Fall to the Ground

Acts 9:3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"
3 Ἐν δὲ τῷ πορεύεσθαι ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐγγίζειν τῇ Δαμασκῷ, ἐξαίφνης τε αὐτὸν περιήστραψεν φῶς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 4  καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἤκουσεν φωνὴν λέγουσαν αὐτῷ· Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί με διώκεις;

This is the story of Saul's conversion on the Damascus road.  I am often amazed at those who fight against the doctrine of election.  Here we have a crystal-clear case of someone who absolutely hated everything about Jesus and yet was radically converted.  What was his reaction to the light from heaven?  He πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.  This is a participle for the word "falling."  My take on this is that he heard the voice as he was in the act of contritely falling to the ground.

There are a couple of things that I take from this text.  One is that I believe Saul's conversion experience was normative.  I don't mean that we are all blinded by light and hear a voice from heaven, but we are all naturally in a state where we hate Christ.  It takes a supernatural act to make us at least metaphorically fall to the ground and worship.

The other is that there was no halfway with Saul.  He went from violently hating Christians to being violently persecuted for preaching Christ.  We will see this over and over again as we go through Acts.  My point is that this notion of half-hearted American Christianity has no biblical basis.  Either our hearts are set on worshiping Jesus or we worship ourselves.

We all have to decide which way we are going to go.  Where is your heart right now?

We Need Teachers

Acts 8:30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

30 προσδραμὼν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος ἤκουσεν αὐτοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος Ἠσαΐαν τὸν προφήτην καὶ εἶπεν· ἆρά γε γινώσκεις ἃ ἀναγινώσκεις; 31  ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσει με; παρεκάλεσέν τε τὸν Φίλιππον ἀναβάντα καθίσαι σὺν αὐτῷ.

This is the famous account of Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch.  Somehow this man got a hold of a copy of Isaiah.  He was reading it, but it didn't make any sense to him.  Frankly, it would not mean much without some context.  He didn't have the whole Tanak and he didn't have what we call the New Testament either.  When we read Isaiah we can see Jesus in many places, but it would be very difficult without what we know.

Philip not only knew with his head, but he also was filled with the Holy Spirit.  He interpreted the Scriptures for this man who was then baptized very quickly thereafter.  What an amazing testimony of the power of God's Word!

I think that the Eunuch's statement of, "πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσει με;" is something we need to consider today.  There are plenty of folks who go into pastoral ministry because they sense a calling.  A calling is vitally important.  I don't think that I have one, but I certainly respect those who do.  However, a calling is not enough.  We also need some understanding.  Atheists rightly criticize the myriad of variations on the Christian faith.  I have made it clear in this blog that there are some debatable issues, but the central truths are clear.  There should be no variation on those.  Yet we still find them.

This is why I think there is value in seminary or formal training of some kind.  We need guidance to think deeply through how we read Scripture.  Would you go to a doctor who simply felt a "calling," but had no formal training?  I hope not!  Why would you go to someone equally untrained when it comes to matters of your eternal soul?

Please consider this as you are taught each week or perhaps as you teach each week.  I don't want to diminish the work of the Spirit in illumination, but I also think that illumination is no excuse for a lack of preparation.

Closing the Ears

Acts 7:56 And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." 57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him.

56 καὶ εἶπεν· ἰδοὺ θεωρῶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς διηνοιγμένους καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν ἑστῶτα τοῦ θεοῦ. 57  κράξαντες δὲ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ συνέσχον τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν καὶ ὥρμησαν ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν

This is at the very end of Stephen's speech.  The next verses describe how they took him outside the town and stoned him.  This made Stephen the first recorded martyr of the church.  We are blessed to have his testimony kept for us as part of Scripture.

I find it fascinating that they "stopped their ears" or συνέσχον τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν.  I remember when we had a missionary visit our church in California.  He worked with the Muslim community and he started off in the character of an imam.  We tried to witness to him and used all of our apologetic arguments.  When one of us (I think it was me) said that Jesus was the son of God he covered his ears and began yelling.  Apparently that idea is quite blasphemous to a Muslim.

That experience is what I think of when I picture this scene.  Stephen just laid out a careful synopsis of their history from the time of Moses and how they fell into rampant idolatry.  The Jews didn't want to deal with the truth of this, so they stopped up their ears and eliminated the herald rather than the message itself.  I guess they figured that if they could silence him then they could go back to pretending that he wasn't right.

