commentaries.[4] I will try to be as brief as possible and summarize these arguments for your benefit.

The reasons why we must reject this passage as saying that Jesus and the Father are one person may be summarized as follows. First, Jesus speaks additively of Himself and the Father by saying, “I and the Father.” The semantic structure denotes two persons. Second, Jesus never refers to Himself as the Father – ever. Not only so, but consider this Gospel so far, and how much inter-relating we have seen between the Father and the Son, such as concepts like, “The Father has given the sheep to Me.” Third, the word for ‘one’ here is neuter, while “I” (ego) has no gender, and “the Father” is masculine. While the use of the masculine for ‘one’ would strengthen the case for the idea that they are one person, the neuter categorically blows it out of the water. The presence of the neuter when used to refer to these two referents of a non-neuter gender grammatically tells us that they are distinct persons. So the idea that this says that Jesus and the Father are the same person is completely eliminated. As an illustration of this concept (though this is a different construction) consider, Ephesians 2:8-9, where, Paul writes, “By grace you have been saved though faith, and this not of yourself.” We recognize that grace and faith are not the same, but the referent this is neuter, matching the gender of neither grace nor faith, and thus referring to both of them simultaneously while grammatically preserving what is an undisputed distinction in this case.

But what does this mean? Is this merely one in purpose? Or is there indeed a metaphysical overtone? Does this say something about the nature of Christ? It is clear that they are one in will (purpose). Jesus has said as much in John 5:19. Now, in this specific context, the task in view here is the divine task of preserving the people of God and giving them eternal life. Jesus is presupposing the metaphysical capacity to do all the Father’s works, which, if you recall from John 1, included the creation of the universe. As Carson notes, while formally this is saying that they are one in will and purpose in saving God’s people, this very task presupposes a much greater metaphysical union while preserving the divine personhood.

Bowman points out that Jesus alludes to Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

He writes, “YHWH says, I make alive; Jesus says, I give eternal life. YHWH says, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand; Jesus says, and no one will snatch them out of my hand . . . and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. The Hebrew word massil can be translated either snatch or deliver; in Deuteronomy 32:39, where YHWH emphasizes that he kills as well as makes alive, the word actually has both meanings. No one can snatch out of God’s hand those whom he chooses to make alive, and no one can deliver out of God’s hand those whom he chooses to kill. In John 10:28-29, Jesus is focusing strictly on his divine power to give life, and so John quotes him using the Greek word harpazein, to snatch. Thus, a close analysis of the two texts makes it clear that John 10:28-29 uses the wording of Deuteronomy 32:39 to express the claim that Jesus does what God does in preserving those whom he gives eternal life.”

So Jesus is making claims that allude to the language of Yahweh in an extremely monotheistic context, namely, Deuteronomy. He has just said that He and the Father are one, and He has told us that He does all and only the Father’s will and that He does it perfectly (John 8:29). The grammar eliminates the idea that they are the same person, while Deuteronomy says explicitly, “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Jesus is thus playing on these things and presupposing in what He says that He is one in nature with the Father, in that He is to be included in the identity of the one Yahweh, and yet His person is not to be confused with the person of the Father.

Carson summarizes it this way: “In short, although the words I and the Father are one do not affirm complete identity, in the context of this book they certainly suggest more than that Jesus’ will was one with the will of the Father, at least in the weak sense that a human being may at times regulate his own will and deed by the will of God. If instead Jesus’ will is exhaustively one with His Father’s will, some kind of metaphysical unity is presupposed, even if not articulated.”[5]

[1] Carson, John, page 394.

[2] Bowman, Rob. In What Sense are Jesus and the Father One? Part I: One in Person? Retrieved from Parchment and Pen blog on 2008/05/20 from: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/01/27/in-what-sense-are-jesus-and-the-father-one-part-i-one-in-person/

[3] See the three part series:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/01/27/in-what-sense-are-jesus-and-the-father-one-part-i-one-in-person/

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/06/in-what-sense-are-jesus-and-the-father-one-part-ii-one-in-power/

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/04/05/in-what-sense-are-jesus-and-the-father-one-part-iii-one-in-purpose-c-john-1721-23/

[4] Carson has a good comment on page 394-395.

[5] Carson, page 395.

A best man speech

2008-12-08T18:25:00.001-07:00

This is the rough manuscript for the speech that I delivered at the reception of the wedding of Jordan McLeod and Anna Cottrell.

Good evening. Thank you to all of you who have joined us this day, especially all those who have traveled quite a distance to get here, and those who have put considerable effort into making this day happen. For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Michael Jones. Oddly enough, I lived in Langley at the same time DJ did, and we went to schools across the street from each other. But it was in Calgary years later when I met DJ in high school (although apparently I was "scary" or something and he didn't talk to me much then). We got to know each other throughout university, as we took engineering together. So I have known DJ for some time now. I cannot express the honour it is for me to stand up for DJ, to have the privilege of being by his side as he takes Anna to be his wife before us all.

First of all, I was struck this weekend by the goodness and the heaviness of my God. Tonight, his hand lays heavy upon some of us, as one of our groomsmen is not at the table with us because he and his wife just found out that they lost their child to a miscarriage. We grieve with them. And, we see that the Lord takes away. And at the same time, we stand here witnessing the joining of this man and woman, a union in which God has given a portion of His Spirit. So we see that the Lord gives. And O how blessed this gift is. May the Lord grant you to enjoy it for many years. And blessed be the name of our sovereign Lord, whether He gives or takes away.

As I started writing this, I found that I had no shortage of things that I wished to say. I am very close to DJ, and I count him as my own brother, even in the Lord, and one of the few who I could call my closest of friends.

DJ, this day is an explicit answer to my prayers. Years ago, I prayed for you particularly, that the Lord might bring into your life a woman whom you would treasure and in whom you would delight. I remember when you just once expressed your heartfelt desire to me for a wife, for the companionship of a woman with whom you would share your affections, and I have been blessed to have lived to see that longing fulfilled in the goodness of our heavenly Father. I noticed immediately when you started to spend what was surely just a few innocent evenings with Anna. I still remember how I managed to creep you out by already knowing what was happening before you told me. I’m sure my unrestrained grin as you said, “Guys, there is something I want to tell you” didn’t help. I’ll confess that I probably took far to much enjoyment out of that moment. But my real pleasure in this is that I love to see people come together in Christ. That is, DJ and Anna met while actively seeking the Lord. Thus, it is an immeasurable delight to my soul. How much more so because you are my dear friend! This is a literal answer to my prayer.

What crystallizes my joy for you is that Anna is nothing less than a treasure. I may on occasion be known to give her a hard time, and I may or may not work deliberately to make her feel a little socially awkward now and then, but I hope that you see the treasure that you have in her. Not only, DJ, do you have a beautiful wife outwardly, but you have a wife who above all desires to be conformed to the picture of a wife as given to us by Christ. You have a wife who does not measure her worth by the world’s standard, or by the lie that she must be a man to be a woman; you have a wife who does not think that the advancement of secular career is a superior and more honourable calling than building a home and raising her children; and above all you have a wife who loves Jesus Christ and sincerely desires to obey Him. She is not only a treasure, DJ, she is a rare treasure, a precious gem among women, for these very quantifiable reasons. You have much to give thanks to our Lord for.

It is my job today to honour DJ and his bride. To that end, I think - since I have your ears for but a few minutes - that I should explain to all of you what DJ and Anna intend for you to know by this wedding and this marriage. If you haven't been paying much attention, now is the time for each one of you to listen in. If you wish to celebrate with DJ and Anna, you need to know what it is they are celebrating and intending and proclaiming in this wedding and in this marriage. And I take it to be my job tonight to make sure that you understand what they mean here.

I have said before - in life it is always helpful to know how something works and what that something is for. If you don’t know this, then you might use it for an improper end to which it is not suited. Or, you might abuse it. Or, you might not care for it properly. For example, you are able to use your car properly because you know its purpose and the reason for its design. You know where it may go, and you know what will damage it. When it is properly used and well maintained, the car can be quite beneficial.

Friends, I say this because this evening you have before you a man and a woman, DJ and Anna, who know precisely what this marriage is for. They also know, even before entering, how this marriage is to function - not experientially, yet, but they will. See, I can tell all of you with confidence that the ultimate meaning that DJ and Anna see in their marriage is that this marriage is a shadow of Christ and His church. This is what they are here today proclaiming before every single one of you and this is what they want every single one of you to know above anything else before you leave here tonight. I would point you to them to look at this and try, O try, to understand what they are doing here and what they want you to know - that they stand here today for the truth that above all else marriage exists to magnify something about Yahweh, our great God, and to make Him known: The union and relation between a husband and wife is the most tangible picture that we have this side of death of the relation and intimacy that exists and will forever exist between Christ and His purchased people. DJ and Anna intend for you to know that this marriage exists for the glory of the Gospel, the Good News, of Jesus Christ. God created marriage for this reason, and this is what they want you to glimpse in it.

Now I speak particularly to DJ here, to apply this: when Anna sins against you, and she will, you remember how many ways and in how many places and how many times the people of Christ have transgressed against Him, and how He took the penalty for those sins upon Himself at Calvary’s cross – not only is He merciful to forgive his bride, the church, He is just to forgive her, since He absorbed the guilt in Himself. Let that govern how you relate to Anna whenever she wrongs you. Think about it, what horrible wrath and hellfire would we experience, what dreadful punishment and judgment would we be under if our Lord Jesus did not do this for those of us who believe in Him! So DJ, remember that great work of redemption that Christ wrought for everyone who believes upon Him so that His people would be saved from the wrath to come, and let that govern how you treat and love Anna in every day of your marriage together.

To that end, I wish that you would raise a glass with me in joy to the groom, my brother DJ, who is the head of his house, who shall now protect and give himself up for Anna, with whom I am overjoyed to witness the public declaration of his union to her, and upon whom it falls to manage his house to model and magnify the loving and gentle self-sacrificing leadership of Jesus Christ: May you enjoy many blessed years from the Lord, and I am truly privileged and happy to be here on this day.

Edwards on Christ's peace versus self-delusion

2008-11-21T08:10:00.001-07:00

“Christ’s peace is a reasonable peace and rest of soul; it is what has its foundation in light and knowledge, in the proper exercises of reason, and a right view of things; whereas the peace of the world is founded in blindness and delusion. The peace that the people of Christ have, arises from their having their eyes open, and seeing things as they are. The more they consider, and the more they know of the truth and reality of things—the more they know what is true concerning themselves, the state and condition they are in; the more they know of God, and what manner of being he is; the more certain they are of another world and future judgment, and of the truth of God’s threatening and promises; the more their consciences are awakened and enlightened, and the brighter and the more searching the light—the more is their peace established. Whereas, on the contrary, the peace that the men of the world have in their worldly enjoyments can subsist no otherwise than by their being kept in ignorance. They must be blindfolded and deceived, otherwise they can have no peace: do but let light in upon their consciences, so that they may look about them and see what they are, and what circumstances they are in, and it will at once destroy all their quietness and comfort. Their peace can live no where but in the dark. Light turns their ease into torment. The more they know what is true concerning God and concerning themselves, the more they are sensible of the truth concerning those enjoyments which they possess; and the more they are sensible what things now are, and what things are like to be hereafter, the more will their calm be turned into a storm. The-worldly man’s peace cannot be maintained but by avoiding consideration and reflection. If he allows himself to think, and properly to exercise his reason, it destroys his quietness and comfort.” (cited from the sermon by Jonathan Edwards on John 14:27 entitled The Peace which Christ gives His True Followers).

Bible Study Night - Thursday November 20 @ 7 PM

2008-11-19T20:17:00.001-07:00

So how is your soul?

By this I really mean, do you have peace? Do you know peace?

Surely every one of us knows intimately the suffering of a troubled heart.

Perhaps you know what I mean... a soul that is deeply troubled. Not annoyed or frustrated. But burdened. Wearied. Heavy. Despairing. Empty. As if there was not a drop of strength in you.

Is this your experience?

In our text for the study, John 14:25-31, the apostle tells us that the Son of God, Jesus, told His disciples shortly before He died and ascended, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you."

These glorious words are foundational to finding rest from your weariness and joy for your soul. It is my hope that you enjoy fully the peace of God in you, and I hope that this study would therefore, by the grace of God, be worked for your joy to this end.

Contact me if you're interested in coming out. The evening is open to all.

"Grow up"

2008-11-13T18:01:00.001-07:00

Carl Trueman writes,

"If the poverty and hard work of my grandfather's era left men middle-aged at thirty, the ease and trivia of today's society seems to leave us trapped in a permanent Neverland where we all, like so many Peter (and Patty) Pans, live lives of eternal youth. Where my grandfather spent his day hard at work, trying - sometimes desperately - to make enough money to put bread on the table and shoes on his children's feet, today many have time to play X-Box and video games, or warble on and on incessantly in that narcissistic echo-chamber that is the blogosphere. The world of my grandfather was evil because it made him grow up too fast; the world of today is evil because it prevents many from ever growing up at all."

...

"Numerous incidents over recent years have brought the sad effect of all this home to me. As a professor at university and seminary, I have had too many run-ins with students who act like five year olds and, when held to account, express all the pouting resentment that one comes to expect from a generation that demands respect but refuses to put in the time and effort to earn it. You see them on the blogs, screaming their abuse and demanding to be heard, carrying on their tirades long after the threshold of Godwin's Law and any semblance of decency or credibility has been passed for the umpteenth time. They have achieved nothing - but they demand that you respect them!"

...

"The answer, then, is not a naïve, nostalgic hankering for a return to an era of poverty and cruel hardship. Rather it is surely obvious: we need to put aside childish things and start acting like adults."

...

"You are, of course, what you worship, as Psalm 115 reminds us, and thus, as long as we idolize our children and the culture of youth, we can expect to - well, be just like them: pouting, irresponsible, hormonal, unpleasant and, frankly, as creepy as those sixteenth century portraits of little children with adult faces. Trapped in Neverland with no hope of escape."

Read it.

African-American vindication?

2008-11-04T22:37:00.001-07:00

First, read this and this. Amen.

Second, read this. Amen.

Now, I just watched Obama's acceptance speech.

All the talk of ideals, principles, and progress.

Freedom from slavery, and so on. Change in America. Possibility for America.

But I didn't hear a word about the forty-three million Americans who never saw the light of day.

That is what made much of it ring so hollow for me.

I know that the African-Americans in the United States are generally ecstatic over Obama's election. And there is a real element to be happy about there. It's another nail in the coffin of racism.

Well. Sort of.

See, what is striking is that, according to the polls, most of them did nothing to stop the genocide of black babies in the United States.

Twelve million black unborn have been murdered.

Obama's election may feel like a remarkable achievement. And in a monumental way it is.

But I wonder how those twelve million people would have voted?

