Thoughts of a Freed Captive

New Blog Site

2011-08-20T19:46:00.002-04:00

I have finally made the switch to a new blog on Wordpress. Please start following me at http://jason.sovereignchristchurch.org.

Real Hope

2011-08-17T17:35:00.000-04:00

1 Thessalonians 4:13 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.

13 Οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων, ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε καθὼς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα.

I think it is pretty obvious that Paul uses "asleep" as a euphemism for "dead." Paul uses the subjunctive mood with the phrase ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε. This is the mood of possibility. It is not something that has happened yet, but it might happen. That is why it is translated as "may not grieve." This is one of the instances where it has a weak imperatival force to it. Paul is telling them not to grieve. He contrasts them with οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα. This could be thought of as "the remaining." In other words, this is everyone else. Everyone who is not a Christian goes through life μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα. Note that ἔχοντες is a participle. This gives a continuous force to it. He is saying that everyone who is not a believer goes through life in a continuous state of hopelessness.

Of course, hope is big business. That concept got someone elected president. But if our hope is in any person then we are closer to this.I don't care if that person is a Republican or Democrat. There is no hope is a person apart from Christ.

This is a truth that we need to believe deeply. We say we do, but the way we live indicates otherwise. How zealous are we for evangelism? If our zeal is weak then it is because we do not believe this deeply. Do we despair when a brother or sister in Christ dies? We should be sad and miss them, but we should never despair because if they are in Christ then they have real hope. It's the same hope we have if we are in Christ.

But where this gets really tricky is the other side. Every funeral I've ever attended has promised that the deceased is in heaven. But how can someone say that unless he is sure that the person trusted Christ for his salvation? Otherwise, that person was living in hopelessness and will continue to do so for eternity.

It all begins and ends with Christ. He also is everything in between. You want real hope? It's in Christ and nowhere else.

How We Live

2011-08-16T06:08:00.021-04:00

1 Thessalonians 3:8 For now we live, if you are standing fast in the Lord.

8 ὅτι νῦν ζῶμεν ἐὰν ὑμεῖς στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ.

Paul is writing about how he was concerned for the Thessalonians. He was afraid that they had fallen to the temptation that Satan threw at them. This is how he sums it all up. The word he uses in hope is στήκετε. This word is derived from a word derived from ἵστημι, which indicates strength. That is why it has the sense of standing firm or persevering. In other words, the Thessalonians' perseverance was life to Paul.

I had a hard time relating to this until I got involved in a church plant. The more I interact with people the more I appreciate this. I didn't go to seminary for my sake. I went to seminary so that I could more accurately preach and teach God's Word and help people. I do not exist for myself either. No Christian does. My job is to die to myself daily to help others live. There is nothing so encouraging as trying to help someone and see the good effects of that help.

Of course, this also means that we need to be ready for the converse. There will be times when people do not stand fast and that will be like a slow death to us. Sometimes it will be like a punch in the stomach. You can't have the good without the bad. Nevertheless, I think that Paul clearly emphasizes the positive here. Seeing the Thessalonians live served as a great encouragement to him.

Hopefully anyone out there reading this loves his pastor and wants to serve him. We cannot manufacture obedience to the Word, but when it is manifested in our lives it most certainly is an encouragement to your pastor.

Pleasing Preaching

2011-08-15T19:59:00.000-04:00

1 Thessalonians 2:4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.

4 ἀλλὰ καθὼς δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, οὕτως λαλοῦμεν, οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες ἀλλὰ θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν.

I don't really have a ton of deep exegetical insight about this. This is just a verse that struck me today. I do think that the word πιστευθῆναι is translated "to be entrusted with." This word is πιστεύω, which typically means something like "to believe" or "to have faith in." I don't want to make too big of a deal about it as this would preach really well and I'm not sure it is valid, but you could almost say that God had faith in Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. But isn't that what "entrusted" is all about? God trusted them. Why could He do that? He is the one who gave them new hearts so that they would be worth trusting. It's not about their inherent character and it's not something that they can manufacture. I fear that would how this could be preached and I would hate to do that.

What is their response? They speak so as to please God rather than man. They are not so concerned about making man happy as they are about making God happy. If you read the rest of this chapter you will see that this is not a license to bring out the big gilded pew bible and use it as a sledgehammer. However, it is a clear call to faithfulness in gospel ministry.

Frankly, that is the call that we all have. Want to make God happy? Preach the gospel. It seems that we look for hoops to jump through. God is not happy with you simply because you dress a certain way, avoid certain movies, and don't drink beer. In this case, Paul emphasizes that his preaching the gospel makes God happy.

Let's focus on that, amen?

Knowing the Elect

2011-08-14T07:30:00.000-04:00

1 Thessalonians 1:4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

4 εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν, 5 ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν [ἐν] ὑμῖν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς.

One fairly common criticism of Calvinism is that it squelches evangelism. The argument goes that if God elects people from before the world began why bother with evangelism? Won't He save the people He means to save no matter what?

The short answer to that is of course a simple "yes," but that is woefully inadequate. This verse gives a little more insight into the issue. The phrase τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν is translated "he has chosen you," but technically it is "your election" or "your choosing." Verse 5 explains this. How do we know about your election? It is because the gospel came to them ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ. What Paul means is that the gospel was not mere words to the Thessalonian believers, but it had true power to them.

How do we know who the elect are? They are the ones who respond to the gospel. It is our job to pray, preach, persuade, and do whatever we can to clearly communicate the gospel to people. But we cannot save anyone. All we can do is put the gospel out there. Their acceptance is between them and the Lord. We know the elect by the fruit of the gospel in their lives?

Does that mean that everyone who appears to live a godly lifestyle is saved? No. But we can be pretty sure that anyone who is not changed by the gospel is not saved. We can never be certain about anyone's future state. This is why we keep preaching the word. We put it out there. My prayer is that my preaching today would fall on fertile soil and produce fruit.