I see a couple of lessons in this passage for us today.  First, if you are a Christian then it is clear that Stephen's story encourages us to share our faith boldly and accurately.  He knew what was at stake and the likely reaction from the crowd.  Yet he shared anyway.  This was the loving thing to do for his people.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, if you're not a Christian then you need to consider the message of the gospel.  You can stop up your ears all you want, but that will not change the truth of the matter.  If you're in a burning building you can pretend that it is not burning, but you will eventually be consumed in the fire.  You just have to decide if you are going to deal with truth or if you're going to stop up your ears.  My prayer is that you would open up your ears.

Speaking with Power

Acts 6:10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.

10 καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυον ἀντιστῆναι τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ τῷ πνεύματι ᾧ ἐλάλει.

This is at the end of a description of Stephen's preaching ministry.  He was upsetting a lot of folks because of his evangelism.  After all, no one likes to be told that their way of doing things is wrong.  Imagine how this is magnified if you are sure that your practices go all the way back to Moses.

This verse really convicts me.  Stephen simply spoke the truth.  He wasn't worried about being seeker-sensitive. He wasn't worried about damaging anyone's sensitivities.  He simply spoke the truth.  Since it is The Truth, it was impossible to withstand it.  The word ἀντιστῆναι is an aorist active infinitive.  It is a compound word from ἀντι which means "against" and  ιστημι which means "to stand."  So very woodenly this would be "But they were unable to stand against the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.

I wonder if I really believe that in my interactions with people.  I don't act like it sometimes.  I used to be quite bold in sharing my faith.  In fact, perhaps I was too bold.  I could be a real jerk for Jesus sometimes.  More and more I realize that I need to be bold, but not mean.  However, I also understand that the gospel is bad news before it is good news.  If it doesn't offend then I am not sharing it.

How are you?  Are you offended by us crazy Christians?  Are you a meek Christian who wishes that he could speak more boldly?  Or are you already bold for the faith and seeing fruit from this boldness?

Testing Twitter Feed

This is just a test.  My apologies to anyone who may read this over RSS.

Keep on Preaching

 Acts 5:40 and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41 Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

40 καὶ προσκαλεσάμενοι τοὺς ἀποστόλους δείραντες παρήγγειλαν μὴ λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἀπέλυσαν. 41  Οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπορεύοντο χαίροντες ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ συνεδρίου, ὅτι κατηξιώθησαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀτιμασθῆναι, 42  πᾶσάν τε ἡμέραν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ κατ᾽ οἶκον οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν χριστόν Ἰησοῦν.

If you're an American doesn't this passage really strike you as bizarre?  First of all, they were jailed for preaching.  We aren't there quite yet, though some think we're on that path.  At any rate, you still will not be jailed for preaching the gospel.  Then after a brief discussion the council decided not to stop them because as Gamaliel told them, if it's God's work they can't stop it even if they want to.  They figured that this was just another passing fad and they could let them go.  But just for good measure the council beat them.

When we think of having to ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀτιμασθῆναι we think more in terms of people thinking that we're dumb for believing the gospel.  Or maybe it is the fear of an awkward situation when a coworker puts two and two together as he realizes that in your preaching the gospel you are telling him that he is a hell-bound sinner.  We then get stigmatized as "that Christian guy" and maybe get excluded from all the reindeer games.

Have you been beaten for the gospel?  If you were how eager would you be to get back up and preach again?  These guys still had bleeding wounds and they were χαίροντες.  That's a present active participle.  Being in a state of rejoicing characterized who they were at this time.

Frankly, that is not a popular message today.  It's certainly not a popular one for me.  Yet I see the kind of joy they found in this sacrifice.  They considered it a privilege to suffer like this for the name of Jesus.  What are you willing to go through?

No Other Name

Acts 4:11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

11 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος, ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν τῶν οἰκοδόμων, ὁ γενόμενος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. 12  καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς.

This has got to be one of the most controversial passages in Scripture these days.  As our society descends deeper and deeper into postmodernity and pluralism statements like this can get you into big trouble.  The furor over Britt Hume's comments regarding Tiger Woods are good evidence of this.  He wasn't even making this bold of a claim.  He simply stated the fact that Buddhism does not offer the kind of redemption that Christ does.  Peter makes an extremely bold claim.

On the surface, this seems very unfair as we look at the world through our man-centered eyes.  We think of all the nice people who know who are not believers and we wonder how God can be so petty.  For example, one of my coworkers is named Pandian Kulasekapandian.  I don't know if he is a Christian, but I suspect not.  Nevertheless, he is easily one of the most Christ-like people I know.  However, if he doesn't know Jesus he faces eternal condemnation.  I can't get past this verse.  Jesus is the name ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς.  Very woodenly this would be "in which it is necessary to be saved."

So what do we do with this?  We tell people about Jesus.  We tell about what He has done for us.  More importantly, we tell people about who He is.  Stories are great, but ultimately people to know Jesus for who He is -- God.  They don't need to know about His actions so much as the truth of who He is.  Are we telling people about Him?