We'll never know.

America granted them freedom from slavery.

But then America made it legal to kill them when they were most defenceless.

This is the great evil of our day.

It's never been a more dangerous time to be a black baby. While overall rates of abortion have declined to the lowest level since 1974, the Guttmacher Institute recently reported alarming increases in racial disparities between the rates of abortion for black and white women. Analyzing more than 30 years of data collected directly from abortion providers, Guttmacher found that black women's abortion rates are now five times greater than those of white women.

Currently, white women's rates of abortion have declined to 10.5 abortions per 1,000 women while black women's rates are an alarming 50 abortions per 1,000 black women. Put in terms of actual pregnancies, the figures are shocking: Nearly half of all African American pregnancies end in abortion. Since 1973, the number of abortions by African American women has totaled more than twelve million.

With this in mind, consider this - indeed, read the essay. Here's a quote:

"Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress."

I wish that I could truly go to sleep thinking that this was a victory and a vindication for the African-Americans in light of hundreds of years of varying degrees of oppression and suffering.

But I just can't.

Edwards on the Peace that Christ Gives

2008-11-04T17:43:00.001-07:00

"You that have hitherto spent your time in the pursuit of satisfaction in the profit or glory of the world, or in the pleasures and vanities of youth, have this day an offer of that excellent and everlasting peace and blessedness, which Christ has purchased with the price of his own blood. As long as you continue to reject those offers and invitations of Christ, and continue in a Christless condition, you never will enjoy any true peace or comfort; but will be like the prodigal, that in vain endeavoured to be satisfied with the husks that the swine did eat. The wrath of God will abide upon, and misery will attend you, wherever you go, which you never will be able to escape. Christ gives peace to the most sinful and miserable that come to him. He heals the broken in heart and bindeth up their wounds. But it is impossible that they should have peace, while they continue in their sins." (The Peace which Christ gives His True Followers, on John 14:27. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume II, page 89.)

Goodman Isaiah Taylor to Barack Obama

2008-11-03T22:42:00.001-07:00

"I am 9 years old. This is not a school project or parents word or idea. I'm writing this on my own. Back in the day, people thought blacks like you were not human. I hope in the future people look back to us and say: "Back in the day, people thought baby's were not humans" as silly as we talk about slavery now. W(e) don't go through a metamorphosis. Flip (page) We start human and stay human."

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/11/barack-obama-rocks-xxvii-let-isaiah-have-the-last-word.html

Joal Kamps et. al. at CityTV

2008-11-03T21:38:00.001-07:00

The disappointing church

2008-10-27T21:46:00.005-06:00

Theology matters.

Doctrine matters.

(Contrary to several popular and logically incoherent "Christian" songs.)

For example, let's say that you experience a lot of sorrow on account of other Christians.

Let's say that they say that they'll do one thing, and frequently fail to come through.

Let's say that they attend church sporadically. Let's even say that in the case of some, for all intensive purposes, their concept of church is attending the Sunday sermon.

Let's say that some frequently talk about loving the brethren but they seldom meet with the brethren. They show up now and then. But they are far more reliable when it comes to the 'fun' sort of things than, say, gathering to study Scripture or worship the Lord in the church - that is, with the brothers.

Let's say that the entrance of the church looks, to you, like a revolving door.

Then let's say that often church fellowship is disjointed. Disconnected. Even Christians you've known for a long time are unreliable. You can't count on them to be there. You just can't trust them. Really, you don't trust them. Promises are made. But you'll believe it when you see it.

They don't seem to understand that they are needed. Or, that they need their brothers and sisters. They don't seem to understand or care that their flakiness is like a laceration in the body. Or like a hemorrhaging wound.

Or perhaps a brother or sister isn't content with the mundane calling of the average Christian. Life in the church. With the brothers. Making a meal. Setting up chairs. Picking someone up for church. Just meeting with a brother or sister to encourage him or her.

You hear excuses. Lots of them. And you feel like others actually think that excuses are a good substitute for fellowship. Which, of course, they aren't, and the feeling only worsens things.

And you're not talking about the occasional thing here and there... Occasional being the operative word. There is a quantifiable pattern. A frequency or regularity to the let-downs.

Let's say that you get the impression that Christians are lousy Christians, that the Spirit doesn't seem to be working all that quickly.

You try to receive people and gently encourage them to love the brothers and sisters - which begins by actually gathering consistently with them. Of course, you get nods, "yes, yes" they say excitedly. They talk of how wonderful things are and how great church is - but you find it odd to hear since you don't see them very often. It makes you wonder what it is that they think is more important than a life devoted to the mission of the church.

Now, it isn't like everyone in the church is like this. There are quite a few who are faithful to the brothers. But it isn't as if this 'compensates.' This is not to say that you're wholly ungrateful or that you don't acknowledge these sincere brothers and sisters.

But just because you have one good arm doesn't mean you don't feel the pain of the other one going through a mulcher.

Not only this, but you know that it is possible, even certain, that some of the failures are only apparent and merely the product of your own limited perception. But this helps you but little, since your perception is, not to be too tautological, your view of the world, and if things appear grim from where you sit, that is indeed how they feel to you.

So you - as a sinner yourself - become a bit jaded. A bit disenchanted. A bit impatient. With them. And by implication with God. So you compound your sin. You feel despair. Hopelessness. A mounting cynicism. An emptiness and feeling of futility in your own efforts and seeking. Even a little ungrateful that you do have one good arm.

You look at Acts 2-4 and that church is nowhere to be found.

You even have good theology and sound doctrine in your church. We're not talking about a heretical man-worshiping gathering. We're talking about a light-of-the-world Gospel-believing church. You have biblical teaching, Gospel proclaiming expositional preaching, and Christ-exalting leadership. You have frequent exhortations to pursue holiness and flee from sin. The glory of God is held as supreme. You believe in the doctrines of grace, in penal substitutionary atonement, and in the sovereignty of God. You have the hope of glory.

And this is exactly where this good theology matters.

It will keep you from leaving the church. It will keep you from throwing up your hands in despair. It will keep you pushing along, even when you feel the blood seeping from the open wounds in the body... when the body can barely move because of years of spiritual malnourishment, and the atrophy from non-use of the various parts.

You will recognize that the reason why Christians are so flaky and unreliable is because they, like you, are self-absorbed sinners.

But the Spirit is perfecting the bride for Christ. He knows best, and He will without a doubt accomplish this work.

See, that good theology also explains and predicts lousy, sinful, God-dishonouring Christians. And that good theology also contains the message of salvation by which these Christians are justified and sanctified and turned into pristine, holy, God-exalting Christians.

Even in the apostles' day, Christians had attendance problems, worldliness problems, apostolic authority problems, bad doctrine, worldly pandering, and so on. It's not like you're special.

So it is a time to maintain self-control. To govern and discipline your heart. To look to the hope and keep racing to the prize. To dive deeper into church, not abandon it. To fortify, nourish, protect, exercise, and discipline. To look to the sovereign God who has ordained this time and trust His wisdom.

It is also a time for self-examination. To look at weeding out your own sin. To not use the hypocrisy and failures of others as a distraction or cover for your own monumental deficiency, even if objectively speaking you are not as bad in certain areas. You're surely worse in others. And God doesn't mark on a curve.

Planks and specks, and all that.

This is a war, you're on a battlefield, you are soldiers, and your allegiance is to your King and kingdom. Even if some others are sleeping on their watch, hanging out at the back of the lines, or have even deserted for the comforts of life, if you love your King, you'll fight and die for Him. Even if you were the only soldier on the field against an army. What a tragedy it would be for a loyal soldier to abandon his loyalty and throw his weapon down in despair on account of the failings of his fellows. May it never be.

So it is good to have better theology than your experience.

Clinging to glory with you...

Jesus IS the Life

2008-10-20T19:53:00.003-06:00

From my study on John 13:33-14:6, delivered October 9, 2008:

Have you ever thought of the absolute and complete ignorance and foolishness of suggesting that someone can have eternal life apart from Christ? To make a statement like this, and I do not think that I am putting it too strongly, is damning. To say, “there is eternal life in Jesus Christ, and there is also eternal life apart from Him” is to completely and profoundly misunderstand the nature of eternal life. Eternal life is to know God, and to know Jesus. Jesus is the life. The quality of this life is whatever it means to know Jesus Christ. The definition of eternal life is to exist in intimate relation and communion with the Truine God. If this is not your idea of eternal life – if your idea of eternal life consists merely in a lack of pain and a lack of suffering and all of your comforts being met, but, like Don Piper in 90 Minutes in Heaven, your idea of heaven is devoid of the intimate knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain - if your heaven does not have this as its chief all-in-all joy, then whatever you are imagining and whatever you are looking forward to is not eternal life. Joy consists in looking upon God for eternity. I cannot overstate how serious this really is. Jesus is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, and it could be no other way, for He is the Way precisely because He is the truth and the life, and if it were not so, we would have no hope of eternal life – only misery and loneliness and suffering and vanity.

Edwards on our sense of sin

2008-10-13T19:17:00.001-06:00

"It is evident that we ought to avoid those things that expose and lead to sin; because a due sense of the evil of sin, and a just hatred of it, will necessarily have this effect upon us, to cause us so to do. If we were duly sensible of the evil and dreadful nature of sin, we should have an exceeding dread of it upon our spirits. We should hate it worse than death, and should fear it worse than the devil himself; and dread it even as we dread damnation. But those things that men exceedingly dread, they naturally shun; and they avoid those things that they apprehend expose to them. As a child, that has been greatly terrified by the sight of any wild beast, will by no means be persuaded to go where it apprehends that it shall fall in its way." (Temptation and Deliverance, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume II, page 228).

William Tyndale

2008-10-08T19:21:00.002-06:00

When I started this blog, I recommended reading this biography by John Piper on William Tyndale.

I named this blog after this man, because his story struck my soul.

Stephen Vaughn was an English merchant commissioned by Thomas Cromwell, the king’s adviser, to find William Tyndale and inform him that King Henry VIII desired him to come back to England out of hiding on the continent. In a letter to Cromwell from Vaughan dated June 19, 1531, Vaughan wrote about Tyndale (1494-1536) these simple words: “I find him always singing one note.”¹ That one note was this: Will the King of England give his official endorsement to a vernacular Bible for all his English subjects? If not, Tyndale will not come. If so, Tyndale will give himself up to the king and never write another book.

What did Tyndale's efforts to translate the Bible cost him? 472 years ago this past Monday, William Tyndale was executed - strangled and burned at the stake.

His verdict was sealed in August, 1536. He was formally condemned as a heretic and degraded from the priesthood. Then in early October (traditionally October 6), he was tied to the stake and then strangled by the executioner, then afterward consumed in the fire. Foxe reports that his last words were, “Lord! Open the King of England’s eyes!”⁵⁸ He was forty-two years old, never married and never buried.

William Tyndale always sang one note. He died because he was trying to translate the Bible into the vernacular - the everyday language of the commoner.

There is a tragedy today. William Tyndale was executed because he wanted men and women and boys and girls - ordinary people, like you and me - to have the freedom to read the Word of God and freedom from the tyranny of tradition and the oppression of a false religion, and yet today there are those who would exercise this freedom to make the open proclamation of the Word of God criminal once again, a freedom obtained for them through, among other things, the deaths of Christian men and women during the Reformation, like William Tyndale.

There is a greater tragedy in that so many professing Christians care so little for the Bible. William Tyndale died so you could read it.

May God be so gracious so as to grant to us the faithfulness we see in William Tyndale.

Media Ignorance 101 - The BBC and Codex Sinaiticus

2008-10-06T23:02:00.002-06:00

If you aren't a Christian, I ask you to read on, especially if you read the Da Vinci Code and thought it was correct in its claims, or if you've read Misquoting Jesus, or if you've ever boldly proclaimed, "They changed the Bible!"

I came across an article by the BBC on the digitisation of Codex Sinaiticus by Roger Bolton. I was annoyed (although not surprised) by what was written there. Naturally, the author couldn't simply report. In fact, he could barely even report. I know that the disinformation in this article will be gobbled up by the public. I think that the majority will take it as truth, and I know that I am going to hear this sort of stuff recapitulated later.

I have many things to say about this article, and if I find the time and will I may post again on it. But I wanted to look at the Codex Sinaiticus part of it.

Dirk Jongkind rips into this article here. In case anyone is wondering if he is qualified to speak on it, the book that James White speaks about in his post (see below) was written by him, titled (cough) Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus. Here's more about him:

Dirk Jongkind finished his doctoral work at Cambridge University in 2005. Before taking up a research fellowship at Tyndale House, Cambridge, he was employed by the British Library in London to work on the curatorial preparation of the Codex Sinaiticus Digitisation Project. He is a fellow of St Edmund's College, Cambridge.

Notice that second last sentence - curatorial preparation of the Codex Sinaiticus Digitisation Project. So his opinion is, well, relevant. With that established, I want to share some excerpts from his commentary:

What can we say about this article? It took me till the seventh paragraph before I found a paragraph without a factual mistake (oops Roger Bolton, this is even for sensationalist journalism rather poor).

For example:

Will there be uncomfortable questions to answer? Will there be anything 'new' in the on-line publication that was not known for the past 140 years? Come off it. I'm glad the codex comes on-line, but there is very little about the text of this codex that was not known before (the text of the 1975 fragments comes from the Greek Old Testament and from the last book added to the New Testament, the Shepherd). And let's face it, the Christian church has known about and studied and written on the differences between Bible manuscripts since the second century!

The BBC article actually claims:

it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection...

... The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

I have to comment: Bolton is quoting the Archbishop of Canterbury as a source for what is essential to Christian belief (at least in this case he happens to be correct). Nevertheless, this doesn't help his credibility at all, as Rowan Williams is a quantifiable heretic. Leaving that aside for now, Jongkind writes in response:

"Crucial verses about the Resurrection are missing." I have read the New Testament a couple of times, and I may be one of the few people who can say that I have read the New Testament text of this codex more than once. I found the resurrection narrative complete in Matthew's gospel: the text of Codex Sinaiticus does not miss out on verses telling about the resurrection... Perhaps he is thinking about the last verses of Mark, where the AV has an account of the resurrection in Mark 16:9-20, but which is not present in many modern Bible translations...

Ouch. James White has also commented here.

This BBC article is an embarrassment to journalism. Generally, the mainstream media cannot talk about Christianity without showing its ignorance, but given the general lack of understanding of Christian theology and history in even the churches, I can't be too hard on them. But this article takes ignorance, bias, and misinformation to a new level.

As an aside, I can't help but wonder if the media, particularly the BBC, would dare write about potentially 'troubling questions' that pre-uthmanian Quranic texts might bring up for Islam.