Walking Evangelistically

2011-08-13T21:02:00.000-04:00

Colossians 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time.

5 Ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι.

I know that I tend to gloss over some of these short exhortations near the end of Paul's epistles. I feel like I got most of the meat earlier and now I'm just getting bits of potato with gravy. But I think we make a big mistake if we overlook this short verse. The verb περιπατεῖτε is in the imperative and while it technically does mean "walk," it has the sense of lifestyle. In other words, Paul is telling the Colossians that their lifestyles should be wise toward outsiders. I also take τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι to mean that we should seize any opportunity to show or share Christ with τοὺς ἔξω, or "those who are outside." The word ἐξαγοραζόμενοι is a present participle, so that gives a sense that it is something we should routinely do.

I think about how I interact with my neighbors. Do I take care of my house? That's part of my witness toward them. How do I interact with my coworkers? Do I do the best job I can? That's part of my witness. Do I tip well at restaurants? Am I polite with people who help me at restaurants and stores? That doesn't necessarily mean that I get to a gospel presentation every time, but I want my way of life to be wise toward outsiders.

Do we really believe the second half of this verse? It is not hard to imagine seeing a bunch of cars outside a neighbor's house one day only to find out that someone died. Did I share the gospel with that person? Or maybe a coworker quits or gets fired before I can share the gospel with him. Am I looking for opportunities and making the best use of the time or am I being lazy?

This is really convicting for me. It is one more reason why I need to work as hard as I can at the office. It is something I am prayerfully improving upon lately, but there is still room to grow. Ultimately it comes down to the gospel. Do I believe it enough to prayerfully change my life so that I can share it effectively?

Pursuing Holiness

2011-08-12T19:19:00.000-04:00

Colossians 3:1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

1 Εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ καθήμενος·

Paul follows up his argument from chapter 2 by starting another one. He uses a first-class condition. Basically he is asking the reader to assume that he has indeed been raised with Christ. If this is indeed true, and let's assume it is, then you should seek the things that are above. He then goes on to explain more about that.

I think that we can safely turn this around. If we seek the things that are above we have probably been raised with Christ. However, if we do not seek the things that are above then we likely have not been raised with Christ.

I am all for preaching grace. In fact, I hate the non-gospel of legalism that pervades so many churches. Most churches in America are basically centers for moralistic therapeutic deism. They have a vague sense of who God is, but they think that they get to Him by behaving better. The answer is not to do better. The answer is to repent and believe.

But this verse shows us where that should go. If we have been raised with Christ then He should be our chief pursuit. There is nothing else for us to pursue as important as pursuing Christ. This should consume us and be the focus of our lives.

Is it for you? It is for me, though I fall short more than I'd like to admit. Yet I take solace knowing that the pursuit of Christ is the deepest desire of my heart. And when I waver I know that I can go back to Him and He will get me back on the narrow path. This is not something I do, but something He does in me.

Pursuing Holiness

2011-08-11T06:13:00.000-04:00

Colossians 2:23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

23 ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρησκίᾳ καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ [καὶ] ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός.

Paul is finishing up his argument about true holiness. He spends a lot of time talking about Christ and then he finishes with a series of verses about those who advocate various forms of asceticism as a means of godliness. This verse concludes that argument.

Why do I bring this up? It seems that as people we have a tendency to either license or legalism. The circles I run in tend more toward legalism, and I am as guilty of that as anyone. This is particularly prevalent in Independent Baptist churches. I've met some folks from this world who are assured of their salvation because they do not drink beer or wine. They would claim that they are saved by grace and not by works, but their attitude clearly indicates the contrary.

I am not advocating any use of Christian liberty. That is a matter for personal conscience. But as someone who served in a ministry helping people find freedom from besetting sins, I can tell you that there is a very fine line we must walk. Legalism is easier than grace. It is easier to discern a rule than to follow conscience informed by the Word and the Spirit.

My prayer is that those of us who love the Lord would follow Him based on the clear teaching of Scripture. Any pursuit of holy living must be the result of His grace working in our lives. Let's live accordingly, amen?

Two Kingdoms

2011-08-08T06:38:00.000-04:00

Colossians 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins

13 ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, 14 ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν·

This is one of those passages that I tend to read through fairly quickly, but don't stop to ponder. Something made me slow down a bit this morning and I am glad. The word ἐξουσίας is translated "domain," but it also has the idea of authority. Of course, the word βασιλείαν means kingdom. We are accustomed to seeing reference to the "kingdom of God," which I believe is synonymous with the kingdom of His beloved Son. Verse 14 tells us that in Christ we have redemption, that is to say the forgiveness of sins.

Sadly, I think that we often neglect the truth that this implies. Most faithful gospel presentations in America will talk about how we are subject to the wrath of God because of sin. That is certainly true and it is something we must understand. But what we also need to emphasize is that we belonged to a completely different team. It's not that we were indifferent to God we He saved us, but we were hostile to God.

If you like sports metaphors think Yankees and Red Sox. Or think Cowboys and Redskins. Ohio State and Michigan. There is no middle ground when we talk about these kingdoms. We are either loyal to τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους or to τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ. We can't have it both ways.

So how are you living? If someone examined your life and had to guess which kingdom you were in, what would he say? If you're abroad and you see a big guy with a thick Brooklyn accent wearing a NY Giants jersey and another guy with an English accent wearing a Manchester United jersey, you can safely guess who is from England and who is from America. How we live and act belies our ancestry.

But let's not be double-agents either. There are many who go through the motions of the kingdom of God, but their hearts are still in the kingdom of darkness. American fundamentalism breeds folks like this with its cultic manipulation tactics. Let's live as citizens of heaven, but with pure hearts that only come from regeneration, amen?