And if you don't know Him, what is keeping you from knowing Him?  What stops you?  Do you just not believe this verse?  If not, why?  I'd love to have a discussion.

The Only Reaction

Acts 3:8 And leaping up he stood and began to walk, and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God.

8 καὶ ἐξαλλόμενος ἔστη καὶ περιεπάτει καὶ εἰσῆλθεν σὺν αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν περιπατῶν καὶ ἁλλόμενος καὶ αἰνῶν τὸν θεόν.

This man was sitting at the temple begging.  He had to beg because he had no means of support.  He had problems with his feet and ankles.  Therefore, he could not work.  I think it's safe to say that he was not educated as a Scribe so he could basically have a cushy desk job.  He had to beg.  Peter did not give him alms, but he did give him the use of his legs and feet.  This verse shows us how he reacted.  He ἐξαλλόμενος or "leaped up."  It's translated "leaping" because it is a participle.  The word ἁλλόμενος used later is the same word minus the εκ prefix.  He was simply leaping rather than "leaping up."

This passage certainly shows the power of God over sickness.  However, I also think that it shows us the proper reaction to contact with God.  The biblical view of man is quite low.  Spiritually-speaking, we are like this man.  We are unable to walk on our own.  We cannot get up.  All we can do is beg for grace.  To those of us who are Christians God in His mercy gave us His grace.

What is your reaction to this?  Do you just take it in stride like nothing happened?  Does it change the way you life your life?  Is your life basically the same, but now you've added Jesus to it so you can punch your ticket to heaven?  Or is your reaction like this paralytic?  Are you effectively leaping and praising?  I'm not saying that your reaction needs to look like this, but in a spiritual sense it should not be far off.

If you don't have some form of "leaping and praising God," then do you really understand what salvation is all about?  I would say no.

What Shall We Do?

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

37 Ἀκούσαντες δὲ κατενύγησαν τὴν καρδίαν εἶπόν τε πρὸς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀποστόλους· τί ποιήσωμεν, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί; 38  Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.

This would be a revival preacher's dream.  Peter didn't even have to provide an invitation.  The people were asking him what they had to do as a result of his message?  Peter's response was very simple -- they had to μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω.  These are both imperative verbs.  The second is in the passive voice, which the translation brings out just fine.

Notice that Peter didn't tell them to "pray a prayer."  He didn't ask them to raise their hands "with every head bowed and every eye closed."  He didn't ask them to fill out a card.  No, he told them to repent and be baptized.  There were concrete actions expected of them if they were truly changed by this message.

It is vital that we get this.  Too many professing believers in America are going for a Burger King form of Christianity.  We cannot have it our way.  We need to have it God's way that He spells out very clearly in His Word.  Repent!

What Does This Mean?

Acts 2:12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13 But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."

12 ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηπόρουν, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες· τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι; 13  ἕτεροι δὲ διαχλευάζοντες ἔλεγον ὅτι γλεύκους μεμεστωμένοι εἰσίν.

This precedes Peter's speech at Pentecost.  The apostles had just received the Holy Spirit.  They were able to speak in the language of the people.  I think of this a bit like standing in New York and speaking to the various people there.  The text lists several groups.  It was certainly an impressive work of the Spirit.

People today are still wondering what this means.  What are we to make of this event?  Is it descriptive for us or prescriptive?  This is where systematic theology becomes huge.  If your theology cannot stand the idea of the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit in operation today then you will be certain that this is merely descriptive.  However, I think a more accurate reading of some supporting texts (particularly 1 Cor 13) indicates that the "perfect" has not yet come back in the form of Christ's return.

This is a bit problematic, however.  I don't want to be like the folks who refuse to see someone as truly saved until that person speaks in tongues.  I also do not support the craziness that goes in some "churches" that include snake-handling and poison-drinking.  You don't even have to go that far.  Some places put a high emphasis on "a prophetic word."

I think it is a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I don't want to limit how God works today based on a suspect reading of His Word.  However, I do want to make sure that everything is subjected to what is crystal-clear in His Word.  2 Peter 1:3 makes it very clear that we have everything we need in Scripture.  Therefore, we do not need to go beyond it.

It may seem like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth.  Personally, I just think that there is a tension that we need to live with.  As long as we keep God's Word on top we will be just fine.

Connecting the Dots

 Acts 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, 16 "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry."