Now, some people who read this may attend the bi-weekly Bible Study that I teach. If you have, you know that I tend to discuss substantial variants in the New Testament as we encounter them. For example, this next study is covering John 13:33 to somewhere in chapter 14.

In John 14:2 and 14:4 there are variants. I have used an image to ensure that there aren't any problems with fonts in this quotation. This information, by the way, was taken from Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the New Testament. Why is that important? Because the late Bruce Metzger was Bart Ehrman's teacher, and Bart Ehrman is the source mentioned in the article.

I don't intend to discuss the specifics of these here, but I want you to notice something. Do you see that bold symbol after P⁶⁶? That is the Hebrew letter aleph, and it stands for Codex Sinaiticus. That's right - before Sinaiticus was ever published we could look at what it contains. That little symbol tells me that the shorter reading of the text in this instance is affirmed by not only P⁶⁶ but also Codex Sinaiticus. Given the veracity of Sinaiticus this bears heavily on which reading makes it into the standard Greek New Testament (e.g. NA27 or UBS4). The ESV is based on the NA27 [and UBS4], with the significant variations placed either demarcated by brackets or footnotes.

I want to give you an example if you don't know how a Christian (or anyone) can go about looking at variation in the N.T. I want to take you through my examination of a particular variant. First, though, a variant is a difference that appears in one or more manuscripts with respect to some baseline. The baseline is a point of reference, and generally consists of the "best" readings (depending on the particular method of a textual critic, there may be differences over what is best, e.g. Byzantine priority versus reasoned eclectic, etc.)

Now, here is one particular variant that is important for this coming study, and in which the meaning of the text depends on the reading of a variant (most variants have no bearing on the meaning). My preparation for the study requires that I address this variant, and I will give a sneak preview by putting the treatment here.

First, consider these five translations of John 14:7:

ESV John 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

HCSB John 14:7 "If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him."

NASB John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

NET John 14:7 If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him."

NIV John 14:7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Notice the implied idea in verse 7 in the NIV, where the text reads, "If you really knew me." Compare that with the other readings. In this case, the NIV implies that the disciples do not know Jesus. Look at the NASB and the ESV, which both read, "If you had known me." This is softer, but it could be taken as having the same implication. Now look at the HCSB. The HCSB and the NET seem to flatten it out, and there is no implication that the disciples do not know Jesus.

Now, let's look at the textual commentary on this variant:

The reading adopted by a majority of the Committee here and in the following set of variants involves a promise: “If you have come to know me [as in fact you do], you shall know my Father also.” Despite the harmony between this statement and the rest of ver. 7, another interpretation of Jesus’ words gained wide currency, this one a reproach: “If you had come to know me [which, alas, you do not], you would have knowledge of my Father also.” The latter construction (a condition contrary to fact) seems to have arisen either because copyists recalled Jesus’ reproach against unbelieving Jews in 8.19 or because Philip’s question (ver. 8) and Jesus’ reply (ver. 9) suggested to them that the disciples knew neither Jesus nor the Father.

[The purpose of the Evangelist as well as the laws of textual development have been misunderstood. If a negative and a positive statement about the Apostles stand side by side in the textual tradition, the positive one is usually the later. K.A.]

Notice that several translations take the "other interpretation" which is the result of a variant reading. Therein lies the difference between the translations.

New Testament scholar D.A. Carson writes:

The meaning of the first part of v. 7 turns on a textual variant. The variant behind the NIV text is basically negative: If you really knew me [and you don't], you would know my Father as well. Although this reading is strongly attested, it appears to have been influenced by v. 8, where Philip reveals the depth of his ignorance, and by 8:19. The reading of the second-century papyrus P66, the uncial Sinaiticus, the first hand of Codex Bezae and some other witnesses is more or less preserved in the NIV fn. [footnote], and has good claims to authenticity: If you have come to know me, you will know my Father also. The assumption, in other words, is that at least the disciples have come to know Jesus ('really' in the NIV fn. casts doubt on this, and is textually unwarranted)...

So here, not only is there an explanation based on internal evidence for the copyist error preserved in the rendering carried through in the NIV, but avoided by, say, the NET, Codex Sinaiticus reads, "If you have come to know me," without the implication that the disciples do not know Jesus. So in this very study, I am actually looking at the data in Codex Sinaiticus while examining this variant reading. (I am also looking at a UBS3 an older critical edition of the Greek N.T. as I write this, and I can see p66, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Bezae, and several others attest that attest to "if you have come to know me"). The late scholar Leon Morris (page 570, footnote 20, The Gospel According to John, Eerdmans, 1995) disagrees with Carson and the UBS4 committee, stating, "The attestation of this reading is inferior, and the context makes the rebuke more likely." Scholar Andreas Kostenberger (page 430, John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1995) doesn't discuss the variant, but appears to read it as Carson and the UBS4 committee.

Now, I hope you can appreciate the ignorance I see in the BBC article! Sinaiticus is hardly raising 'troubling questions.' This codex is a treasure.

All of this is to show that while this journalists blunders around, speaking vaguely and inaccurately, even laymen in the church are able to actually going about engaging the scholarly material on the subject and bringing it to the grass roots level at a local Bible Study. I can look at the Greek text and see why a particular variant reading may have arisen, given typically scholarly habits. Using either Metzger's commentary or my critical edition of the Greek N.T. I can look at the actual manuscript support for a particular reading. I can actually see whether there is a difference between the English reading and Codex Sinaiticus. If there is something significant, I bring it up at the study. But I should add that generally I can tell that even the 'significant' ones are so insignificant that the eyes of my hearers start to glaze over with boredom. "Really? This is worth mentioning?" Oddly, in one twisted sense, I am happy to see that the people who are listening to my presentation find the variation in the N.T. to be so minor that they get bored hearing about them!

And incidentally, I think that the majority of readings that we have taken throughout John are affirmed by Codex Sinaiticus.

Concerning Sinaiticus, we may look to Metzger's comment on the Alexandrian text type in his introduction (page 5):

The Alexandrian text, which Westcott and Hort called the Neutral text (a question-begging title), is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original. Characteristics of the Alexandrian text are brevity and austerity. That is, it is generally shorter than the text of other forms, and it does not exhibit the degree of grammatical and stylistic polishing that is characteristic of the Byzantine type of text. Until recently the two chief witnesses to the Alexandrian text were codex Vaticanus (B) and codex Sinaiticus (a), parchment manuscripts dating from about the middle of the fourth century. With the acquisition, however, of the Bodmer Papyri, particularly P⁶⁶ and p⁷⁵, both copied about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, evidence is now available that the Alexandrian type of text goes back to an archetype that must be dated early in the second century. The Sahidic and Bohairic versions frequently contain typically Alexandrian readings.

Now, the particular method used in ascertaining the original reading differs among scholars. But, suffice it to say, Codex Sinaiticus has played a major role in modern translations. This BBC article makes this seem like this is news to the Christian community, that there will be upset over it - when it is already under the hood of modern translations.

Receiving brotherly criticism to the glory of God

2008-10-01T17:44:00.006-06:00

Michael Patton has humbly posted a brief criticism that I wrote regarding his methodology over at Reclaiming the Mind's Parchment and Pen blog. I should say that I consider Parchment and Pen blog to be a very interesting and frequently insightful blog. Patton is not the only writer on this blog, either. This criticism should just be taken as a grain of salt, from my perception, regarding Patton's writings. I should also say that I've noticed, as of late, and maybe it is just me, an increased emphasis on the danger of error.

I was asked why Patton would post my criticism without his own commentary. And I think this is instructive:

My answer is, and Michael is free to correct me, that he doesn't feel threatened by criticism. He invites it. He's got a humble approach, which is a real positive point about it. He feels he can leave the criticism standing on its own. He isn't defensive about it and I think he wants his readers to consider the criticism with respect to his writings. It is also consistent with his irenic method, and I think Patton tries hard not to be a hypocrite in terms of his methodology. This is commendable, and I am humbled here.

The full text of my primary and fundamental issue with his approach was originally posted in the comments of this post here - read it for the context.

** As an aside, if it isn't clear, I have chiefly in view the orthodox, protestant Gospel - that which one must believe to be saved - which Michael Patton holds, as I do, and from there this concern extends in varying degrees to the general danger of error in the church. For example, I perceive from the writings of John Piper a real urgency to believe the true Gospel. I perceive(d) a more academic tone from Michael Patton. A few commentators unfortunately reacted negatively as they took this criticism as relating to how Patton deals with non-Calvinists. It had nothing to do with that, as the context in the original post shows. I urge you to read it. One commentator, Jugulum, gave a good summary of the real heart of my critique:

"When you discuss the various alternatives on an issue–well, the danger is that you’ll be so even-handed that you don’t communicate the urgency of ending up in the right place."

Purpose and divine predestination?

2008-09-29T21:52:00.002-06:00

I received this question and I wished to share it, along with my (I had brief here) answer, with whoever would read. It is a good question because an answer to it would help us to understand even a little more the character of God and the manner in which He interacts with His creation.

"Does God make all choices for us? Like what I eat, whether or not I go to church, etc? If so, then what would be the point of our existence? What then would be the point of worship? Wouldn't it be more glorifying for us to decide to do "good" for ourselves? This isn't to say that I'm questioning God, rather, I am just trying to get a better understanding."

The Manner of Inquiry

If the Scriptures teach that God is sovereign, ruling over even the smallest atom, such that nothing in creation happens outside or apart from His purpose, or contrary to His will, including the direction and inclination and decisions of our own hearts, and if the Scriptures also command us to worship God, to praise the Christ, to do acts of goodness and to rejoice in the Lord, and yet we do not understand how these things could be compatible, our lack of understanding of how these things work simultaneously in no way removes our obligation to God to exercise such worship and acknowledge His sovereign rule. Indeed, it implies that the intuition in the question is mistaken.

There are two ways to ask such questions: One is, as is the case with this specific question, to ask with the goal to learn more about God, to understand His Word in a greater measure, to meditate upon His truth, so as to perceive even more the greatness of God as He has revealed Himself in His Scriptures. This sort of approach to asking questions is rooted in an inquisitiveness about God. I think this is along the lines of the Psalmist: "Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in Him."

The second manner of asking these sort of questions is to validate the Word of God, or to test it. In other words, it is a question which puts the authority of God's word on a temporary trial until it is vindicated before our reason. In other words, it is questioning God's word in the sense of questioning the authority of God's word.

The difference between these approaches is a result of the state of the heart with respect to the authority of God's revealed Word. The same question may thus be asked with two distinct motives. The former recognizes that the Christian Scriptures do not derive their authority from whether they are clear and comprehendible in every way. The Bible is authoritative because it is the written word of God and it is God-breathed (theopneustos), having its source in the Triune God (which necessarily means that it will be self-consistent). Therefore the Scriptures carry with them intrinsically the very authority of God. The latter approach rather questions this authority and presumes to challenge or measure God by something external to God, when God is Himself the only absolute by which anything may be tested.

Thus the former is rooted in belief. Do not be deceived - the latter is rooted in blatant unbelief, and a gross sin. The former trusts God and wishes to learn of His ways, while the latter does not trust God and demands that He vindicate His words and ways before the tests of man.

It is surely true that for most of us we have no "pure" questions, which is to say that our motives always contain a mixture of these two questions. This is a result of our sinful nature, that we would have any part of the second manner wherein we put the authority of God's word on trial, and yet, this is no reason not to pursue the answers, if only we repent of our sinful motives and pray for a pure heart. God's word can take the scrutiny, so to speak, and it will be vindicated. As the Proverb says, "Every word of God proves true." (Proverbs 30:5) Nevertheless, the one who would presume to scrutinize walks upon dangerous ground. Therefore, pray, all of you, that you would have a steadfast confidence in the word of God and a motive to find the answers that is born of a profound respect and acknowledgement of the word of God and a rich desire to enjoy the manifest perfections of God in greater measure, rather than a mind that inclines to question God's competence and authority (or even existence) whenever there is a difficulty. In other words, let us seek answers from and about God's word because it is authoritative, rather than to test its authority. Do not find yourself in the realm of apostasy. Have you believed in Christ and received the Gospel? Then trust the Christ, the one in whom you believe, who saved you from the wrath to come, since He said, "Scripture cannot be broken," and more. He saved you, believe His testimony about the Scriptures.

It should be said that we should expect of the Scriptures that in such an incomprehensible condescension there will be a great many mysteries, since in this condescension the all-powerful and timeless Creator of the universe has provided an orderly account of even a fraction of His thoughts. With this in mind, I have some cautions: In claiming that there is mystery in the Scriptures or that you do not understand something do not be so arrogant as to assume in your ignorance of the totality of the Scriptures that God has not provided answers to many questions. To put it another way, it is a notion that would attempt to do great violence to God's word, to twist the fact that He has not revealed everything exhaustively so as to use it to teach others that God has not spoken clearly about anything.

Thus, we find two polar errors here, namely, to assume that God has clearly pronounced every single answer and truth in existence (that is, the error in thinking that His revelation is exhaustive, contra Deut. 29:29), and on the other hand, to assume that God has not spoken clearly concerning that which He has revealed, or that He has revealed clearly only a tiny portion of truth even from the perspective of man (that is, a lack of understanding of the nature of the perspicuity of God's word, contra Isaiah 45:19). God has revealed His word and preserved it to us in the Scriptures for our instruction, as Paul said.

The Nature of Meaning

We should first observe what is commonly meant when this objection, "What is the point of such and such?" is raised in the context divine sovereignty. This is clearly meant as more than a mere inquiry into the meaning of things, although this is surely implicit. The question really asserts, "Why bother?" In other words, this is a request for the reason for the existence of the thing. "What is the point" may be rephrased as, "Why then does this exist or this happen or is this done?" The thing (a term that, in this post, I will liberally use to refer to anything extant, be it an object, event, action) in question now appears to the beholder to be superfluous or irrelevant to the matter at hand, given the notion of divine sovereignty. So there is the question of the meaning of the thing, and more importantly, its reason for being in light of the doctrines of God's sovereignty. There is also the presupposition that things must have meaning, and that given this, if divine sovereignty is incompatible with all things having a meaning, then it is divine sovereignty that must not be true. We shall see shortly that this conclusion is itself absurd. Thus, the question at hand moves beyond simply asking what the meaning might be, with the presupposition being that there is in fact a meaning, to asking whether the thing has any meaning at all, that is, whether it has a reason for existence.

I shall use the terms, "point" and "meaning" and "reason" and "purpose" interchangeably. For, if something has a point, it has a reason for existing; if something has a reason for existing, it has a purpose; and if something has a purpose, it has meaning, for the meaning of a thing is nothing other than its purpose or its reason for being, and if something has meaning or purpose or a reason for existing than it has a point, etc. These concepts are very much the same.