Where I've Been

2011-08-05T11:35:00.000-04:00

As you can see, blogging has been on the back burner for me lately. This is due to a number of factors. One is that I'm using my morning time for reading my Bible instead of blogging. From a pure GTD perspective, I should do my Bible reading at lunch, but I'd rather start with Scripture. I'm still doing Professor Horner's plan and I still really like it.

Another reason is that I have little time in the evenings. Since graduating from seminary I have tried to spend more consistent time with my wife. Lately that means the hyper-spiritual activity of watching every episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation with her. We're halfway through season 3 of 7 now. We're enjoying it, but that does detract from my free time. I think I will plan on one or two nights/week where we don't do it going forward.

The biggest reason is that I haven't had to. I've now preached two Sundays at Piney Plains Christian Church. I will be preaching this Sunday, Lord willing as well as next Sunday. I have used this blog as an outlet for my need to teach. Preaching fulfills that nicely.

So let me ask you, dear reader (if any are out there), does it matter to you if this blog stays alive? I will write if anyone is out there to read it, but I am not going to worry so much about it if nobody cares to read what I'm writing. I do like having this blog as a devotional exercise to journal about what I read each day, so I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons.

Does anyone care? Leave a comment. I realize that this is basically a plea to see if I'm one of the cool kids. I won't ever be Tim Challies nor do I want to be. But I'm just curious if anyone is out there.

Restrictions

2011-07-15T05:29:00.000-04:00

2 Corinthians 6:12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.

12 οὐ στενοχωρεῖσθε ἐν ἡμῖν, στενοχωρεῖσθε δὲ ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις ὑμῶν·

Some exegetes make a big deal of the word σπλάγχνοις. It does technically refer to ones "guts" or "bowels." This was the word that was used to describe the heart of a person. It describes what makes a person tick, if you will. Paul describes how they were στενοχωρεῖσθε or "were restricted" in their feelings.

As we seek to plant a new fellowship within the body of Christ we are looking at various church constitutions. I read one that is based on the template provided by the Christian Law Association. This appears to be a favorite of those who are of the more Independent Baptist persuasion. I find the tone fascinating. Basically, it assumes that we want nothing more than to fall headlong into sin and, therefore, we must set up fences far enough away from sin so that we won't even get close to the sin.

That's all well and good, but what it fails to account for is the affections of the heart. It assumes that we will feel no affection for God. In fact, it doesn't even address that we should. All this does is then create a bunch of Pharisees who are good at being good. It doesn't deal with the matter of the heart.

We all need rules or else the New Testament would not have any. However, obedience starts with the heart. It begins with a heart that desires more of God. And as we experience more of Him then the temptations of the world begin to fade away. We are not as tempted to sin when we are satisfied in Christ. So rather than focusing on rules, let's instead focus on our σπλάγχνοις.

The Righteousness of God

2011-07-14T06:32:00.000-04:00

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.

This is one of those verses that just about everyone has heard at some point. It makes for a great song too. But what does it mean? Paul uses the aorist subjunctive γενώμεθα for this. The subjunctive can be thought of as the mood of possibility. In other words, what Paul is saying is that Christ's death made it possible for us to become the righteousness of God.

Why is this necessary? We are sinners and God is holy. Because He is perfectly holy He cannot stand sin. Sin has no place in His presence; therefore, there must be righteousness instead. The witness of Exodus and Leviticus is that there must be blood as a payment for sin because God's justice must be satisfied. The problem is that even unblemished lambs do not permanently remove the stain of sin.

There had to be a perfect sacrifice for sin that worked once for all time. The most wooden translation of this verse is that "The one who did not know sin on behalf of us was made sin." Obviously the ESV is a lot prettier. The point is that Christ actually became sin for us on the cross.

Let that sink in a bit. There has only ever been one man who lived without sin and that one man had to take on the sin of the world. Imagine if you were to find out that some large debt you have was canceled. If you're a homeowner your mortgage is a great example. Then imagine that you find out that some close friend had actually sold all of his possessions so that he could pay off your debt. That would be unbelievable, right? It would be a gift so incredible that most of us would have a hard time accepting it. Imagine the gratitude we would feel toward that person afterwards.

That only begins to scratch the surface of what Christ endured on the cross. He suffered unbelievable physical and spiritual anguish. If you are in Christ, take a little time to consider this today. I know that I have been blessed by this.

"Our" Ministry

2011-07-08T06:49:00.000-04:00

2 Corinthians 4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.

1 Διὰ τοῦτο, ἔχοντες τὴν διακονίαν ταύτην καθὼς ἠλεήθημεν, οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν

This verse picks up where we left off in the previous post. The verb in the first clause is ἠλεήθημεν, which is in the aorist passive. This means that Paul is telling them that God gave them ministry at some point in the past. It doesn't tell us how it happened, but it does tell us that it was given to them. Also, the verse does not expressly state that it comes from the mercy of God, but it does say that it came by mercy. It's pretty safe to infer that God is the one who granted them mercy.

As someone who is in the middle of planting a church, I find this to be an encouragement. I think it is safe to extrapolate this verse to describe ministry in general. Really the word is τὴν διακονίαν, which is the word from which we get "deacon." It refers to ministry or service. What I get out of this is that any ministry or service we get to do for God's people comes from the mercy of God. This verse starts with the phrase Διὰ τοῦτο, which literally means "therefore this." This explains the phrase at the end. Why don't we give up hope? We don't give up hope because we received ministry from the mercy of God.

This gives me hope because that I trust God to do His will. I enjoy the blessing of being an instrument in His hands, but really it is His ministry. If we assemble a fellowship it will be because God in His mercy brought a fellowship to us. My concern is my personal holiness. Although God can use anyone at anytime to do His will, I also know that it will be a lot easier for me if I am walking closely with Him. I've often heard it said that if you want to know God's will you need to think the way He thinks. How do you do that? You walk in close fellowship with Him through prayer, time in the Word, fellowship, worship, etc.