15 Καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις ἀναστὰς Πέτρος ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν εἶπεν· ἦν τε ὄχλος ὀνομάτων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὡσεὶ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι· 16  ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, ἔδει πληρωθῆναι τὴν γραφὴν ἣν προεῖπεν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον διὰ στόματος Δαυὶδ περὶ Ἰούδα τοῦ γενομένου ὁδηγοῦ τοῖς συλλαβοῦσιν Ἰησοῦν, 17  ὅτι κατηριθμημένος ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης.

Note: You may wonder how we got from Luke to Acts.  What happened to John?  Since Luke-Acts is one big narrative I decided to go for continuity.  We'll get back to John.

This little discourse happens as Peter addresses the gathered saints after Jesus' ascension.  What I find interesting is his declaration that ἔδει πληρωθῆναι τὴν γραφὴν which very woodenly is, "it was necessary for the Scripture to be fulfilled."  The word πληρωθῆναι is an aorist passive infinitive.  This means that it refers to an undefined time in the passive voice.  I don't want to overstate the importance of the aorist.

My point is just that Peter was connecting the dots.  Hardcore Old Testament guys will say that you only need the Old Testament.  That is true to a degree, but we can't unring the bell either, so to speak.  What I mean is that we have the New Testament.  We understand what all the references to the coming seed of Abraham mean.  We understand the true fulfillment of the Davidic dynasty.  It all points to Jesus.

Peter didn't get it at first, but he sure understood by this point.  It became his mission to tell his people about it.  "You know the one we've been looking for?  You know how our firstborn males of Judah are named Ιησους?  Well, this Ιησους was Messiah."

It's important for us not to miss this.  It's easy for us to look down on the Jews for their ignorance.  However, we tend to functionally live the same way.  We may have this idea that Jesus is indeed Messiah, but do we have other functional saviors?  I don't want to springboard too much off of this verse, but my point is that we need to look to Christ alone for our salvation.  The world offers so many attractive things.  So many other things compete for our worship and affection.  Let's focus on Christ alone.  He is the one about whom the Scriptures attest.  Let's focus on Him.

Opened Eyes

 Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.

31 αὐτῶν δὲ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν· καὶ αὐτὸς ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν.

Jesus had just walked to Emmaus with Cleopas and another disciple.  He interpreted the Old Testament to them and explained how it pointed to Him.  They didn't put two and two together until they shared a meal with Him and ιηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ.  In other words, it took something outside of themselves to understand the significance of what He told them.

This is true for us today as well.  We can search the Scriptures all that we want, but unless we have our eyes opened by the Holy Spirit we are not going to make the connection.  There are some who would say that we can learn everything we need about Jesus from the Old Testament or even the Pentateuch.  It is true that the Old Testament is a valid witness of Christ.  Somehow Anna and Simeon were able to understand the coming Messiah without what we call the New Testament.  They had the same Scriptures as the Pharisees.

The fact is that we are dead in our trespasses and sins.  There are so many illustrations for this, but the one I've heard lately is that you don't offer a cup of life-saving elixir at the morgue and expect the bodies to get up and drink from it.  They are dead.  They are incapable of doing anything.  This is how Scripture describes mankind in his unconverted state.  Therefore, there must be something external to "open our eyes" to the beauty of the gospel.

My prayer is that you would have open eyes as you consider who Jesus is.  And if your eyes are already opened I pray that you would have a much more profound sense of gratitude over what you have been saved from.

Due Punishment

Luke 23:41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."

41 καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως, ἄξια γὰρ ὧν ἐπράξαμεν ἀπολαμβάνομεν· οὗτος δὲ οὐδὲν ἄτοπον ἔπραξεν.

This statement was made by the repentant thief on the cross.  Jesus was crucified between two convicted men.  One continued to mock Him, but the other came to faith at the end.  This statement gets to the very heart of Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross.

We don't use the word "atone" much in our society.  The idea is to cover something up.  One illustration would be for the bank to call you one day and tell you that your mortgage is forgiven.  That would mean that your mortgage was covered up.

A much more poignant example is shown by this thief on the cross.  He was justly convicted for his crime.  He knew it and he confessed it (καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως).  However, he was stuck on a cross and there was absolutely nothing he could do to save himself.  He realized that.  He needed Jesus to save Him.

We are in the same predicament.  We cannot save ourselves.  No amount of good works can save us.  I don't care how good of a swimmer you are, but if you go west from Los Angeles you are never going to make it to Hawaii.  You may get a good ways out, but Hawaii is so far away that it is impossible to do.  The same is true of  the chasm that stands between us and God.  We need Christ to bring us to Him.

Are you ready to stop swimming and to embrace Jesus' free gift of grace?