We shall now examine the nature of meaning, that is, how it is that a thing should possess a reason for existence. Now, we may observe the following of any thing in existence: The thing is either created for attaining some end, or the thing is the purposeless result of coincidence or randomness. In either case, supposing that this thing is already existent, however so, it may be put to use by some intelligence in attaining some end, or on account of some end it may be considered meaningful.

In every case where something is considered by some intelligence to be meaningful, this meaning is therefore in a sense subjective. It is a construct in the mind of the one that attributes meaning to something, whether the intelligence has created the thing for a purpose or put an already existent thing to some use.

This may be seen by observing why something is considered meaningful. A thing is considered by a person to have a purpose or meaning if it is either instrumental to attaining some end that is considered worthy by the person, or the thing is considered a worthy end in itself. If a person sees something as being of no use in attaining any worthy end, no matter how insignificant, then the person considers the thing to be meaningless. The idea of meaning or purpose or reason for being is fundamentally a teleological concept. The means are justified by the ends: It has meaning or purpose or a reason for being if it is useful to some worthy goal. The end that is attained by the thing is valuable, and thus confers value to the means, as the means have their purpose in attaining the value of the end. But the value of the end is "in the eye of the beholder," so to speak, and therefore a thing obtains its meaning or point or purpose from the end which itself has its value or meaning in the eye of the one who considers it valuable.

Thus, it may be observed that we speak in a strange way when we talk of meaning. We say that a thing "has meaning," as if it is an intrinsic property of the thing, like mass or existence. Yet this is not strictly the case with meaning. The point of something is subjective with respect to the beholder. If the one who attributes meaning or purpose to a thing should die, and all those who in like manner attributed meaning to the thing, then there is no meaning to the thing, for the worthiness of the end for which the thing existed is no different than worthlessness, since there is no one who considers it to be worthy.

It is possible for a person to design a thing, or purpose something, and for another to consider this thing meaningless. Something may have a reason for existence in the eyes of one person, and be totally pointless in the eyes of another. One person may consider a thing meaningful, and another may consider it meaningless, because he cares nothing for the end for which the thing is purposed. For example, consider the notion of nihilism. In the eyes of the nihilist, nothing has any meaning, for there is no end or purpose for anything. But there is no de facto rule that, because one considers a thing as meaningful (or not), it is actually intrinsically and universally meaningful such that all are obliged to accept this meaning. If this person should die, or his consideration of the thing should change, it is considered meaningless. That which you consider meaningful is not necessarily meaningful to me.

Biblically speaking, the wisdom writer argues along these lines for the vanity of all things in Ecclesiastes (see 1:3; especially 1:11; 2:3, cf. 2:11; 2:15; especially 2:16-17 and 3:19-20; 4:16; 5:10; 6:2; etc). Notice how it is the perceived worthlessness of the end which confers vanity and meaninglessness to everything done by man. The rich end up dead, like the poor. Vanity. You work your whole life, die, and someone else gains, while you turn to dust. Notice also how the perception of the worth of the end is with respect to personal gain. No perceived worthwhile end for the beholder to all that God has assigned man under the sun, ergo, vanity.

God's Purpose

Now, if Yahweh should create something for His purpose, then this purpose shall endure. For it is written:

Psalm 33:11
The counsel of Yahweh stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations.

And elsewhere He has spoken:

Isaiah 46:8-11
8 "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, 9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

God knows all things, past, present, and future, and He has declared - not predicted - that all His purpose will be accomplished. There shall never come a time when something that Yahweh has done amounts to nothing, that is, there is no purpose of His that is unfulfilled, and there will never be a time when He shall pass away, and the ends and purposes that He considers worthy shall cease to be considered worthy. There is never going to come a time when that which God absolutely considers valuable is valueless. If God considers something to be meaningful, that is, if He considers that something exists as instrumental in attaining some end or as a worthy end in itself, this consideration is eternal. It shall never cease.

Thus, if God considers a thing to be meaningful, this is the definition of objective purpose, because He is self-existent, uncaused. The logic of meaninglessness is of no bearing upon God, for there shall never come a day when His purpose shall attain to nothing, or when He shall pass away. He created out of nothing, and His consideration of purpose and meaning is the only objective meaning of any thing. There is no other consideration by which to judge the value or purpose of things. This is the true purpose of it - with the very definition of truth being that which always is.

This is all to communicate that the point or meaning or purpose or reason of a thing is a category that is relative and subjective apart from God. If we are to understand the true meaning of something, it shall not do to settle with a transient notion, for even the Scriptures testify to the vanity of this (cf. Ecclesiastes). It will not do to seek out the subjective meaning that satisfies our intuition. We must seek out the meaning as God has purposed it. In other words, if something is meaningful to God, whether a man thinks it is meaningful is irrelevant, for his consideration is temporal, and in no way diminishes God's consideration, since the best meaning that a man may assign to a thing in himself is but a transient and subjective meaning, unless he accepts God's purpose for a thing. The ultimate meaning ascribed to a thing by God, or, the very reason why it is purposed by God, is the transcendent and eternal meaning of the thing. This is the true meaning of any thing that ever exists, for the word of God is truth (John 17:17), namely, that which is. Every word He speaks, including His purpose for a thing, is true. We must therefore seek to understand the meaning as God considers it, and we should esteem things as He esteems them.

Thus we may observe two things:

Since the only meaning that is worthwhile is that attributed by God, depending on the objector the objection may become mute. After all, if the objector means, "I do not see a meaning in things that God has predetermined," then he is simply judging things by his own standard of what is meaningful. He may well think that a thing has no point, or no reason for existence, and he may well insist upon it, but, as one example, the objectivity of the judgment that God has purposed for the most worthy end of His glory will in short order press upon him with such a great weight he they shall realize very quickly that all of his insistence was a self-delusion. That he does not himself gain is of no diminishment to God's purpose in all things; indeed, it is part of it and, in a cosmic irony, serves God's very own purpose.

Moreover, I mentioned earlier that "there is also the notion that, things must have meaning, and if divine sovereignty is incompatible with all things having a meaning, then divine sovereignty must not be true." Yet, as has been observed, the very notion of meaning is itself dependent upon the Creator's sovereignty. For if the Creator did not purpose a thing for an meaningful end, then the thing is meaningless. If a thing is merely coincidental, or the product of randomness, then it has no objective purpose. This is the definition of meaninglessness.

Proverbs 16:4
"Yahweh has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."

On the other hand, as the proverb teaches (cf. Revelation 4:11), the purpose of a thing obtains from its reason for being created by God. So what absurdity it is to think that if something is purposed in eternity past by the Creator then this thing is pointless! The very definition of meaning comes from the Creator's purpose, and nothing else. This is the purpose that endures forever.

Sovereignty is no objection to the point of things, for If all things are ordained by God, they are all meaningful by definition. It is therefore pure nonsense to think that sovereignty would be an objection to purpose. This applies to all human decisions as well, for if a human decision and the subsequent action are predetermined, they obviously have a purpose.

An Objection

One may object that God's purpose in decision is obtaining what is prejudicially and unfortunately called in the common tongue a free choice. They may say, God does not purpose the outcome of the decision, but the free decision for the outcome. In other words, the end for which God created the human power of will is to obtain decisions independent of God's own specification. Put another way, God considers human decision to be meaningful if He does not purpose the outcome. In other words, the objector would insist that God does not consider a predetermined decision to be meaningful.

1) The Scriptures nowhere posit that God created humans so as to obtain an independent decision. Indeed, they posit quite the opposite in many places, where God hardens, opens hearts, grants eyes to see, draws effectually, guides hearts as streams of water, and so forth. The will is said to be enslaved, and we are together pictured as slaves of sin. The biblical doctrine of freedom is entirely opposed to the notion that freedom is the capacity to choose good or evil. He who is morally capable of choosing evil is evil. For God is impeccable, and He cannot sin, nor can He lie, for His character is so infinitely opposed to this, and yet none will say that God is not 'free.' The objection is mute unless this purpose can be demonstrated from the Scriptures.

But let's run with it for the sake of argument.

2) Either the free decision is finally determined by antecedent causes, or it is not. If it is determined by antecedent causes, namely, all internal and external motives - that which inclines the agent to a particular choice according to the strength of the motive - are pre-existing. Hypothetically, should time be replayed, so to speak, the decision would be reproduced if the circumstances were exactly the same. On the other hand, if it is not determined by antecedent causes, but the decision is thought to be the result of the will of the agent, then the decision is entirely random. Should time be replayed the decision could be different even though the circumstances are exactly the same. For, either it is determined by antecedent causes or it is not, and if it is not, then there is absolutely nothing already existent, in the agent or external to the agent, that accounts for the choice of one thing over another.

In this case, where the choice is not determined by antecedent causes, it is seen that the objection is that God considers a decision meaningful if the outcome is random. Yet, randomness is the definition of meaninglessness, and if human decision is random (i.e. libertarian free will is true), then God's purpose in decision is to obtain a purposeless choice, which I will leave to the reader to determine whether this is a contradiction. If it is said that the decision was made because of the agreeableness of the outcome, then it is admitted that libertarian free will is false, and the objector destroys his own argument, for this is, no pun intended, entirely compatible with compatibilism and a very thing upon which the Calvinist so ardently insists.

3) This objection may suggest the purpose of the act of decision itself, or the power of the will, but in so doing it incidentally supposes that there is the possibility that the outcome of the choice itself is meaningless (that is, the choosing of some thing rather than another). For, the only way a thing has meaning is if it is instrumental in attaining a worthy end, and if the decision made by the person does not accord with God's absolute and universal desire or intention (such as rejecting the Gospel in the scheme of those who hold to a hypothetical universal atonement), then the decision is meaningless from God's perspective. It doesn't attain the worthy end for which God sought, which is commonly said to be a 'genuine' relation. If someone does not choose God, then their decision becomes meaningless. Thus, it is the libertarian scheme in which meaninglessness is found.

If it is objected at this point that God intends for such negative decisions to be made meaningful by His justice, judgment, and wrath, or even that He takes advantage of them to this end, then I shall let the reader observe that this means that God considers the manifestation of His wrath upon people to be a worthy end, for which such negative libertarian choices are instrumental. And this, of course, does not accord with the supposition common among the objectors that God does not desire to show His wrath on anyone (i.e. God absolutely and universally desires all to be saved, in the Arminian understanding). For, in His infinite foreknowledge, He has created these knowing that they would be the objects of His wrath, apparently because this is somehow absolutely and universally more agreeable to Him than sparing them His wrath by not creating them. Thus we see that in their own scheme, these poor souls are predestined to wrath.

4) All the biblical and philosophical objections against libertarian free will may be brought to bear on this, but this is beyond the scope of this article. This is not, however, beyond the willingness of this writer to recapitulate.

The Meaning of Decisions

What then, is the point or purpose of human decision and action?

I would first point out that I do not find it intuitive that, given the foreordination of all things, that choice is meaningless. Here are some initial observations:

1) I find it entirely intuitive that the only sensible notion of genuine choice, that is, the only choice worthy of praise or blame, is that which determined by antecedent causes. In other words, I don't take the objection voiced for granted. The objection is counterintuitive to me. Decision independent of God's decree is meaningless: Libertarian free will precludes meaningful choice, for it precludes praise and blame, as no account can be given for the reason for the choice of one thing rather than another. Praise and blame intuitively depend on choices that are the product of antecedent causes.

2) I think too much weight is placed upon the power of choice and not enough upon the power of perception. We were not created for independent, libertarian choice (which is an utterly irrational and false notion), but rather we are created as beings capable of genuine perception. That is, we are created with the capability of perceiving beauty, glory, horror, and so on, and that this entirely accords with the meaning of life, which is, to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This universe exists to make God known, and therefore the most agreeable power of our being to this end is that of perception, not the will.

3) The heart that does not wish to do good upon discovering that the decisions are predetermined testifies to its own persistent wickedness. Think about it - what kind of person does not wish to do that which is good?

4) The notion that man must operate according to a notion of autonomy with respect to God's decrees is consistent with the heart of human rebellion. Man must always wear his crown, he must always receive the glory of his deeds and choices.

Now, I shall take prayer as an example, since it is a common example used by those who object to the divine decrees. By prayer is meant the activity of prayer as performed by a person, and not the abstract idea of prayer. For one may object that while prayer in itself may have a point, the activity of the agent in prayer is pointless. I would observe this, though: It is plain that a thing obtains its meaning from the end for which it exists, and if the activity of the person in prayer exists for the sake of the prayer, then this activity obtains its meaning from the prayer, for which it is already admitted that a meaning exists, and so it is senseless to say that something may be meaningful, but the means by which it is attained are meaningless, which is indeed a major point I wish to make in this post.

If prayer has meaning or a point or a purpose or a reason for being at all, then it may be supposed that all things have a meaning, whether understood or not, since prayer sufficiently stands in for anything else, as it is the activity of an agent. To answer the objection for prayer is to provide a proof of concept that the grounding assumption that divine sovereignty reduces human activity to pointlessness is flawed and counterintuitive. if God has not revealed the specific meaning of every thing to us, it does not follow that our ignorance of the meaning implies a lack of meaning. Indeed, I hold that God has given us the ultimate (or macro) meaning of all things, and this is itself more than sufficient, since no immediate (micro) reason is more meaningful that the ultimate reason for existence, and all micro reasons serve the macro reason. And it is clear that God has kept for Himself many mysteries, and that the subordinate purposes of things are in most cases quite concealed, at least in the moment, although many attest to obtaining a later retrospective understanding.

With respect to prayer, I offer three things to answer the original question.

First, in Revelation, we have a picture of the glory of God as viewed by the apostle John. He writes:

Revelation 5:8
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Prayers are envisioned as golden bowls full of incense. But what is this imagery meant to communicate? Incense is used for its pleasing fragrance. Yet, the imagery of incense is so far from the conception of prayer from our perspective. A human decision and action is compared to an inanimate entity used for its pleasurable qualities. Our cries to God and heartfelt prayers before Him are like God preparing and burning (via agency) incense for its sweet fragrance. That God has decreed our prayers, that is, that He has foreordained that we should pray for such and such, is in no way problematic as to the purpose or meaning of prayer, for even if prayer existed solely for its pleasing aroma before God, then this is sufficient to destroy the notion that prayer is meaningless. From our perspective, we pray, yet from God's perspective, He prepares for Himself bowls of incense for their pleasure. The preparation of these bowls and the burning of the incense, so to speak, is experienced by us as the motives and choices and desires and actions that lead up to and include prayer. This is itself one way in which we may see how God may view a thing in a manner that is foreign to us, should it not be revealed, and yet this very thing has a point from God's perspective. This is the meaning or purpose or point with which we must be concerned, for the only true meaning is the purpose of things as viewed by God. This is sufficient to demonstrate that prayer has a purpose, and refute the intuition in question. There are many other purposes of prayer that may be advanced, but that is not my particular concern in this point.