The point of all this is that I find great encouragement knowing that this is God's ministry and that it is enabled by His mercy. That takes the pressure off of me to make it succeed. I certainly must do my part as well as God has gifted me to do it, but I don't need to think that it is all about me. As with all of life, it is all about Him.

True Transformation

2011-07-05T06:18:00.001-04:00

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

18 ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος.

This is the end of an argument Paul makes as he contrasts Jews and believers. He discusses how Moses kept a veil on his face to hide his loss of glory. He also talks about how the Jews cannot believe because their hearts are hardened and the same veil remains. And then he talks about how this veil is only lifted by Christ.

This is another one of those times where being a 21st century American Gentile can get in the way of really grasping the depth of a biblical truth. Keep in mind that the New Testament was written in a Jewish context. The whole question about the Judaizers in Acts 15 and the book of Galatians came about because the Jews considered it absolutely vital to be a Jew if one was to have access to God.

Now Paul comes along and destroys all of that. Not only do we have access to God, but we have it with ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ. This was unbelievable to the Jews. Moses couldn't even look at God directly and now you're saying that we can behold His glory with unveiled face?

The answer is a resounding yes. And as we continue to behold His glory we are transformed by the experience. We end up looking more like Him as we spend more time beholding His glory. This is something that can only come to us through the power of the Spirit.

Where are you with this? Are you beholding His glory regularly? Do you have an unveiled face? If you do, pray that you would continue to seek His glory. If your heart is still hard and your face veiled what stops you from repenting and turning to Christ?

How Do You Smell?

2011-07-02T06:52:00.000-04:00

2 Corinthians 2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, ¹⁶ to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?

15 ὅτι Χριστοῦ εὐωδία ἐσμὲν τῷ θεῷ ἐν τοῖς σῳζομένοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις, ¹⁶ οἷς μὲν ὀσμὴ ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον, οἷς δὲ ὀσμὴ ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν. καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα τίς ἱκανός;

I have to admit that I did not get a lot out of this chapter when I read it in Greek. Paul's language is rather figurative, which made it hard for me to see what he was getting at. However, this is one passage that did make sense. There is no special exegetical clue that jumps out of the Greek. The ESV captures it very well.

But what does it mean? It means that we should not become too discouraged in our evangelism. To those who are perishing we are a fragrance of death to them. Death stinks. The house I grew up in had these huge windows in the living room. One of them was like a magnet for robins. I can remember playing outside the house on summer days and discovering the sickly-sweet smell of rotting robin. It's not a pleasant smell. In fact, it is repulsive.

The words σῳζομένοις and ἀπολλυμένοις are present passive participles, just as you see in the ESV. Given what we know about the nature of election from Ephesians 1, I would maintain that those who are not elect will always find the gospel to be repulsive because it is a message of death. But to the elect it is a wonderful aroma of life.

However, we need to be careful here. I think that there is still room for someone being "broken down" by the gospel. In other words, most who hear the gospel for the first time do not immediately repent and believe. Yet some of them eventually will. What I'm getting at is that we cannot give up on someone just because of a single rejection of the gospel. But we also cannot be too discouraged when people do not believe because the gospel is going to be an aroma of death to them.

How do you see the gospel? Is it an aroma of life or death? If it is life to you, what are you doing to spread the gospel?

Fulfilled Promises

2011-07-01T06:55:00.000-04:00

2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.

20 ὅσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναί· διὸ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμὴν τῷ θεῷ πρὸς δόξαν δι᾽ ἡμῶν.

This is one of those verses where we need to look at the language a little bit. The phrase ὅσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναί does not translate into English in a one-for-one manner. Quite literally it is something like, "For as many as the promises of God, in Him the yes." The New American Commentary understands the ὅσαι to refer to an indeterminate number of OT promises of God. That seems to make good sense of the passage.

The point is that the promises of God in the OT are not fulfilled in Israel. They are fulfilled in Christ. Now Romans 9-11 tells us that there is a future hope for some remnant of ethnic Israel, but if we focus on Israel we have missed the point. The point is Christ.

The Bible is not a book about Israel, though Israel is in it. The Bible is about Christ. Specifically, it is about how God created man, man fell, and what God did to redeem His people back to Himself. Why was it such a long history instead of redeeming them right away? Ultimately it was for His glory, which He deserves. Also, keep in mind that if He had done it sooner then you would not be reading this and would not have a future hope of eternity with Him.

If you are in Christ, rejoice that He saved you. If you are not, what keeps you from repenting and believing?

He is Glorious

2011-06-30T21:00:00.000-04:00

Isaiah 6:3 And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

וְקָרָ֙א זֶ֤ה אֶל־זֶה֙ וְאָמַ֔ר קָד֧וֹשׁ׀ קָד֛וֹשׁ קָד֖וֹשׁ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת מְלֹ֥א כָל־הָאָ֖רֶץ כְּבוֹדֽוֹ׃

I wanted to try out posting in Hebrew, so I thought I'd pick one of my favorite verses.This is one of those verses that is easy to overlook because we have become so accustomed to the language here. Yeah, yeah, we know that God is holy. But what does that mean?

First of all, it is noteworthy that this is the only place in Scripture that contains the construct קָד֧וֹשׁ׀ קָד֛וֹשׁ קָד֖וֹשׁ. This term for the Lord is special. We tend to think of holy fairly simplistically. We think of it like a church is "holy ground" as in the Highlander movies. Or maybe we think of something consecrated like "holy water." Basically, we tend to put a lot of Roman Catholic symbolism around this term. At least I do.

But if we get into what this word means we realize that it speaks to something special about God. The term "holy" really refers to being set apart. In other words, this passage speaks to God's transcendence. There is no one else like God. No one else is holy and set apart like He is.