Weep for Yourselves

Luke 23:28 But turning to them Jesus said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 

28 στραφεὶς δὲ πρὸς αὐτὰς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· θυγατέρες Ἰερουσαλήμ, μὴ κλαίετε ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ· πλὴν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὰς κλαίετε καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν,

Some wept as Jesus left for His final walk to Calvary.  This is altogether right as a grave injustice was about to be committed.  This was the most heinous sin ever done by mankind, so you would hope that there would be weeping.

However, Jesus saw past that.  He knew what He had already endured and what He was about to endure.  Yet He had compassion on the people.  He saw the hardness of their hearts.  These were a people who were given every advantage and yet still decided to spurn God.  Clearly this pained Him.

As a Christian it's easy for me not to give much thought to the Jew.  This is especially true now where it is not uncommon for someone to identify himself as a Jew and yet be either an atheist or agnostic.  I understand that this is particularly common in the nation-state of Israel.  This passage tells me that they need the gospel as much as any gentile.  In fact, they need to hear the gospel even more since they have been hardened over all these centuries.

Yes, the Jewish leaders did kill Jesus.  However, we need to look past that to the fact that it was our sin that sent Jesus to the cross.  And even more than that, we see that it was God who orchestrated the whole thing.  There is absolutely no room for anti-semitism.  Instead, there should be compassion and outreach for the θυγατέρες Ἰερουσαλήμ.

Knowing vs. Faith

Luke 22:70 So they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am." 71 Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."

70 εἶπαν δὲ πάντες· σὺ οὖν εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; ὁ δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἔφη· ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι. 71  οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· τί ἔτι ἔχομεν μαρτυρίας χρείαν; αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἠκούσαμεν ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ.

I normally gloss over this passage.  Frankly, I have a hard time reading the passion account slowly.  The longer I walk with the Lord the more difficult it is to read about His suffering on my behalf.  Yet here it is in black and white.  It is there for us to ponder as is all of Scripture.  We hear it ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, which is very woodenly "from His mouth."

Something occurred to me today.  The chief priests and scribes knew His claims.  They really believe Him, but they knew who He claimed to be.  I think it is clear that they were the bad guys in this story and were not on the road to salvation.

I don't think much has changed today.  There are folks who give intellectual assent to the person of Jesus.  They recognize Him as a good teacher who claimed to be the Son of God.  They are willing to accept Him as a teacher, but not as the Son of God.  This is a facet of theological liberalism.  I would even maintain that there are conservatives who do the same thing.

"I have made Jesus my savior, but not my lord."  Ever heard that or something like it?  How can you recognize Jesus as the incarnate Son of God and not make Him your Lord?  That is not to say that you fall into perfect obedience, but that your heart's desire becomes obedience.  I don't see how you can divorce the two.

Where are you as you read this?  Do you give Jesus token approval?  Or is He your Lord?  If He is not your Lord then I urge you to repent and believe.

Prepare Wisely

 Luke 22:35 And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." 36 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

35 Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ὅτε ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς ἄτερ βαλλαντίου καὶ πήρας καὶ ὑποδημάτων, μή τινος ὑστερήσατε; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· οὐθενός. 36  εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· ἀλλὰ νῦν ὁ ἔχων βαλλάντιον ἀράτω, ὁμοίως καὶ πήραν, καὶ ὁ μὴ ἔχων πωλησάτω τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀγορασάτω μάχαιραν.

I have always found this passage to be interesting.  There are those who preach asceticism for the minister of the gospel.  They say that we should all be like the apostles and travel with no provisions so that God will take care of us.  Of course, they are right to a certain degree because God ultimately does provide.  He uses means and in the case of the original evangelists He used kind souls in the various towns to provide for them.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Benny Hinn on something, but I don't think that ministers are supposed to dress and eat like John the Baptist today.  I do disagree with him in that ministers should not have private jets and live opulent lifestyles either.  Jesus teaches us to follow a simple path.  However, this passage also tells us that we are to be prudent in how we live.  To be irresponsible would be akin to throwing ourselves off the pinnacle of the temple and expecting God to catch us.

One small Greek note is to see how Jesus phrases His question to the disciples.  He asks them  μή τινος ὑστερήσατε; which means that He expected a negative response.  He knew that they lacked nothing and wanted to drive this home to them.

Destroying the Temple

Luke 21:6 "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." 

ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι ἐν αἷς οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται.

With all due respect to my Dispensational friends, this passage really seems to be speaking of the sacking of Jerusalem in AD 70.  That did indeed happen.  Now of course there could be multiple fulfillments of prophecy.  We see that in the Old Testament all the time.  Yet it just seems more plain to me that this would speak of the destruction of the actual physical temple.

What does this mean?  I haven't really worked it all out because I am not that aware of all the end-times stuff.  However, I do know that R.C. Sproul is a partial preterist.  That doesn't make it right, but it seems like a reasonable explanation.  I am still looking forward to Christ's second coming or, as my daughter puts it, when heaven comes down.