Second, consider this quote by Jonathan Edwards:

"They say, to what purpose are praying, and striving, and attending on means, if all was irreversibly determined by God before? But, to say that all was determined before these prayers and strivings, is a very wrong way of speaking, and begets those ideas in the mind, which correspond with no realities with respect to God. The decrees of our everlasting state were not before our prayers and strivings; for these are as much present with God from all eternity, as they are the moment they are present with us. They are present as part of his decrees, or rather as the same; and they did as really exist in eternity, with respect to God, as they exist in time, and as much at one time as another. Therefore, we can no more fairly argue, that these will be in vain, because God has foredetermined all things, than we can, that they would be in vain if they existed as soon as the decree, for so they do, inasmuch as they are a part of it." (Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume II, page 527)

Edwards' point here is that when someone thinks in this manner, he is following reasoning that is completely out of line with God's reasoning, and this is nothing less than sin. For to entertain conclusions and ideas that are opposed to God's ideas is indeed an act of rebellion, whether intentional or not. If you accept the attributes of the true God, then you accept that He is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent, and therefore, when you grant sovereignty and simultaneously question the meaning of something on that account, you are unwittingly conflating ideas: You presuppose a different and contrary view of God to the very premise granted, and in so doing hold a perspective on how things transpire and come to be that is contradictory to what is obviously a substantially different perspective in the eyes of a sovereign God. Under the understand that God is sovereign over all things, then His foreknowledge is contingent upon His decrees, and His decrees are eternal, timeless, and in perfect harmony. You are indeed free to mount an internal critique, but internally there is no problem, as we have seen.

Third, that God should ordain prayer is by definition the assignment of a point and purpose to prayer, whatever it might be, as observed previously.

Now, does the Bible clearly show the concept of human activity and choices that are considered meaningful and are predetermined? If this can be clearly demonstrated, then this is clear evidence that the intuition that meaning obtains from something other than divine purpose is a sinful one that must be abandoned.

The crucifixion of Christ and all associated events, which happened exactly as determined by God (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:27), are a clear demonstration of that human activity is considered meaningful even though the actions of men were predetermined. This includes the actions of Judas Iscariot, which happened to fulfill Scripture (John 13:18), and explicitly the actions of Pontius Pilate and Herod. I choose this event because history is centred upon it. There is no more meaningful moment in history. The eternal praise of the Lamb consists in worshiping Christ for this very event.

Moreover, it may be observed that Christ commanded His disciples to pray that they might not fall into temptation (Mark 14:38; Luke 22:40), and yet He foretold that they would certainly abandon Him (Mark 14:27), most particularly seen in the denial by Peter (John 13:38), most certainly a sin (Luke 12:9) and a product of temptation by Satan (Luke 22:31; cf. 22:61). So the intuition that things have no point if they are foreordained and predestined would impugn Christ Himself of engaging in many pointless things and commanding many pointless things. The biblical writers, and Christ Himself, do not share this intuition, and therefore it must be abandoned.

Now, some final thoughts on the happy engagement of activities knowing that they are foreordained.

First, the real problem is not an intellectual one. It is a sinful one. The whole intuition that our actions are meaningless given divine sovereignty is born of the sinfulness of the heart. Scripture has no problem with the truth that things are predetermined and that simultaneously human actions are meaningful and worthy of praise or blame. Thus, one must repent of this unbiblical intuition.

Next, it has been my experience that many confuse the notions of divine providence and fatalism. Fatalism is the idea that a thing will happen no matter what takes place. Fate is unavoidable and inescapable. Your fate is inevitable, and it will happen no matter what you do. When I say that the intuition behind the question is sinful, I say this because it misconstrues the ways and works of God by implying that His operations are fatalistic.

Yet, God's working out of His decrees through providence (that is, God works all things according to His purpose) is not fatalistic. God's purpose is not accomplished no matter what happens. God's purpose is specific, and He has a particular plan, and this plan is worked out through the events of creation. These events and the actions of agents are necessary to obtaining the end. If Elijah did not pray, there would not have been rain. If the disciples had not believed, they would not be saved. It is nonsense to say that if Noah had not built the ark, the ark would have existed. And both the ark's existence and Noah's obedience in constructing it are part of the divine plan. If you believe and hold fast to Christ, you will be saved.

It is not a peculiar way of speaking, to speak of things as contingent upon our acting, and this is where many slip - our acting is not incompatible with God's designing and decreeing and predestining. Future events are contingent upon their prior causes. If the necessary and sufficient causes are not there for a thing that is not necessary of its own existence, it will not be, and it will not come to pass. Things in creation are not occurring in a metaphysical vacuum. The distinction to observe is that our actions are not primarily causal, but they are necessary to accomplish God's purpose in them, and our actions themselves have many causes. Human experience accords with this in that we choose according to our desires, or, to put it crassly, we do what we want, that is, that which is most agreeable to us in any particular choice. Even if a particular choice seems relatively disagreeable compared to other hypothetical choices in a scenario that are not possible, we always choose that which, out of the present possibilities, is most agreeable. Things are not purposeless if they exist as instrumental in attaining some worthy end, and, for one thing, God is working all things for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. Therefore, reality is decidedly and absolutely not fatalistic.

Now, perhaps it is said, “Well, I can accept that all of God’s purpose will be accomplished, but does that mean He has purpose for everything?” My first comment is that passages like Ephesians 1:11 tell us explicitly that He does have purpose for everything and in everything. But consider the implication of the question: What is really being asked is whether something occurs that God is totally and universally impartial towards, and does not care whether it has being or not. After all, if God was absolutely and universally inclined towards a thing in any way whatsoever it must factor into His purpose.

Consider the following: Such a hypothetical thing would not in any way advance or hinder God’s purpose: If it were to advance His purpose, He would surely will it to have being, and if it were to hinder His purpose, absolutely and universally, then He would surely will that it would not have being. So, such a thing could have being if it has no absolute or universal effect whatsoever on God’s purpose: In this case, why bother even discussing such things? If it is an attempt to retain some sort of influence on part of the human, or freedom of some sort apart from God, then such an endeavor has failed already, for it is evident that for God to be impartial towards a thing, such a thing has no effect, negative or positive, universally and absolutely, and therefore should it somehow exist on the merits of a human, it is eternally superfluous, and cannot advance a sense of accomplishment or purpose for the human in any way whatsoever. If it is mere speculation, such a thing contributes nothing to the discussion, for the concept itself by its own nature and definition is completely and wholly irrelevant. Nevertheless, all reasoning aside, God eliminates that possibility through His word:

Ephesians 1:11
[God] works all things according to the counsel of his will.

Therefore reason and Scripture testify to us that such a hypothetical thing, for which God should have no purpose or inclination, does not exist.

Conclusion

In conclusion, remember the following points: First, the very nature of the purpose or meaning or point or reason for being of anything derives from its suitability and usefulness in attaining some worthy end in the eye of the one who values that end. Therefore, since God ordains all things that shall ever be or come to pass, and since He works all things according to the purpose of His glorious design, by definition, everything has a point. It can be countered that it is only in the contingent scheme where truly worthless and pointless circumstances might arise. Second, it can be demonstrated that predetermined events are entirely compatible with human responsibility and purpose, according to Jesus Christ and the biblical authors. Chiefly, this is clearly seen in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ Himself, the scattering of the sheep, the betrayal of Christ, the mockery of our Lord, the wickedness of the leaders who killed Him, and so on, which all happened exactly as it was determined by God. Third, do not confuse fatalism with God providentially working out His decrees through primary and secondary causes. Finally, the intuition that things are meaningless if God has predetermined them is contrary to the very nature of God's word and purpose, and it is a sinful inclination.

There is more that can be said, and this has been a relatively brief treatment of the matter, from my view. For example, I did not spend any time discussion how the alternative positions fail to live up to their own standards. But I do hope that it was somewhat helpful in addressing the question.

Thirteen "You Shall Not's" for Church

2008-09-03T17:15:00.001-06:00

1) You shall not deny or compromise or dishonour the glory of God, nor shall you fall short of the glory of God and exchange it it for lesser things.

2) You shall not live as the world nor shall you commit adultery and join with the world. You shall be faithful.

3) You shall not govern your plans or thoughts or actions by pragmatism but by faithfulness to the word of God in His Scriptures. You shall trust the Lord.

4) You shall not turn from loving one another, for by this all people will know that you are disciples of the Lord.

5) You shall not fail to preach the whole counsel and word of God, lest you have blood on your hands.

6) You shall not turn from the Scriptures, either to follow your feelings or ambitions, or worldly plans and methods, but you shall be judged by the Word of God and follow it alone.

7) You shall not trust your heart, but in the revealed word of God alone.

8) You shall not fail to reveal the supremacy of God's glory to the world through open statement of the truth of the Gospel.

9) You shall not fail to rejoice before the Lord or serve Him gladly in all you do.

10) You shall not tolerate false teaching and false gospels and false brothers in your midst.

11) You shall not neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encourage one another and consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.

12) You shall not slack in working out your salvation with fear and trembling, and you shall pursue the holiness without which no one will see the Lord, knowing that it is God working and willing within you for His good pleasure.

13) You shall not fail to seek to make disciples of all nations and equip the saints for good works.

...

The God who hardens whom He hardens

2008-08-21T16:51:00.002-06:00

Objection: "God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but this is a specific case, and doesn't apply with other people. This doesn't mean that God hardens anyone else."

On the face of it, taken in itself, this is fair enough, in a sense. We don't take what happens at one time to one person in one place and universalize it, immediately saying that God will do X to everyone because He did X to John Doe. I say "in a sense" because there is still a principle in the way God operates demonstrated in any particular instance of operation. Simply put, God's actions accord with His character. This objection doesn't reckon with this underlying principle. It presupposes that God's action with Pharaoh is exceptional.

That God did this once proves that He has no universal and absolute moral problem with hardening the heart of a person. There are two categories - either God is morally capable of hardening the heart of an individual or He is not. We know from this that in principle God is indeed capable and willing, if it so pleases Him, to harden a man's heart.

Furthermore, the reason given in Exodus for this hardening is to make known God's power (Exodus 7:3-5). If you don't follow that, look at the train of thought. Pharaoh will not listen even in the face of great signs because God hardens him (7:3). Moreover, this has a purpose: God shall harden Pharaoh's heart to occasion the display of His power, since God says, "Pharaoh will not listen. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt..." (7:4) The result of this application of judgment is given in verse 5: "The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them." So Pharaoh's hardening by God and subsequent failure to listen to God occasions God laying His hand on Egypt, which itself obtains the result that "The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD," as is evidenced by the fact that they shall know that He is Yahweh when God has laid judgment on them. So Pharaoh's hardening is instrumental in attaining this end. Hence, we see later, "But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." (9:16)

Therefore, we may observe that God is willing to harden the heart of an individual against God's revealed commands - in this case, the command to release the people of Israel (Exodus 9:2-3, cf. 9:12) - in order to magnify His power through it. Moreover, we see that the magnification of the power of God through the hardening of an individual is, from God's perspective, morally justifiable.

A corollary of this is that it is evidently not God's highest priority to save every single person no matter the cost. It isn't even His highest priority to try to do so. This is evident because God actually hardens Pharaoh in his rebellion, an operation decidedly at odds with the idea that God has a universal and ultimate desire to see every single person come to Him. At the very least, with Pharaoh, God desires to make His power and name known more than He desires Pharaoh's obedience, absolutely speaking, as is evidenced by God's hardening Pharaoh's heart so as to facilitate through Pharaoh's disobedience the magnification of His power and name (again, compare Exodus 9:2-3 and 9:12, and see 9:16 as the clear reason for Pharaoh's continued existence as he is).

Finally, this case would be generally applicable if we had an apostolic interpretation that used the events relating to Pharaoh as an example of God's general manner of interaction with people. In other words, if an apostle were to argue that God hardens whomever He wants to harden based on God's treatment of Pharaoh, we must accept that God does this on many more occasions and that this is not an isolated case, but a principle of interaction with people.

Indeed, we have exactly this interpretation in Romans 9:

Romans 9:15-18
15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

In verse 18, Paul says, "So then [God] [mercies] whomever He wills and He hardens whomever He wills." The "so" is connected to verse 17. God raised up Pharaoh to make known His power, and the clear referent for 'harden' in verse 18 is the manner in which God dealt with Pharaoh. Paul's quotation from Exodus 9:16 is intended to bring to mind how God operated with Pharaoh in the deliverance of His people: Paul isn't speaking in a vacuum here. The apostle is bringing to mind God's statement, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" when he says, "So then ... He hardens whomever He wills." This is evident because Paul concludes that God hardens whom He hardens simply by quoting Exodus 9:16! In other words, Paul simply generalizes the fact that God hardens whom He hardens by quoting the purpose for Pharaoh's existence. Thus, God freely dispenses mercy according to His wisdom, and He hardens according to His wisdom. And this does not depend upon foreseen faith or actions, for it is said:

Romans 9:11-13
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Paul concludes that Malachi's prophecy, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" supports his statement that God's treatment of Jacob and Esau did not depend upon them - for they had done nothing either good or bad - but rather upon the purpose of God in election. In Romans 9, Paul is saying that God operates freely with respect to hardening people. Pharaoh is no isolated case, as God hardens whom He hardens, as He sees fit.

We may also observe that Pharaoh is hardly the only instance of hardening. God hardened potentially millions of His own people, the Jews, with His stated reason being to prevent them from coming to Him.

John 12:37-41
37 Though he [Jesus] had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" 39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.

The reason given for why the Jews could not believe is that God has not revealed His arm to them (vs 39 connected to 38), which John buttresses in verse 40 by adding "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart." Why? Why did God do this? "Lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." (Note that in Isaiah 6 God is hardening the hearts of the people, and Isaiah is bringing this message of judgment. In Isaiah 6:9 we see that God gave him a mandate to proclaim God's word of judgment upon them. Isaiah recognizes that this hardening is in the hand of God when he asks, "How long?").

That's hard for a lot of people. Really hard. And John 12:40 is Isaiah and John, not me.

I have no moral issues with God doing such with His creation - if I did, I would be turning things upside down and saying to God, "What have you done?"

Potter and clay, and all that.

Here's the bottom line: Can you worship the God who hardens whom He hardens? This is a serious life and death question.

History, Theology, and Apologetics, in...

2008-08-08T23:13:00.002-06:00

... a RAP SONG.

I could barely believe what I heard between 1:30 and 2:00.

Seriously, give it a listen. You might actually learn something.

:-)

HT: Justin Taylor

Past conversations can make you feel dumb in the present

2008-08-08T16:40:00.002-06:00

This is a conversation I recently dug up between Warren and I during university. I guess in some areas I've gotten dumber. ;-) Enjoy!