I love that the Hebrew word translated "glory" is כְּבוֹדֽוֹ. Why? It very literally means "weighty" or "heavy." In other words, the whole earth is filled with the weightiness of God. We think of something important as being a "weighty matter." Think of what this means with respect to God. All of creation is filled with His glory or weightiness.

What does this mean? It means that it is impossible for sinful beings like us to approach a holy God. It also means that hell is perfectly just punishment for a sinner. How can such holiness abide sin? It is impossible.

Yet in His love God provided a way. That happened at the cross of Christ. There Christ's sacrifice covered our sin so that we may approach this holy God.

Will you rejoice with me in this fact?

Of First Importance

2011-06-30T19:13:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

3 παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς ⁴ καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς

This is the beginning of Paul's argument about the resurrection which will go through this whole chapter. Near the end we will see the statement that if Christ is not raised then we are the people most to be pitied. After all, if the resurrection didn't happen then we are just following stories.

I think that we must note that Paul described this as being ἐν πρώτοις. This is the most prominent place. It is the front of the train, as it were. In other words, everything begins with this fact.

Why is this so important? Put simply, it is because this is what makes Christianity unique. Lots of people around the world follow a great teacher. There are plenty of good examples that we can choose to emulate. If we ignore the supernatural claims of Jesus then we see someone who at least acted in a commendable manner. Of course, with Jesus you are then left with the problem of Him being a liar or a lunatic because of His claims of deity, but the way He loved people was certainly laudable.

That is where the liberal stops. But for those of us who believe the Bible we have so much more. We see a man who died and rose again. Everything hinges on this fact. If this is not a real historical fact then Jesus is indeed just a man to be admired, but He is not really anything special beyond that.

So what do you think of the resurrection? If you don't think it happened, why? I'd love to read your ideas and dialog about it. After all, if I'm wrong about this I'd like to know. I could sure save a lot of time and money if I am.

Until He Comes

2011-06-29T06:44:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

12 βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾽ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

This is a passage that should be taught in freshman orientation at ever seminary. The problem is that many seminaries' theological presuppositions won't let that happen. Nevertheless, this is a great verse for anyone who studies theology. That means every Christian, but seminarians in particular.

This verse comes at the end of Paul's famous "love chapter." If you've been to a wedding you've likely heard it recited. Paul explains the virtue of love. Of course, this chapter comes in the middle of a discussion on spiritual gifts and it does not necessarily pertain to marriage, but it still sounds nice as part of the ceremony.

The question in this verse is about what it is that Paul awaits. Who or what will he see πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον? There are those who strongly believe in the cessation of all miraculous gifts (i.e. the "sign gifts") and they will say that this refers to the completion of the canon. Paul was in the middle of writing the New Testament and, therefore, he was not able to see everything clearly. I don't think that makes sense.

The language here seems to refer to the return of Christ. This also seems to correspond to the end of chapter 15 which discusses the final resurrection of the saints upon Christ's return. I have a lot of Bibles, but none of them have a face. The phrase τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην also bears inspection. Quite literally this would be, "and then I will know as I was known." However, various lexicons say that with regards to spiritual things this has more of a sense of "fully knowing," which explains the ESV translation.

Does the Bible know me? Only in as much as it is related to Christ as in John 1:1. I think it makes a lot more sense to think of this as Christ. He knows me. I know Him in part. But when I join Him in eternity then I will know Him fully.

Is this a hope that you have? If not, repent and turn to Christ. A glorious future awaits those who know Him, even if we do only know Him as looking through a foggy window.

Many Parts

2011-06-27T06:41:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many.

14 Καὶ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν μέλος ἀλλὰ πολλά.

This verse comes in the middle of a chapter on spiritual gifts. We could debate the nature of the various gifts until the cows come home, but there are two things that I think bear mentioning as one consider's 1 Corinthians 12. The first is that the lists of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14 are probably not comprehensive. In other words, these are examples of spiritual gifts, but spiritual gifts are not limited to these only. They are representative of what spiritual gifts look like.

The other is something that should certainly be stressed in light of the debate that often rages over this passage. People tend to get lost in the arguments about whether the gifts exist today and how they are manifested that they forget that this verse really speaks to unity in the body. It's ironic that a passage which emphasizes unity could be used to create so much disunity, but that is how Satan works.

God has gifted me in such a way that I am able to preach and teach. I am fairly good at organizing things and am very good at breaking problems down into manageable chunks. However, I am not particularly good at showing mercy. If I was laid up in a hospital room I would not be my first choice to minister to me. There are those who are outstanding at that kind of mercy care, but are not very good preachers. And so on.

The point is that God made us all a little bit differently. Because of the Fall we tend to envy what we don't have. A simple example is women and their hair. I used to work with a woman of Philipino descent who had beautiful thick curly hair. She thought my wife's thinner straight hair was beautiful and she wished that she had it. Meanwhile, my wife thought that her hair was much nicer, though she acknowledged the difficulty in maintaining it. This is a simple, though fairly common example.

The same thing happens in the church. Rather than being content with how God gifted us we wish that we were like someone else. Here Paul tells us that we all have a part to play in the church and that we should be content with it. The key is to use what God gave us. How are you serving the church?

True Discipleship

2011-06-25T20:18:00.003-04:00

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

1 μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ.

Paul makes quite a bold statement here as he links arguments together. He uses the imperative γίνεσθε to command the Corinthians to imitate him. We need to be careful not to stop reading there, though I’m afraid that is easy to do. What I think is interesting is the phrase καθὼς κἀγὼ.

This same phrase starts off 1 Corinthians 10:33 and is translated “just as I am.” By itself, the word καθὼς carries the idea of “as” or “even as.” The word κἀγὼ is a combination of και and εγω and has the idea of “and I.” Putting these words together creates kind of an odd construct to an English reader because we don’t have anything quite like this. Unpacking it a bit might be something like, “Be imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.” The genitive form of Χριστοῦ is what makes it “of Christ” instead of just “Christ.”