For a quick Greek bite, the phrase λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ is kind of interesting.  The second use of λίθος is in the dative so that the reader understands the preposition to refer to something on something else.

Broken or Crushed?

 Luke 20:17 But he looked directly at them and said, "What then is this that is written: "'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'? 18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."

ὁ δὲ ἐμβλέψας αὐτοῖς εἶπεν· τί οὖν ἐστιν τὸ γεγραμμένον τοῦτο· λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας; 18  πᾶς ὁ πεσὼν ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν λίθον συνθλασθήσεται· ἐφ᾽ ὃν δ᾽ ἂν πέσῃ, λικμήσει αὐτόν.

This is the end of Jesus' confrontation about His authority.  He asked the great question about John's baptism that put His questioners into a bind.  They didn't have a good answer for Him, so He didn't have to answer them.  Then He told the parable about the man who lent out his vineyard, but the workers beat everyone he sent including his son.

I find verse 18 particularly compelling.  I had a theory about it, but the commentaries prove me wrong.  Let me just go with what much smarter men than I have to say.  Basically, it doesn't matter whether you stumble over Jesus or if you have to wait for His judgment in the end.  Ultimately He is going to crush you.  My theory that I would extend a little bit is that part of salvation is this crushing.  We cannot be saved if we are not crushed.

So where are you going to stand?  Are you going to be crushed in the end or right now?  It's not a lot of fun right now, but it ultimately leads to everlasting joy.  Or you could settle for the fleeting pleasures that life has to offer and exchange everlasting joy for everlasting torment.  Which will it be?

Crying Praise

(Luk 19:1 ESV) 40 He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out." 

(Luk 19:1 BGT) 40  καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν οὗτοι σιωπήσουσιν, οἱ λίθοι κράξουσιν.

You'll notice that the formatting is a bit different today.  I just got BibleWorks 8 last night and plan to use that going forward.

This response comes after the Pharisees told Jesus to rebuke His disciples for singing His praises.  Jesus' point seems to be that He is so worthy of praise that if they were silent then the stones would cry out.  In other words, He simply must be praised.

There isn't anything special about the Greek here.  οἱ λίθοι κράξουσιν is just a future active indicative construct. In this case it appears to be a future of certainty.  The stones would definitely cry out if the disciples didn't sing Jesus' praises.

Would you get similarly rebuked by anyone today?  Has anyone told you to stop singing Jesus' praises?  Has anyone been offended by your praise and adulation for Jesus?  I'm not saying that you should look for ways to offend people for the sake of offending them.  However, I do wonder if we are too silent in our quest for harmony.

I know that I am guilty of that.  I have a coworker who is not so much so.  He periodically does get rebuked for his passion.  Frankly, that convicts me a little bit.  Shouldn't we be known for our praise of our Lord as much as the disciples were?

Seeking and Saving

Luke 19:9-10
(9)  And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.
(10)  For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

(9)  εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Σήμερον σωτηρία τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ ἐγένετο, καθότι καὶ αὐτὸς υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ ἐστιν· 

(10)  ἦλθεν γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός.

This comes at the end of the narrative about Zaccheus.  Incidentally, it is ambiguous from the text as to who was the short man.  I don't think it necessarily matters, but I think it's interesting that we let tradition define this and even turn into a song about how Zaccheus was a wee little man.  It probably makes a little more sense to take the "he" and apply it to Zaccheus because that was the antecedent of the "he" in the previous clause.

At any rate, this is one of my favorite passages in the New Testament.  The Son of Man came ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός.  I didn't really notice this until just now, but τὸ ἀπολωλός is the name given to the destroyer in Revelation.  The word means "to destroy."  In other words, Jesus came to to seek (ζητῆσα) and to save (σῶσαι) those who are going to be destroyed.  

This is no small thing.  Think back to 9/11 and the heroism of the men and women who ran up those burning buildings to save those who were going to be destroyed.  We remember those folks with reverence, and I believe rightly so.  Jesus did more than that.  He humbled Himself by coming down to earth and taking on a human nature along with His divine nature.  He did that not just to make the lost able to be saved, but to save the lost.  He came to rescue dying sinners.

Incidentally, this is just one more piece of evidence regarding the reality of eternal punishment for those who do not know Jesus.  If you are lost please realize that Jesus came to save you.  Won't you let Him save you from destruction?

OT Perspicuity

Luke 16:31
(31)  He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

(31)  εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ, Εἰ Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν οὐκ ἀκούουσιν, οὐδ' ἐάν τις ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ πεισθήσονται.