Mike says:
hey
Warren says:
hey, sup?
Mike says:
wanna doublecheck answers?
Mike says:
im not sure i trust the result of 3420^3432 % 233
Mike says:
Warren says:
well, i totally forgot about it until bout 10 min ago, so i'm trying to figure out what to do (well, more like what the heck he is asking us to do....)
Mike says:
lol... i hear ya... ummm.... lemme write it this way:
say we want 10 ^ 12 = 10 ^ (1100)
10 100 10000 10^8
0 0 1 1 (from bin)
so, % 103
10 100 9 81
Mike says:
normally, you'd go 10->100->10000
Mike says:
instead, go 10->100->9->81, so keep squaring, but when you're bigger than c mod by c
Mike says:
THEN, for any bit that is in our exponent b (1100 here) multiply the result:
9*1 + 81*1 = 729
Mike says:
then, mod that by c: 729 % 103 = 8
Warren says:
there we go.... i was missing the final step *L*... i had multiplying all the steps together but that didnt give me anything useful
Mike says:
lol
Mike says:
no worries... lemme know when you're done, we'll compare inputs
Warren says:
will do.
Mike says:
no sense losing marks in a class when there is hardly any to lose
Mike says:
Mike says:
one more thing, remember to mod your running product, or it will overflow
Mike says:
you need to mod the product and the exponents
Warren says:
u can mod it at any time?
Mike says:
im talking to chris about that now... i think we can mod it continually
Mike says:
so 10%103=10
100%103=100
10000%103 = 9
9%103 = 9
81 %103 = 81
...
Mike says:
if we mod when the number = c, we get 0
Mike says:
which means we have a perfect divisor
Warren says:
ah k...
Warren says:
hrm. mine is working for smaller values i've tested...
Warren says:
i dont get the same thing for ur big one... i got some bug i gotta iron out...
Warren says:
(with large values, i end up getting 0)
Mike says:
try 8^99 % 974
Mike says:
sorry, 68 ^999
Mike says:
DOH
Mike says:
8 ^ 999
Mike says:
should get 254
Warren says:
err k, say that again? 8^999 % ___?
Mike says:
974
Warren says:
ah k... mine is screwing up, so time to hunt a bug
Warren says:
what are you using as your storage variables? (ie. unsigned int, unsigned long)?
Mike says:
unsigned int
Mike says:
same as long\
Warren says:
k... same.. just was checkin
Mike says:
so maple can double check for us
Mike says:
it can handle HUGE (and by huge i mean ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE) numbers
Mike says:
umm, maple says that 2133 ^ 2312 = 14, which is what i got
Mike says:
nuts
Warren says:
errr k...
I have a question: I am calculating the smaller a^x %c values using:
d *= pow(a, binary_power) % c;
the prob is that it is still too large for me.
Warren says:
the calculation of 'pow' comes out to 0...
Mike says:
oh, dont use pow
Warren says:
what are you using?
Mike says:
just go:
x
x=x*x %c
x=x*x % c
Mike says:
....
Warren says:
ohhhhh that sucks.
Warren says:
heh
Mike says:
thats what bin exponentiation is, eh? its going (10*10)^2)^2)^2
Mike says:
that kinda thing
Warren says:
true, but i was doing it a diff way (still binary exp, but working a diff way)
Mike says:
ah
Warren says:
that is why it was working for all smaller values.... pow outputs a double, which is then cast as an unsigned int....
Mike says:
theres another neat trick on wikipedia, but i dont think it works for the mod problem... its like ( x)^2)^2)^2, and for any 1 bit through another *x in, so 101 means (x^2)x)^2)^2)x
Mike says:
ah yes
Mike says:
avoid floats
Mike says:
throw, not through
Warren says:
2133 ^ 2312 = 14, what was your % for that?
Mike says:
14
Mike says:
wait
Warren says:
err so 2133 ^ 2312 % 14 = 14?
Mike says:
nm, 11
Mike says:
sorry
Warren says:
ah k
Mike says:
and maple gets the same
Warren says:
k, back to the hacking for me... should be able to fix it in a few min
Mike says:
try 5433^23423 mod 943
Mike says:
lol... the number is 21 pages solid
Mike says:
grrrr frickin linux
Mike says:
im trying my prog over ssgh
Mike says:
ssg
Mike says:
lol... ssh
Mike says:
its not reading two of the inputs
Warren says:
hrm. I am still running into issues with overflow.
waiit... think i know the issue.... i'm doing the modulo prolly too late...
Warren says:
err when are you doing the modulo operation? (ie. you cant calculate 10^128, so when do you do the modulo?)
Warren says:
ie for the 10^243 % 103...
Mike says:
oh, calculate it every time you go 10*10
Mike says:
so every look, you square your result
Mike says:
ie: x = 10
Warren says:
you need to take the modulo of 10^128 %103 * 10^64%103 * ....
you cant make 10^128. So how do you get around that? When you are doing the 10^2 %103 = x, then x^2 %103?
Mike says:
do
x = (x*x) % c
loop
Warren says:
ahhh k.... so 10*10 %103 = 100, 100*100 %103 = 9, 9*9 %103 = 81, 81*81 %103 = ........
Mike says:
exactly
Mike says:
and, multiply the result of each iteration
Mike says:
and mod it
Warren says:
grrrr i wish he had better explanations for his assignments... *L*... i can now see that from my notes...
Mike says:
so prod *= 10*10%103 % c, prod *= 100*100%103 % c,
Mike says:
prevents overflow in product too
Warren says:
with the 10^243 % 103, what answer did you get for that?
Mike says:
90
Mike says:
maple agrees
Warren says:
k... i am getting the 8^999 one and the 10^243 but I cant get the 2133^2312 .... prolly another issue somewhere in the works....
Mike says:
overflow of the product?
Warren says:
errr, cant be b/c I mod it every time I multiply it... heck... everytime anything is multiplied, it is mod'd (well, where appropriate).. but yeah, there prolly has to be an overflow somwhere
Mike says:
lol
Mike says:
k, im sending you my exe
Mike says:
run it, check the residues and product against yours for each bit
Mike says:
see if somethings off
Mike says:
mine lists out the progress
Mike says:
its straightforward
Mike says:
k, remove the .f from the end
Mike says:
stupid email blockers
Warren says:
heh nice... k..
err unsigned int's should be 2^32 in length, correct?
Mike says:
yup
Mike says:
ummm
Mike says:
wait
Mike says:
which ints?
Mike says:
the input ones are 16 bit?
Warren says:
unsigned ints
Warren says:
err?
Mike says:
unsigned shorts
Warren says:
whatcha mean?
Mike says:
your input numbers are 16 bits
Warren says:
so there shouldnt be any issues... but in my loop, I have x = x*x % c, and when it does it the first time for 2133*2133 % 11 = 1. And thus, every single time I do it from then on, the output is 1 for x= x*x%c
Warren says:
is that correct?
Warren says:
(i'm looking at 2133^2312 % 11 = 14)
Mike says:
umm, lemme see...
Mike says:
2133^2312%11 = 1
Mike says:
its 1 for all of them
Mike says:
maple agrees
Warren says:
yay! or is that bad for u?
Mike says:
so yeah, once it goes to one, it will always be 1
Mike says:
no, thats correct
Warren says:
ah k... perfect...
Mike says:
2133^2312%11 does equal 1
Mike says:
1 mod anything = 1
Warren says:
so give me an example with giant number and i'll see if mine works...
Warren says:
Mike says:
k...
34265^23123%18493
Warren says:
6010
Warren says:
what do u get?
Mike says:
6010
Mike says:
maple agrees
Warren says:
yay i'm done
Mike says:
try 3^21 mod 7
Mike says:
6
Warren says:
yup, 6
Warren says:
well, thnx for ur help ^^
Mike says:
np
Mike says:
i gotta test it on the linux boxes tomorrow
Warren says:
not a long proggy... outside of the input output stuff and comments, it is 15 lines or less (i bet if i optimized it a bit, i could get very very easily under 8 lines heh)
Mike says:
ssh seems to not work
Mike says:
yeah, my code is probably only about 6 lines for the algorithm
Warren says:
nice...
Mike says:
maybe less... its spread out (you know me)
Warren says:
actually... hrmm... yeah... i guess u could put it on two or three lines if you relaly wanted to go overboard (err yeah, anyways) *L*....
Mike says:
indeed....
Mike says:
u gonna try yours tomorrow?
Warren says:
yeah... tho i'm gonna email it off tonite... i didnt have issues last time (once i knew how to compile it)... so i'll email it and if there are issues, i'll email again...
tho i did it as a C++... prolly gonna quickly change my couts / cins so its a C...
Mike says:
heh... mine compiles ok
Mike says:
try ssh
Mike says:
but the scanfs arent reading right. may be a buffering/shell thing though
Mike says:
im sure it will work tomorrow
Warren says:
hrmm... i might leave mine then as a CPP... ...
Mike says:
yeah, do it
Mike says:
no probs with that

Heaven

2008-07-15T21:42:00.002-06:00

What comes to your mind when you hear the word 'heaven?'

Have you ever suffered? Do you suffer now? Do you long for healing, satisfaction, and joy?

What do you know of the experience of heaven? Who is in heaven? Is heaven going to be a boring place? A joyful place? What does a person do in heaven?

Are you going to be in heaven?

Or will you end up in the torments of hell?

Perhaps, in our society, many of us are comfortable enough to feel secure in allowing our eyes to drift off of eternity. Maybe you are beginning to feel apathetic because of the pleasure of transient things, or perhaps you think that the Bible isn't so concerned with the after-life. This is tragic. But, in due time, one way or another, eternity is going to be banging on your front door. This isn't a topic that you can simply ignore or put off for a while. Every one of us is going to die. That is a fact - unless Christ returns first. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that you know what will happen to you when you die and Who it is that can save you.

In the grace of God, the Bible contains an enormous amount of knowledge about heaven. In this next Bible study I hope to present just some of these glorious truths so as to stir you to hold fast to Christ Jesus and to set your eyes on things above.

This is the second study in a pair of studies that are intended to supplement and articulate the teaching on Heaven and Hell from the Resolved 2008 conference. In the first study we looked at the horrors of Hell. Now, we will look at the glories of Heaven.

If you are planning to come out, feel free to extend an invitation to any friends or family who are interested in learning about the after-life or have questions about heaven and hell.

Lord willing, the study will be held at my place, on Thursday, July 17, at SEVEN (7:00) PM.

Let me know if you're interested.

A mark of a true Spirit-filled ministry

2008-07-15T16:57:00.001-06:00

MacArthur/Edwards observe:

When a ministry raises people’s esteem of the one true Jesus Christ, who was born of a virgin and was crucified — if it confirms and establishes their minds in the truth that He is the Son of God and the Savior of men — then it is a sure sign that it is from the Spirit of God. If the spirit at work among a people convinces them of Christ and leads them to Him; if it confirms their minds in the belief of the history of Christ as He appeared in the flesh; if it teaches them that He is the Son of God to save sinners; if it reveals that He is the only Savior, and that they stand in great need of Him; and if it begets in them higher and more honorable thoughts of Christ than they used to have; if it inclines their affections more to Him — that is a sure sign that it is the true and right Spirit. This is true even though we are ultimately incapable of determining whether anyone’s conviction or affections reflect real saving faith.

:-)

Edwards on your manner of attending Church

2008-07-09T12:10:00.003-06:00

Examine yourselves, whether you do not live in some way of sin with respect to the institutions of God’s house. Here I shall mention several instances.

…

(4.) Art not thou one whose manner it is, to come late to the public worship of God, and especially in winter, when the weather is cold? and dost thou not live in sin in so doing? Consider whether it be a way which can be justified; whether it be a practice which doth honour to God and religion; whether it have not the appearance of setting light by the public worship and ordinances of God’s house. Doth it not show that thou dost not prize such opportunities, and that thou art willing to have as little of them as thou canst? Is it not a disorderly practice? and if all should do as thou dost, what confusion would it occasion?

(5.) Art thou not one whose manner it commonly is to sleep in the time of public service? and is not this to live in a way of sin? Consider the matter rationally; is it a thing to be justified, for thee to lay thyself down to sleep, while thou art present in the time of divine service, and pretendest to be one of the worshipping assembly, and to be hearing a message from God? Would it not be looked upon as a high affront, an odious behaviour, if thou shouldst do so in the presence of a king, while a message was delivering to thee, in his name, by one of his servants? Canst thou put a greater contempt on the message which the King of kings sendeth to thee, concerning things of the greatest importance, than from time to time to lay thyself down, and compose thyself to sleep, while the messenger is delivering his message to thee?

(6.) Art thou not one who is not careful to keep his mind intent upon what is said and done in public worship? Dost thou not, in the midst of the most solemn acts of worship, suffer thy thoughts to rove after worldly objects, worldly cares and concerns, or perhaps the objects of thy wicked lusts and desires? and dost thou not herein live in a way of sin?

Jonathan Edwards, Christian Cautions.
The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume II
Page 443-445

Sadly, some things just don't change...

Bible Study Night - Thursday, July 3/2008 - What is Hell?

2008-06-28T07:51:00.000-06:00

The concept of hell brings up a lot of different ideas among different people. Philosophers and theologians over the past centuries have researched and speculated extensively regarding the nature and experience of hell. Today, many modern thinkers down-play medieval or traditional imagery of hell, even to the point of teaching that hell doesn't exist. Even the world of mainstream entertainment has its own conceptions of hell, and these ideas appear frequently in movies and TV shows that deal with the after-life, the occult, and spirituality.

What do you know about hell? Do you have questions about hell? Do you know what it is?

Most importantly, what does the Bible teach about hell? What does Jesus Christ have to say about hell?

In the next study we will turn to this question and look at the Biblical teaching on hell: Does the Bible teach that hell exists? What is hell? Who goes to hell? How do you end up in hell? How do you avoid hell?

Remember, you are going to die. Whether it be cancer, old age, freak accidents, or something else, every single one of us is going to die, unless the Lord returns first. It is unavoidable. Because you are going to die you need to understand what the Bible teaches about the after-life. None of us can guarantee that we will live even another minute. This isn't something you can put off. You need to ask yourself - what happens when I die? This question is unavoidable because, one way or another, you are going to find out eventually.

For the next two studies, I want to summarize and supplement and articulate the teaching on Heaven and Hell from the Resolved 2008 conference. In the first study we will look at Hell. For the second, two weeks after this, we will look at Heaven.

Lord willing, the study will be held at our place, on Thursday, July 3, at SEVEN (7:00) PM.

Contact me if you're interested.

Conferences and my local pastor

2008-06-23T11:56:00.000-06:00

"The speakers are amazing, they are so much better than normal pastors."

While I was at the Resolved conference, I heard a girl say this. (Mind you, this was said despite organizer and pastor Rick Holland asking people not to do this, but that's not my point here).