The point is that Paul is telling them to imitate him, but he is doing it in the sense of how he imitates Christ. In other words, he is not saying that he is perfect and that he is worthy of imitation because of his perfection. Rather, he is telling them to imitate the way he imitates Christ.

This is a vital distinction for us. We live in a world where we want to worship celebrities. Some young guys want to preach like Mark Driscoll. Or maybe it’s John Piper. Maybe we want to imitate the reckless sacrifice of Francis Chan. These are fine role models. However, there is a problem because they are all sinners.

Instead, we should imitate John Piper’s pursuit of knowing God. We should imitate Mark Driscoll’s focus in saving the lost within the community he has targeted. We should imitate Francis Chan’s willingness to cast everything aside for the sake of knowing Christ. But we should not imitate them as men.

And if you ever plan to be in Christian ministry you need to make this distinction clear with your people. They should not be imitating you. They should be imitating you as you follow Christ. They should imitate your pursuit of Christ. However, ultimately they need to pursue Christ.

This means that we need to give them a model to follow as well. But fortunately it is not up to us to save them. It is up to the Lord that we are trying to imitate. Let’s focus on Him and the rest will fall into place.

Portable Water

2011-06-25T20:18:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

4 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός.

This is another passage that makes one wonder if it means what it appears to mean. If we read this and take it at face-value it looks like Paul was saying that Christ traveled with the Jews in the wilderness. Can that possibly be what he means?

Well, the language is clear enough. The phrase πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας is very literally, “the spiritual rock, the one that followed.” This is connected with the weak conjunction δὲ and it clearly states that the rock was Christ. There is no ambiguity in the language here.

The problem is that this creates something of a tension for us. We know from Paul’s teachings in places like Colossians 1 that the church was a mystery until the revelation that came from Christ. Yet here we see him describing how Christ traveled with the people. The passage goes on to explain how they were apostate despite having Him with them.

What to do? I think that we need to accept Scripture for what it says. Somehow Christ was represented in the rock that traveled with them and provided water. As God saved Israel through the wilderness Paul makes a connection to Christ. Does this mean that Christ was really present with them? It appears so, but I’m not sure that it is necessary to see it this way to interpret this passage faithfully.

One takeaway is to understand that Christ appears in the Old Testament more than is clear at face-value. He was certainly a mystery, but Paul shows us that He was there. This also helps us to understand the language of Ephesians 1:10 that describes how God had “a plan for the fullness of time.”

But we also must be careful not to interpret every piece of wood as the cross or every instance of water as baptism. Not every drop of shed blood in the Old Testament points to Christ’s shed blood at Calvary. However, we also need to be sensitive to how the New Testament authors saw Christ in the Old as they wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit

We Must Preach

2011-06-23T06:56:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 9:16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

16 ἐὰν γὰρ εὐαγγελίζωμαι, οὐκ ἔστιν μοι καύχημα· ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται· οὐαὶ γάρ μοί ἐστιν ἐὰν μὴ εὐαγγελίσωμαι.

Here Paul is making an argument about why ministers should be paid for their work, but that he waived those rights. He uses the phrase ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται, which involves a passive construction. There is nothing to unpack beyond how the ESV puts it. The word literally means that something has been put on. I think of it like a burden placed on an animal or on someone's shoulders. There is a weightiness to this charge.

Paul goes so far as to call woe upon himself if he does not preach the gospel. Clearly he considers this to be important. Of course, he was the Apostle Paul; therefore, it was vital for him to preach the gospel. Right?

That is true of Paul, but it is also true for you and me if we are followers of Christ. This is not a task given just to the "ministers" of the gospel. It is given to all Christians. We tend to like our professionals to do work for us. An advanced society is like that our of necessity. I don't know anyone who slaughters and butchers his own meat. I don't know anyone who grows all of his own vegetables. I don't know anyone who processes his own flour. I've never met anyone who physically built his own house (at least not in America). An advanced society has moved to the point of specialization so that we buy and sell products and services.

However, that does not apply to the ministry of the gospel. There is no such thing as a professional. There is in the strictest sense in that some men serve in gospel ministry full-time and get paid to do so, but really there is no distinction between "clergy" and "laity" when it comes to evangelism. We all have different gifts and we all will speak more effectively to different people, but we are all called to gospel ministry.

In other words, woe to any of us if we do not preach the gospel!

There is One God

2011-06-23T06:45:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"-- ⁶ yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

5 καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, ⁶ ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.

Paul writes this short interlude in the middle of an argument about food. Food was a big deal to the Jews and consequently this became a big deal to the early Christians. What difference did it make if food was offered to an idol? It mattered for the conscience of the person who knew about this. It didn't matter to the Christian, but to the idolater it would be considered some form of validation.

Paul referred to the objects of this idol worship as λεγόμενοι θεοὶ. Because λεγόμενοι is a passive participle it can be understood as "those who are being called Gods." The ESV flows better, but that would be the unpacking of "so-called." The point is that someone can call Baal, Molech, Allah, or anything else a god, but they are that in name only.

This is incredibly important for us in our society today. Because we don't want to offend anyone we as a society preach a message of supposed tolerance and pluralism. We say that everyone is free to believe whatever he wants, but that we should not impose that belief system on others. A quick glance at the news shows the impossibility of this stance.

This is fine for a Hindu with a pantheon of gods who sees Jesus as just one more. This is fine for the liberal in any faith tradition who does not consider the sacred material to be binding. However, this is unacceptable to a true Muslim, for example. If the Koran is correct and it is true that "there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet," then everyone should become a Muslim. Why? Because if they are right then the Christian understands the fundamental of reality incorrectly. If we have the Creator wrong then everything else is going to be wrong.