This is quite a condemning statement.  It's also rather prophetic and helps to build our theology a little bit.  We see that the Jews had all they needed to know the Messiah.  We call it the Old Testament, but they called it the Tanak.  The point is that one can see Christ in the Old Testament.  You don't even have to resort to crazy allegories like making every reference to wood into a reference to the cross.  He's right there in passages like Isaiah 6:1-7, for example.

I find it interesting that this also comes at the end of a parable where he uses the name Lazarus as the righteous, but poor man who ended up in paradise with Abraham.  Of course, that is also the name of a man that Jesus did raise from the dead.  I don't think that is a coincidence.  Lazarus is someone who was raised from the dead.  As Jesus told this parable He was also someone who would rise from the dead, thereby fulfilling the subjunctive mood used with ἀναστῇ.  As we can see today, that did not convince many of the Jews, but if they had read their Tanak correctly they would not have missed Him.

On a side note, this parable also seems to give credence to the idea of hell as a place of perpetual torment.  It doesn't provide an ironclad argument since it is a parable, but it is just one more brick in the foundation of our theology of eternal punishment for the unrighteous.  It is something to consider at any rate.

Book Giveaway

I'll admit that I'm something of a sucker for good book giveaways.  Here is an offer to a book that I really want to read.  If I don't win it I will certainly put it on my Amazon wishlist.  I need something to sort out my visit to Banner of Truth when we make a trip up to visit my wife's family in Pennsylvania!

Coming to Jesus

Luke 14:23
(23)  And the master said to the servant, 'Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled.

(23)  καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος πρὸς τὸν δοῦλον, Ἔξελθε εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς καὶ φραγμοὺς καὶ ἀνάγκασον εἰσελθεῖν, ἵνα γεμισθῇ μου ὁ οἶκος·

This is part of the parable of the feast.  The first invited guests all had excuses why they couldn't come.  Therefore, the master gave this order to his servant.  What I find interesting is the word "compel."  

This is the word ἀνάγκασον.  Here it is in the imperative as the master commands the servant.  Thayer gives the definition "to necessitate, compel, drive to, constrain."  In other words, these people would come against their will.

Isn't that how it is for those of us who follow Jesus?  I was effectively pulled kicking and screaming.  I didn't want to leave my former life, but I ran out of arguments.  I couldn't say no anymore.  How could I deny the truth of the gospel?  That's what it really came down to.

The fact is that we are dead in our sins.  Dead men cannot make decisions.  Dead men cannot choose to stop being dead.  It takes something supernatural to breathe life into the dead.  That's what happens when we come to know Jesus.  We are compelled to enter the feast.

Where are you?  Are you still fighting?  I can tell you that there can be some serious collateral damage when the servant comes to drag you to the feast.  Haven't you fought enough?  Drop your guard and accept His invitation to the feast.

Lament for Jerusalem

Luke 13:34-35
(34)  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
(35)  Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"

(34)  Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν, ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι τὰ τέκνα σου ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιὰν ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε. 

(35)  ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ ἴδητέ με ἕως ἥξει ὅτε εἴπητε, Εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου.

I know someone who takes this passage and its parallel in Matthew as a defense against Calvinism.  If Jesus says that He would have gathered them together but they resisted, then how can we speak of irresistible grace?  Where is God's sovereignty in election?  

First of all, I think that Jesus is using Jersualem as a metaphor for Israel.  I get this from His use of  τὰ τέκνα σου.  It seems to me that "your children" refers to all the Jews.  If you've read the Old Testament you've seen that the Jews made it a habit to resist God.  Of course, everyone does this.  

No one denies that Israel was God's chosen people.  However, it is clear from the Old Testament that they broke their covenant with God and had to face the consequences of it.  This was predicted back in Moses' farewell speech in Deuteronomy.

Does this mean that the people were free to do whatever they wanted?  They were free to live according to their nature, which is inherently sinful.  I would read this passage along with 2 Peter 3:9.  God wants for all men to be saved, but clearly all men are not saved.  Does this make God impotent to save?

By no means!  Rather than reinventing the wheel, I would point you to this excellent essay by John Piper.  I would love to interact with anyone in the comments, but not before you read that essay. 

Doctrine that Divides

Luke 12:51
(51)  Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

(51)  δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρεγενόμην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ; οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ' ἢ διαμερισμόν.

This is one of those verses that doesn't get a lot of play in some circles.  There are plenty of people who see Jesus as this great unifier.  He came to make us all love one another.  And, in a sense, that is true.  Those who follow Him are compelled to love one another.  That doesn't mean that we have to like one another, but we do have to love one another.