Some 3400 people lauded the speakers at this conference with great shouts and cheers and clapping. I wonder if they do the same for their local church pastors?

It's highly likely that John Piper isn't going to be the one who must give an account for your soul before the Lord.

With that in mind, I want to humbly honour my local church pastor, Clint Humfrey.

At Calvary Grace Church we are profoundly blessed to have in him the leadership and teaching of such calibre that every Sunday we are treated to God-glorifying spirit-convicting preaching with as much Biblical exposition and substance as the messages at this conference.

I was sad on Sunday morning at Resolved... I missed Calvary Grace.

"We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work."
1 Thessalonians 5:12-13

Personal relationship with God?

2008-06-21T16:51:00.004-06:00

I read this at Reclaiming the Mind blog (the reference is not a wholesale recommendation of the blog, mind you - I have issues with aspects of it, but it is still of great value). It is a letter from a man who says his "reasons for discouragement as a Christian are caused less by a lack of answers than by a lack of God." What he means by this is very plain. He goes on to say,

"I've have heard people talking for years about a “personal relationship” with God, and perhaps my problems arise in part because I’ve taken that too literally. I just don’t see God caring very much about (most) human beings in this life. God seems about as relational and caring as the weather, or gravity: interesting subjects to study, and certainly a great influence in our lives, but not quite the same as a father who calls us his children and claims to love us."

I just wanted to briefly comment on this.

First, my heart goes out to this man, for whom, in my view, the wrongheadedness of many Christians is a profound stumbling block for him, perhaps in the providence of God a fatal one.

Without meaning to offend those so apt to speak abstractly and esoterically, I think that generally the "personal relationship with God" that many Christians speak about has more to do with a communion with one's own feelings than a communion with God. Now, I'm not saying these people are not Christians or that they do not have a relationship with God. I would say that the idea of communion with God expressed by the common abstract "relationship with God" isn't that healthy and I would hope they would grow out of it.

I will go out on a limb here: I'll suggest that many (newer) Christians hear "relationship with God" and think, "Oh, that sounds right and good, and it looks like everyone else is nodding and agreeing. It seems everyone else knows what is going on, so I'll just stay quiet and figure it out as I go along... I don't have this 'relationship' but it sure seems like the people beside me in the pew do." Then they spend some more time in the fellowship of believers, and start to adopt this style of speaking of "relationship with God," and start to think of it in terms of feelings and impressions. Desiring to have the relationship they think they see others have, they begin to look for the feelings from God. Looking for what they want, they find it, and viola, they have a relationship with God that consists of subjective impressions and feelings. When they feel good and confident, God is "present." When they feel lonely and down, God is "distant." Then a few highly emotive worship songs, and they can have a real intense relational experience with God.

Thus, from my angle, the idea commonly held about a "personal relationship with God" is so loaded with emotive baggage that I am very careful whenever I speak of this. Which is why those who are often around me may have just connected the dots and noticed that I don't use this expression very often, if at all.

When some talk about a "personal relationship with God" and they mean it in the aforementioned sense it has the exact effect described by this man on other believers. They become discouraged because they do not try to attribute their own feelings and desires to communion with God and thus they think they lack this "personal relationship" that other believers claim to have.

I think that many of my Christian brothers and sisters want a unique message just for them, without any biblical basis for this whatsoever. I will also note that we are in a culture that loves to speak and think abstractly rather than concretely, which I am sure contributes to the common idea of what an experience with God should be.

So, what do I consider to be my personal relationship with God?

I could sum it up as a "promisential" approach. Not that I am of any significance to coin an expression, but I think the name is helpful.

I will first note that I hear no voices and my feelings for things spiritual are not distinguishable from my desire to have a coffee - precisely because both are my desires.

Now I will say this: God has spoken to me and for me. I have heard God's voice clearly (not to be read exhaustively for those of you with a chip on your shoulder). I have frequently experienced great emotion in worship and other areas of life.

BUT!

His words are not unique for me because they are not only for me and only to me. Every word that God has spoken to me He has spoken to every single believer because He has brought His word to me in the pages of Scripture. And my emotions and feelings, sanctified or not, are just that - my own emotions and feelings.

See, I am more than content with the promises of God in the Scriptures. He has given His people so many great promises, proven His faithfulness by the greatness of His deeds for the saints of old. I don't look to my desires for communion with God. I look to His revealed word that everyone else can see for communion with God. His words are in the Scriptures, and therein He speaks to me, and I pray to Him. My feeling of communion with God is ever so strong when I meditate on the glories of Christ with my whole being.

So, although I hear no voice, my God is ever-present and near to me, because He has spoken in the Scriptures and I trust in His word.

I think that a craving for the "spiritual experience of a personal relationship with God" which consists in feelings and emotions or voices that may be identified as communion with God is indicative of a simple dissatisfaction with the revelation in the Scriptures. It isn't enough for them that God spoke thousands of years ago. It isn't unique enough, individual enough, close enough. And in their quest for what I think is nothing less than an experience of mysticism they trample on the weak brother and sister.

O how I find the sum of this to be tragic.

*As a caveat, this is no endorsement of a reader response hermeneutic. I don't get to insert a special meaning into the text of the Bible and call it God's word. God's word is sent to all His saints, and it means the same thing irregardless of what they think it means - it means whatever the Holy Spirit intended it to mean.

On criticizing a lack of social justice within the Church

2008-06-06T12:10:00.001-06:00

Important disclaimer: When I say social justice, I mean biblically defined social justice.

It is often said by today’s avant-garde thinkers that the church has historically neglected “social justice” – granting with great charity that the criticism applies to biblical social justice.

There are two ways to manifest the criticism that Christians have given too little attention to matters of social justice.

1) The hateful and deadly and suicidal way

“In neglecting matters of social justice you (we) have historically focused too much on heaven and the after-life to the exclusion of the (kingdom) here and now.”

2) The loving and life-saving and self-preserving way

“In neglecting matters of social justice you (we) have shown conduct that is not in step with the truth of the Gospel of salvation through Christ Jesus alone.”

Think on it.

When getting killed will save your life

2008-06-03T12:28:00.000-06:00

May God be glorified in the testimony of those who suffer for the sake of the Name as they obtain life everlasting through their trials.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080527/32545_Iran_Arrests_12_Christian_Converts.htm

The post-modern sort asks, "What is truth?" Do you have convictions of such strength that they could get you killed?

Turns out the Reformers DIDN'T just invent our soteriology in the 16th century... who knew?

2008-05-30T21:44:00.000-06:00

As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was formerly impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life (Mathetes, The Epistle To Diognetus, 9)

This is an early second century work (circa ~130 AD).

Substitutionary atonement: "He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us"

Divinity: "Son of God" ... "the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal."

Imputation of righteousness: "For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness..." "the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!"

HT: here.

No Birth, No Pregancy, No Conception

2008-05-26T20:07:00.001-06:00

Ephraim's glory shall fly away like a bird-- no birth, no pregnancy, no conception! Hosea 9:11

From Challies.

The fertility rate for Canadian women between 15 and 49 is a mere 1.5, the same as Canada’s last census. A birth rate is below 2.1 is a population in decline. For a population to sustain itself it must be 2.1 and to grow it must be higher still. A quick look at the birth rates of the G8 nations shows a clear trend:

Canada, 5.4 per cent population growth, (1.5 fertility rate)
United
States, 5.0 per cent (2.0)
Italy, 3.1 per cent (1.3)
France, 3.1 per
cent (1.9)
United Kingdom, 1.9 per cent (1.7)
Japan, 0.4 per cent (1.4)
Germany, 0.0 per cent (1.3)
Russia, -2.4 per cent (1.4)

...

All-in-all, many Western nations, Canada among them, are effectively committing suicide—or at the very least are knowingly and willingly radically altering themselves. By refusing to have children, people are allowing their nations to decline. The low birthrates can only drive a nation downward. The Canada of the future will looking very little like the Canada of my childhood and the Canada of today.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Romans 1:18

Imitating Song of Songs

2008-05-15T07:51:00.000-06:00

When pig farmers take their romantic inspiration from Song of Songs:

"Honey, to me, you are like freshly shucked corn in a trough surrounded by hungry hogs."

Ok, ok, so I don't know for sure if the person who wrote this was a pig-farmer. But this guy is bold.

As Mahaney said (from whom I got this quote, in Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God, page 71):

Now, this didn't quite fit my cultural background, but I was immediately able to encourage him. "If your wife is romanced by this, fantastic!"

Mahaney also compared this type of poetry to the fine print in car ads: "Closed course. Professional driver. Do not attempt." Except here it's: "Ancient near eastern poetry. Professional poet. Do not attempt."

Hehe...

The Ancient Horror of Crucifixion

2008-03-22T11:47:00.001-06:00

It is my hope that this blog will enable you to understand what proclaiming the crucifixion of Jesus Christ would look like to the pagan world, and why the bloody religion of Christianity no longer remains when we empty the cross of its horror and offensiveness. I hope that it will encourage you to hold fast in the face of a culture that despises Jesus.

I have drawn this together as a summary of the conclusions from Martin Hengel's Crucifixion. This book an excellent scholarly resource, and I am indebted to Hengel for his efforts, as this blog depends vitally upon his research. I hope that the efforts of such scholars would benefit the believers at the ground level, and not merely remain locked up in ivory towers. So I recommend purchasing this title, which is much more thorough. Incidentally, for my own convenience, the page numbers scattered throughout this document refer to Crucifixion.

Crucifixion as a most cruel death

Crucifixion was widespread as a method of execution, and certainly not limited to the Romans. It is thought by many to have originated with the Persians, but was used as a method of execution by the Indians, the Assyrians, the Scythians, the Taurians, and even the Celts, and later by the Germani and the Britanni, as well as the Numidians and the Carthaginians (p 22-23). The Greeks also practiced it.

Now, the specific way a person was crucified varied considerably. Sometimes corpses who were executed some other way were crucified, to subject them to the "utmost" indignity. The executioners were given freedom to crucify however they so desired. "The caprice and sadism of the executioners were given full reign," which meant that there is no specific form of crucifixion. Seneca, writing in the first century (4 BC – 65 AD), records, (Dialogue 6):

I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: Some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet [gallows, scaffold].

Josephus (37 – ~100 AD), who was with Titus, the Roman commander at the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, as a Jewish advisor (pg. 8), describes crucifixion as 'the most wretched of deaths,' and records:

When [the Jewish fugitives who attempted to escape Jerusalem] were going to be take [by the Romans], they were forced to defend themselves, and after they had fought they thought it to late to make any supplications for mercy: so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died and were then crucified before the wall of the city. Titus felt pity for them, but as their number – given as up to five hundred a day – was too great for him to risk either letting them go or putting them under guard, he allowed his soldiers to have their way, especially as he hoped that the gruesome sight of the countless crosses might move the besieged to surrender: 'So the soldiers, our of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses, by way of jest, and their number was so great that there was not enough room for the crosses and not enough crosses for the bodies. (pg. 25-26)

In speaking of criminals and their expectation of the just penalty for their crimes, as murderers, robbers, mischief-makers, and deceivers, we read in Pseudo-Manetho:

Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate; they are fastened (and) nailed to it in the most bitter torment, evil food for birds of prey and grim pickings for dogs. (pg. 9)

Seneca describes crucifixion, saying:

Is it worth while to weigh down on one's own wound and hang impaled on a gibbet in order to postpone something which is the balm of troubles, the end of punishment? … Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all? Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly weals on shoulders and chest, and drawing the breath of life amid long drawn-out agony? He would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross.

Such was the torment of the cross. Indeed, it was a most wretched and horrific and bloody death. In Roman times, those crucified would be nailed by both hands and feet, and moreover, the flogging that preceded crucifixion would cause blood to flow down. It was a vicious, bloody, ruthless, merciless death of prolonged agony. This perhaps explains why writers of antiquity typically avoided speaking of the horrors of crucifixion. There was no worse penalty for criminals under Roman rule, and possibly in history. In fact, in order of suffering, being burned alive was considered more merciful that crucifixion.

The Perception of the Cross in Antiquity

It is obvious that a most horrible death would bring images of horror at the mention of crucifixion. But more than by inference, the literature that has survived from antiquity testifies to the horrors brought to the mind by this most wretched and torturous method of execution. The shameful nature of the cross cannot be understated. More than a mere symbol and means of immense suffering, it was the most shameful way to die, and it was the greatest and utmost indignity to be crucified. The ancient writers convey this well. For example, many were crucified after they had already died. This served to expose the corpse to "general abuse and mockery." (pg. 41).

As an illustration of the perception among Romans of crucifixion, the surviving literature brings to us an astonishing case where the death penalty was asked for C. Rabirius, who was a senator, and Roman nobility (pg 41). The trial took place in 63 BC, instituted by Caeser, with the prosecution made by Labienus, while the defence was made by Cicero. Rabirius was charged with murdering a tribune (an official elected to protect the interests of plebians, the general body of roman citizens) thirty-seven years earlier. In the speech for the defence, Cicero speaks the following (pg. 41):

How grievous a thing it is to be disgraced by a public court; how grievous to suffer a fine, how grievous to suffer banishment; and yet in the midst of any such disaster we retain some degree of liberty. Even if we are threatened with death, we may die free men. But the executioner, the veiling of the head and the very word 'cross' should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurrence of these things or the endurance of them, but liability to them, the expectation, indeed the very mention of them, that is unworthy of a Roman citizen and a free man.

Rabirius had been threatened with crucifixion, and we must see the mastery of Cicero's defence. He sought to demonstrate that the prosecution was not at all a friend of the people, but instead desired to restore "the barbarous customs and the tyranny of the period of the monarchy." So Cicero effectively poisoned the well for the prosecution, who had done a most abhorrent thing in suggesting crucifixion for Rabirius. Cicero's appeal was not before the senate, but before the people. Rabirius was acquitted, and this is similar to playing the jury in modern courts today: Cicero played on the fears of the common man and achieved acquittal as a result by discrediting the prosecution (pg. 44). Thus, Hengel concludes "[this] must be seen as important evidence for the horror and disgust felt at crucifixion." (pg. 44).

Crucifixion was effectively employed as a "means of waging war and securing peace, of wearing down rebellious cities and of bringing mutinous troops or unruly provinces under control. … The Romans as a rule spared their own nobility and Roman citizens…" As such, it was an instrument of horror, and as we have seen, something that people did not care to dwell on. Indeed, the fortress of Machaerus was pursuaded into surrender by the threat of crucifying a prisoner! (pg. 46) The horror that this would imply for those in the city, should they be defeated, was sufficient to persuade them to lay down arms.