Conversely, a Christian cannot stand for true pluralism. Certainly he can tolerate anyone believing whatever he wants to believe. But it is incumbent upon the Christian to explain reality to everyone. That reality starts with the God of Scripture. If the Bible is correct then the natural consequence is evangelism about Jesus. It has to be. There is no alternative.

There is a corollary to this as well. If the God of the Bible is the one true God then where does that leave everyone else? They are worshiping demons. They are fundamentally no different than the priests Elijah battled on Mount Carmel. And, if the Bible is true, they will have an eternity of suffering in the presence of demons. There is no middle ground here. On which side do you stand?

True Freedom

2011-06-22T06:58:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 7:23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

23 τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε· μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων.

This verse appears in the middle of Paul's argument about how we are to deal with relationships. Husbands and wives own each other's bodies; therefore, the sexual relationship should not be withheld except by mutual agreement and then only for the purpose of prayer. Then he goes into a long discussion of marriage. He says that marriage is a good thing, but if you are called to be single that is even better. Despite what the Roman Catholics teach regarding their priests, there is only an extreme few who are called to be single. No matter what, Paul would never call for the dissolution of a marriage.

What does this verse mean? It tells us that our allegiance is to the Lord. Although this is an unpopular concept here in America, we are born as slaves. Specifically, we are born as slaves to sin. The whole advertising industry banks on this fact. We are slaves to our own desires, which is why the promises of a bigger TV, a bigger house, a better vacation, or a younger and more attractive lover are so appealing to us, for example. We are slaves to ourselves until Christ redeems us.

A myriad of metaphors exist for this concept. An easy one for most Americans to comprehend is a mortgage. Our houses cost so much money that it takes 20-30 years to pay for them. Now imagine you received a letter from your lender informing you that your mortgage was paid off. It's so incredible to be unthinkable, right? Yet that is kind of what happened at the cross. The only problem is that only scratches the surface.

The problem here in America is that we are so accustomed to our freedoms that we don't really understand our slavery. We are going to be slaves to someone. Will it be to Satan or to the Lord? If you are in Christ then Christ purchased you with His blood. Do slaves have an option as to whether they will do their master's will? Go back 200 years and ask anyone with dark skin here in the South and I think they will give you a pretty clear answer that they don't have much choice. If they disobeyed there were consequences. We'll get into that more later when we get to the concept of fathers disciplining their children, but the point is that we don't have a choice.

And the good news is that, unlike the Southern slave of the 19th century, our master is perfectly kind and good. He may ask us to do things that are uncomfortable, but they are all for our good and for His glory. The men and women enslaved in early America could not always say that. And certainly the modern slave to Satan cannot say that.

We have true freedom through our slavery to Christ. We were bought with a price so that we might serve and worship Him. Let's enjoy the blessing of serving our Lord, amen?

The Old Self

2011-06-20T20:49:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

11 καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν.

Paul had just explained again about how all kinds of sinners would not inherit the Kingdom of God. Then he uses a wonderful word in ἦτε. This is the imperfect form of "to be." What Paul means here is that there was a time when our lives were characterized as sexually immoral, swindlers, etc. Then he uses the very strong adversative ἀλλὰ. It is terrible English, but the most literal translation of this would be, "And this is the way some of you were, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified." There is no grammatical reason for him to use the word three times, so it is a good guess that it is for emphasis. Paul is creating a stark contrast between the former life and the new life in Christ.

As I wrote previously, there is an assumption in Paul's writings that the Christian will have experienced a changed life. We can call ourselves whatever we want, but if we are truly new creations in Christ then our lives will show it. To paraphrase an old children's song, if you're saved and you know it then your life will surely show it.

Please understand that I am not promoting a works-righteousness as the disciples of Zane Hodges may accuse me of doing. Nor am I saying that the Christian walks in perfect obedience. The book of 1 John certainly contradicts that idea as does the testimony of my life. But all of these things represent ways of life. Is my life characterized by sin now or is it characterized by freedom? That's really the question I need to ask myself.

The good news is that if I am truly in Christ then as far as God is concerned I will ultimately be seen as perfect because Christ is perfect. He represents me as the great High Priest as well as the perfect atoning sacrifice for my sin. It is not based on my performance. However, if my life does not change then I need to question what my salvation really means to me.

This seems to be a theme in 1 Corinthians. He is challenging them in the sense that if they want to call themselves Christians then their lives should be Christlike. The challenge is no different for us today.

Does Paul Really Mean This?

2011-06-20T06:50:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

11 νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος ᾖ πόρνος ἢ πλεονέκτης ἢ εἰδωλολάτρης ἢ λοίδορος ἢ μέθυσος ἢ ἅρπαξ, τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν.

This is one of those verses that is easy to gloss over because it cannot possibly mean what it seems like it means, right? Paul uses the word συναναμίγνυσθαι. This is an infinitive form and it literally means "to mix together with." This word appears in the LXX in Hosea 7:8 where it reads that "Ephraim mixes himself with the peoples." It appears earlier in 1 Corinthians 5:9 with basically the same usage. It also appears negatively in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 where Paul commands that the recipients "have nothing to do with" certain people. Clearly this word connotes close fellowship.

Does Paul really mean that we are not to associate with those who do such things if they are in the church? What about grace? Shouldn't we love on these people rather than purge them from our midst?

Obviously there is a place for grace. There is always a place for grace. However, that does not mean that such people should worship in the fellowship. This is tied into the commands for church discipline in Matthew 18. There is a standard of holiness expected for believers.

Now this can easily turn into the kind of legalism seen in some independent fundamentalist churches if we focus on conduct. This is similar to how well-meaning Christian parents raise obedient Pharisees because they focus on the conduct. Obedience to this command starts with the heart.

What it does not mean is that we should feel comfortable driving to our megachurch in a $50,000 vehicle to hear a sermon about how other people have problems and we need to fix them. It does mean that we need to examine our own hearts and look for these sins. We need to confess them and repent.