However, Jesus shatters this popular myth.  He tells us that He did not come to bring peace, but division.  He came to talk about the Kingdom of God.  You are either with Him or against Him.  There is no ambivalent middle ground.  I find it interesting to see ἀλλ' ἢ.  The word αλλα is a strong adversative.  Then you add the η to it and you are really making a contrast.  We tend to read "but rather" fairly quickly.  He really is setting up a strong contrast here.

Where are you?  There is a definite division.  Are you on Jesus' side or the other side?  He came to bring division, but for those who follow Him there is εἰρήνην or peace.  I urge you to follow Him instead of being against Him.  It won't be pretty in the end for those who are against Him.

Proper Fear

Luke 12:4-5
(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!

(4)  Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν τοῖς φίλοις μου, μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶμα καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα μὴ ἐχόντων περισσότερόν τι ποιῆσαι. 

(5)  ὑποδείξω δὲ ὑμῖν τίνα φοβηθῆτε· φοβήθητε τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν· ναί, λέγω ὑμῖν, τοῦτον φοβήθητε.

We have had some debate on this blog as to what it means to be "cast into hell."  What is γέενναν?  We can go to history and archaeology for clues, but if the text makes it clear why do we need to bother?  Here Jesus is making a pretty bold claim.  At least it would appear bold to our ecumenical universalist friends who think that Jesus came so that no one would have to endure the wrath of God.  He is telling people to fear the one who "has authority to cast into hell."  

This tells me that γέενναν must refer to something.  We cannot tell from this passage if it refers to a place of real eternal torment or if it refers to separation from God.  What we can tell is that it refers to something that happens τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι.  In this sentence τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι is an aorist active infinitive and serves as a subject of this clause.  The word μετὰ in this case means "after."  The articles τὸν and τὸ show us that the ESV has this phrase right.  It refers to someone who can do something "after he has killed."

This tells me that there is definitely life after death.  Many will suffer hell.  Some will escape to paradise.  My prayer is that if you are reading this you would be one who would accept Jesus as your Lord and enjoy eternity with Him forever.

True Unity

Luke 11:23
(23)  Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

(23)  ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ' ἐμοῦ κατ' ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ' ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

Jesus made this statement after explaining that Satan does not cast out Satan.  He is trying to describe how He operates.  Since He is God His power is divine rather than demonic.  He does nothing by the power of Satan.

I think that this statement is rather fascinating given some of the postmodern conversation that goes on out there. We have this idea that ecumenicism is inherently good.  That is true to a sense as long as we don't divide over peripheral issues.  However, Jesus is still the focus of all true unity.  If we are agreed on Jesus then we are together.  If we disagree on Jesus then there can be no fundamental unity.

Can we feed the poor with Muslims?  Absolutely!  Can we work against abortion with Mormons?  Of course we can.  Can we argue for the existence of God with Jehovah's Witnesses.  Sure we can.  However, to lump everyone together in the name of "unity" is disingenuous to Jesus' statement here.

We first have to take a step back and define who Jesus is. Is He a God or is He God?  Is He a mighty God or is He God?  Who is He?  How we answer that determines whether or not we are for Him because it says whether we are for Him or our idea of who He is.

Let's let His Words tell us who He is.  Based on what I've seen through my walk of about 2/3 of the gospel accounts, He claimed to be God and proved it.  Let's unify over that.

Doing Mercy

Luke 10:37
(37)  He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise."

(37)  ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος μετ' αὐτοῦ. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Πορεύου καὶ σὺ ποίει ὁμοίως.

This is Jesus' statement at the end of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.  I don't think I need to repeat the whole parable because you probably know it.  Of course, it's always worth pointing out that it was a hated Samaritan who had mercy on the man, not the priest or Levite.  That's worth considering.

However, what I want to point out is something that doesn't translate perfectly.  The phrase  Ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος μετ' αὐτοῦ could very woodenly be translated as "the one who did mercy with him."  That is not very pretty English, but it is a very strict translation.  I point this out because I think we need to remember that mercy is something we do.

This cuts me to the core.  It's not just something I think.  It's not a feeling I have.  It's not even an attitude.  It comes down to something that I do.  There are a lot of good mercy ministries out there.  Of course, there are lots of folks who "do mercy," but don't have any kind of tie to the gospel.  The ultimate mercy is to tell someone about the gospel.

Where are you?  Are you "doing mercy?"  Or are you just thinking about how important it is?  We do at least one small thing by supporting an orphan through World Vision.  However, there is so much more out there to do.  If you are "doing mercy," is your motivation centered on the gospel or because you're trying to earn points with God?  It's important to assess our hearts as we do this too.  Nevertheless, I think that someone fed with the wrong motives still has a full belly.  However, I'd hate for you to read this and not consider the heart.