Moreover, crucifixion was called the "slave's punishment," since under Roman rule Roman citizens were not to be crucified (generally speaking), and this horrid punishment was reserved for criminals, robbers, and rebellious foreigners. In speaking of the punishment for criminals, we read from Quintilian (a Roman writer from 35 – 100 AD), who thought it to be a good deterrent to crucify criminals where they had committed their crimes (pg. 50):

That the sight may deter others from such crimes and be a comfort to the relatives and neighbours of those whom they have killed, the penalty is to be exacted in the place where the robbers did their murders.

There are some horrific examples of crucifixion being used on slaves. Slaves appeared to have developed what was called the "gallows-humour" (pg. 52). One slave is reported as saying:

I'll give a talent to the first man to charge my cross and take it on condition that his legs and arms are double-nailed. When this is attended to he can claim the money from me cash down.

Dripping with cynicism, we can see a sort of humour among slaves that mocks at the ever-present threat of crucifixion. Moreover, there are records of mass slave executions:

- 217 BC: Twenty-five slaves made a conspiracy, and were crucified, save for the one who sold them out.

- 196 BC: Praetor (an elected magistrate or commander of an army) peregrinus (freeborn provincial without Roman citizenship) Glabrio put down a slave revolt with the help of a legion, having some of them crucified.

- Tacitus records a special place in Rome for the punishment of slaves, and in fact this hill is the counterpart of the hill of Golgotha. It is safe to say that numerous crosses were probably there.

- 139-132 BC: During first slave war in Italy, 450 slaves were crucified.

- After the defeat of Spartacus, Crassus had 6000 prisoners nailed to the cross.

There was always a perceived threat by the general populace of slaves, especially when they were in large numbers. Crucifixion was liberally applied to maintain order, and reflected the general hatred and disgust towards slaves. "These accounts suggest that from the state side, crucifixion was practiced above all as a deterrent against trouble among slaves and was to be found principally in contexts where the powers of punishment of an individual house-holder … were no longer sufficient." (pg. 54). We have a dialogue between a Roman matron and her husband:

"Crucify that slave," says the wife. "But what crime worthy of death has he committed?" asked the husband. "Where are the witnesses? Who informed against him? Give him a hearing at least. No delay can be too long when a man's life is at stake." "What a fool you are! Do you call a slave a man? Do you say he has done no wrong? This is my will and my command: take is as authority for the deed." (pg. 58)

You can see how the cross was used as an instrument of horror. Indeed, a man is reported by Cicero to have been crucified, after having his tongue cut out, so he could not give evidence in a trial! And another slave was crucified for sipping the fish soup that he was bringing to his master. These are excessive, but it serves to illustrate how this was indeed the "slave's punishment." Indeed, the penalty of crucifixion is often called the "slave's punishment" when applied to those who were not slaves.

Now, to summarize Hengel's research on crucifixion in the Greek world: After an extensive treatment of the surviving literature, he concludes that crucifixion was to them a particularly cruel and shameful death, and was reserved or hardened criminals, rebellious slaves, and rebels against the Roman state. (pg. 83)

Finally, among the Jewish people, the cross was a great offense. With Deuteronomy 21:23 looming over it, it never came to be known as a symbol of suffering for Jews.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23

And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Hence, a crucified Messiah was unthinkable, and disgraceful, and neither did they connect Christ to the Suffering Servant account. Crucifixion had been applied liberally in the pacification of Judaea, and thus was "taboo as a form of Jewish death penalty." Indeed, Verus had two thousand prisoners crucified around Jerusalem, and we have already seen of the brutality of the soldiers under Titus in AD 70.

Hence, after extensive study, Hengel concludes, in part, the following concerning crucifixion:

By the public display of a naked victim at a prominent place – at a crossroads, in the theatre, on high ground, at the place of the crime – crucifixion also represented the uttermost humiliation, which has a numinous (mystical, spiritual) dimension to it. With Deuteronomy 21:23 in the background, the Jew in particular was very aware of this. This form of execution, more than any other, had associations with the idea of human sacrifice, which was never completely suppressed in antiquity… Crucifixion was aggravated further by the fact that quite often the victims were never buried. It was a stereotyped picture that a crucified victim served as food for wild beasts and birds of prey. In this way his humiliation was made complete. What it meant for a man in antiquity to be refused burial, and the dishonour which went with it, can hardly be appreciated by modern man.

The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ

The Scriptures plainly record the crucifixion of Christ. There are other extra-biblical accounts from antiquity that further corroborate the Biblical account that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate. We read from Ignatius, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.

Ignatius writes this near the very beginning of the 2^nd century, no later than 107 AD. Moreover, one of the problems that opponents of the faith have in denying the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is that they must also contend with the early enemies of the Christian faith. Tacitus (56-117 AD), who was against the faith, writes in his Annals:

Christus, from whom the name has its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate.

The Gospels are not alone in recording the death of Christ. Tacitus was no friend of Christianity, and even in gloating over the death of its founder he has preserved for us another historical affirmation of the truth of our holy Scriptures. In fact, Tacitus carried out trials of Christians when he was governor of the province of Asia, so he had precise knowledge of the faith and a visible contempt for those who followed Jesus Christ (pg. 2-3).

Moreover, his friend Pliny the Younger (~61-113 AD) even affirms that Christians honoured Christ 'as a god.' So we see even the secular sources affirming fundamental Christian truth even in the midst of their insipid hatred for it. Indeed, here it is affirmed that the earliest Christians recognized the deity of Christ! (pg. 2) Contrary to the Da Vinci Code, even the enemies of Christianity recognized this truth in the earliest times of Christianity.

Furthermore, Felix Marcus Minucius wrote a very early Latin apologetic for Christianity in the form of a dialogue called Octavius, in which he pits the pagan Caecilius against the Christian Octavius. It acknowledges the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, saying "Their ceremonies centre on a man put to death for his crime and on the fatal wood of the cross," again affirming the crucifixion of Jesus. Indeed, the pagans assert that Christians worship "a criminal and his cross"(pg. 3). As theologically erroneous as this statement is as a representation of Christianity, it still conveys that the enemies of the faith did not deny the death of Christ, but mocked the early Christians for it. Incidentally, Octavius spends his time defending against this assertion, and remains silent on the assertion that the whole message of the cross was shameful. The silence in itself speaks loudly concerning the shamefulness of the cross.

Pliny the Younger described Christianity after he tortured some slave girls to obtain some information on the faith. He states that "[he] discovered nothing but a perverse and extravagant superstition." Indeed, in the dialogue Octavius the pagan Caecilius claims that Christians put forward "sick delusions," a "senseless and crazy superstition," which leads to an 'old-womanly superstition' or the destruction of all true religion." Such was the rhetoric of those opposed to the faith. It would appear that the faith wasn't popular at its inception, either.

Given this very cursory overview of the penalty of crucifixion in antiquity, I wish to turn now to the Scriptures so you can see them in the cultural context.

1 Corinthians 1:18

18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

The "word of the cross is folly." This message is deeply offensive to Jews and Greeks. It runs counter to everything that the people held to be true about religion. The cross was a symbol of great shame and disgrace, and here the Christians preach a message through of salvation through the bloody death of Christ on the cross! The sense of the word "folly" is that of madness. In other words, the message of Jesus Christ crucified and raised is insanity to them. Indeed, we have already read that Christianity was described as "sick delusions," a "senseless and crazy superstition," which leads to an 'old-womanly superstition' or the destruction of all true religion. It is telling that in the dialogue Octavius by Felix, which we mentioned earlier, Octavius does not answer the shamefulness of the cross, but instead rebuts the notion of cross-worshiping. Early Christians recognized how the message was perceived. As Paul tells us, they saw that the world thought they were mad.

Justin Martyr writes, affirming that the message was madness to the world (Apology I, 13.4, pg. 1):

They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place after the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of the world.

An oracle of Apollo that is preserved from antiquity gives an answer to a man's question about what he can do about his wife's Christian beliefs. The god answers (pg. 4):

Let her continue as she pleases, persisting in her vain delusions, and lamenting in song a god who died in delusions, who was condemned by judges whose verdict was just, and executed in the prime of life by the worst of deaths, a death bound with iron.

Hengel concludes on this point concerning how the Gospel would look to outsiders:

The one whom Christians claim as their God is 'a dead God' – a contradiction in itself. And if that were not enough, he had been condemned justly, as a criminal, by his judges in the prime of life, that is, before his time, to the worst form of death: he had to endure being fastened to the cross with iron nails… The heart of the Christian message, which Paul described as the 'word of the cross,' ran counter not only to Roman political thinking, but to the whole ethos (culture, philosophy) of religion in ancient times and in particular to the ideas of God held by educated people…. To believe that the one pre-existent Son of the one true God, the mediator at creation and the redeemer of the world, had appeared in very recent times in out-of-the-way Galilee, as a member of the obscure people of the Jews, and even worse, had died the death of a common criminal on the cross, could only be regarded as a sign of madness.

Hopefully you can truly appreciate what is meant now when Paul declares that the message is 'folly' to those who are perishing. That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not remove Himself from the cross in His darkest hour is unthinkable, and for the world in antiquity, contradicts what it means to be God. This "slaves' punishment," reserved for the worst criminals and lowest classes, was shameful and humiliating, and thus the message that God was crucified and died was deeply offensive. It was insanity. The people who saw Christ crucified mocked Him on these grounds, as the Scriptures themselves capture:

Matthew 27:39-40

39 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross."

The Greek and Roman gods were far removed from such shame. There is one possible reference to a god being crucified, and it is in a dialogue designed by Lucian to mock the "arbitrariness and wickedness of the father of the gods on Olympus, who had now become obsolete." (pg. 11). Prometheus is "nailed to two rocks above ravine in the sight of all." Nevertheless, he foresees his own rescue by Heracles and "his complete rehabilitation – a crucified god can at best be tormented for a while; he can never die." Thus, the actual crucifixion of Jesus Christ as God distinguishes this account from any other in history. Jesus died. There is no parallel.

Just as professing Christians capitulate to the world, buckle under the pressures of offending people and looking like madmen, and remove the offense of the Gospel, so too this occurred in the 1^st and 2^nd century. It took the form of Docetism, the concept that it the crucifixion only seemed to happen, but it didn't really take place. This was the common cultural inclination of the day, as the literature shows us. For example (pg. 16):

Ixion, inflamed with love for Hera the spouse of Zeus, does not embrace the goddess herself but a cloud which has taken her shape – and as a punishment for his wickedness he is bound to the wheel of the sun.

Again:

Helen, the daughter of Zeus and Leda, was really transported by Hermes to Egypt, where she remained safely until the conquest of Troy, whereas Paris possessed in 'empty delusion' her phantom 'made out of heavenly ether' by Hera, who grudged Helen to Paris. This is what he took away to an adulterous union in Troy.

Yet again:

The goddess Vesta carried off Caesar, her priest, to the heavenly halls of Jupiter immediately before his murder, and the assassins' weapon stabbed only his phantom.

So Christians preached a message that ran counter to every thought of the day: That Jesus Christ, the Son of the one true God, was crucified, and actually died upon the cross of Calvary. Gnostic docetism attempted to merge predominant Greek philosophical thought with Christianity, and the offensiveness of the cross had to be done away with. This is where we get the dualistic (matter evil, spirit good) writings of the so-called 'gospels' of the Gnostics.

So, think about this: How do you capitulate to culture? Do you hold fast to the word as preached, holding up the 'word of the cross' in the midst of a culture that despises it and thinks it utter foolishness? Paul put this offensive statement, "the word of the cross" right in front of people: He challenged their sinfulness with it. For he was not ashamed of the Gospel:

Romans 1:16-17

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

In our age, the offense is found not only in the cross itself, which has to some degree lost its shamefulness, but in the call to repentance, the condemnation of sins, the supernatural nature of God and the work of the cross, and so on. Just as it was 'a senseless and crazy superstition,' so it is today, as Dawkins says himself [1], with statements such as 'an intellectual act of high treason' and 'When pressed, many educated Christians today are too loyal to deny the virgin birth and the resurrection. But it embarrasses them because their rational minds know it is absurd, so they would much rather not be asked.' Indeed, he holds the idea "that those who believe in such a God prove their intellectual inadequacy or gullibility." But we have seen that this is nothing new.

Paul encountered much tribulation, being sent as a missionary into a world that thought his message to be insanity. He speaks to the Athenians, and they reply in kind.

Acts 17:29-32

29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." 32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this."

The idea of a material resurrection was appalling to the philosophical thought of the day, in which dualism existed (the idea that matter is evil, and spirit is good). Indeed, philosophers like Plato and Socrates and Aristotle had long speculated of concepts like docetism, such as the denial of the existence of matter (everything is illusion), as well as dualism (spirit good, matter evil). The message of a crucified God, who died, and was raised in the flesh was doubly offensive to this pattern of thought.

Yet, and I want you to see this, Paul held nothing back. He preached the offensive message of the salvation from sins through the bloody death of Christ and His subsequent resurrection. Indeed, everyone who believes in Him and receives Him as Lord and Savior will be saved, and Paul risked his life for years to proclaim this message to a world that hated it, enduring countless sufferings along the way.

Ignatius, a disciple of John, speaks well, when he says – and I want you to see this in the context of a culture that embraced docetism, and how this disciple argued against it:

Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.Now, He suffered all these things for us; and He suffered them really, and not in appearance only, even as also He truly rose again. But not, as some of the unbelievers, who are ashamed of the formation of man, and the cross, and death itself, affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body of the Virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting, as they do, Him who said, "The Word was made flesh;"and again, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up;"and once more, "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto Me."The Word therefore did dwell in flesh, for "Wisdom built herself a house."The Word raised up again His own temple on the third day, when it had been destroyed by the Jews fighting against Christ. The Word, when His flesh was lifted up, after the manner of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, drew all men to Himself for their eternal salvation.

Here is a Christian, writing one thousand and nine hundred years ago, just before he is killed for his faith, glorying and rejoicing in the reality of the cross, rejecting those who claimed to be Christians and embracing even to his own death, contrary to culture, the wonderful truth that Christ Jesus was crucified for the sins of His people!

All of this testifies to the centrality of the bloody cross in the Gospel. This was no social gospel, to which many emergents reduce it. It was bloody, offensive, and centred upon the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and His subsequent bodily resurrection. It was against the world. Believers were tortured, murdered, and worse, crucified for this message.

In our culture, are you "embarrassed" of the "word of the cross," the "folly of the Gospel?" Do you justify Dawkins' assault upon the faith? Or do you embrace the Gospel as the power of God for salvation to all who believe, unashamedly, as the apostle did so many years ago?

Let us pray to God that He will cause us hold fast to the glorious Gospel in all things. Let us pray for boldness as the earliest Christians did, knowing that where we fail the grace of God abounds, and striving to glorify Him by the bold proclamation of this bloody religion of Jesus Christ.

[1]Albert Mohler writes concerning Dawkins, here:
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2007-10-26