And we also need to take care not to become morality police. This passage refers to people whose lives are characterized by these practices. It does not mean someone who looks at a brother's iPad 2 and thinks how great it would be to have one. It does not mean someone who is out with his friends and occasionally drinks one pint too many. It does not mean someone who has clicked on a link he knows that he shouldn't have and then repented of it. No, this refers to people whose lives are characterized by these sins. You could call them "besetting sins" to use some old parlance. There are no hard and fast lines to be drawn here.

The point is that to Paul the idea of accepting Christ as your Savior without repentance is unthinkable. If anyone does that and his life shows no change then it is time to get back to the gospel because he is not a brother in Christ.

Do Something!

2011-06-18T07:12:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power.

20 οὐ γὰρ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει

Here Paul is addressing the folks who are arrogant about what they believe, but are not doing anything about it. Sadly, this seems to describe many who profess an orthodox faith in Christ. It's ironic as I sit here in my basement writing this post because this could be said of me at times. Paul is basically asking what they are doing with their faith.

Perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to this after finishing seminary, but this can be a serious problem. Liberal churches seem to get the power part down really well. They are socially-conscious and do what they can to help people. They demonstrate the power of the gospel quite well, though their theology makes one wonder if they are trying to earn salvation somehow. I can't really speak to their hearts, so this is just a guess.

But I've had the parking lot discussions with classmates about how things should be. I've read blog posts and the discussions in the comments afterwards. I've heard stirring sermons about Christ's commands to action. And then I look at my own life and wonder where it all is. What am I doing with all of this? I am working with my family, which is my first priority. I am also working on a church plant and that will be a venue for ministry as well.

The point is that Christians are expected to be about the business of doing. We cannot enjoy the blessings of Ephesians 2:8-9 without reading the next verse. We were created to do good works. The works do not change our standing before the Lord, but they do flow out of it.

What are you doing?

Who Do You Follow?

2011-06-18T06:58:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 3:4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human?

4 ὅταν γὰρ λέγῃ τις· ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, ἕτερος δέ· ἐγὼ Ἀπολλῶ, οὐκ ἄνθρωποί ἐστε;

There is no great exegetical gem to mine from this verse, but there is something very important to address in it. I live near Raleigh, North Carolina and off the top of my head I can think of five megachurches. I was a member of one, went to a seminary tied to another, and am familiar with two more. How do you make a megachurch?

I think that you generally start off with good intentions. You start with a man who wants to reach a community with the gospel. If you're smart you get an idea of the people to whom you want to minister. If you want a megachurch you will target middle and upper middle class people. You will get a sense of what those people want and you will provide it as well as you can without compromising the integrity of the gospel. Here in the Triangle area of North Carolina as I'm sure is true elsewhere, if you want to win the people you start with their kids. We're all about our kids here so if we feel like a church is taking care of them we will attend.

Notice how it all starts. It starts with a man. That man is not Jesus. That man is a personality. I've heard Mike Lee, Stephen Davey, J.D. Greear, and Tyler Jones speak or preach. They are all outstanding communicators. They each have their own styles to be sure, but one common thread is that they are outstanding communicators.

As a former member of Hope Community Church it was my understanding that the Grace Brethren Foundation would not give us the considerable loan we needed to complete our building unless there was a large insurance policy on Mike Lee. In other words, he was considered key to the success of the church.

I am working on planting a church with a man like these men. He is an outstanding communicator and has a way of drawing people to him. I am thoroughly convinced that he could lead a megachurch. However, we have some safeguards in place to keep that from happening.

One is that we intend for me to preach occasionally. We have talked about me preaching 1 out of every 4 Sundays, or once a month. I'm not sure if it will be that frequent, but the point is that I will be visible and they will have to hear from me once in a while. It will not be his church. We want for it to be Christ's church.

The other is that we plan to make Luke 14 part of what we present as the gospel. We want to see people come to Christ. However, we want them to come to Christ with their eyes wide open. We want them to understand that this is not a journey of ease, but of hardship. It means enlisting in a war. But if people want to do that we want to help them. We want to see folks following Christ, not us. Otherwise, this verse could be, "I follow Rob," or "I follow Jason." No, we want followers of Christ.

More Folly

2011-06-17T06:35:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ· μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται.

There is a thread that follows through this portion of 1 Corinthians with the contrast between the ways of the world and the ways of God. Once again we see Paul use the word μωρία to describe how the world perceives the Gospel. Not only does the natural man (the unconverted man) see the gospel as folly, Paul writes that this man οὐ δύναται γνῶναι. Literally, this means that he does not have the ability to comprehend.

This underlies the doctrine of election. That is to say that some are called to salvation and others are not. That is the only way to make sense of this. There is nothing in the natural man that enables him to accept the gospel. To quote the great theologian Austin Millbarge, "We mock what we do not understand."

I find it interesting that election is resisted so strongly by so many in America. It is interesting because I think that it speaks to the heart of our contemporary culture. From a very early age we are told that we can be anything we want to be. We just have to work hard and put our minds to it. Of course, many can realize that is absurd with any examination. I was never going to be a professional basketball player no matter how hard I worked. Even if I was the smartest point guard in the world I am too short, my reflexes are too slow, and my muscles just do not twitch quickly. In contrast, Jason Kidd was never going to get a degree in Chemical Engineering from any accredited university, but he has been a fantastic basketball player. We all have different gifts.

The point is that, despite the absurdity just beneath the surface, we have been sold this bill of goods. Therefore, we chafe at the idea that some are never going to believe the gospel. We think that if we just package it the right way we will win some. We think that we just need to break down all their arguments and they will believe it. But that is not what this passage says.

Learn apologetics and use them. Refine your evangelistic techniques. Be wise in how you interact with people. But also realize that ultimately salvation is between a person and the Lord. All we can do is scatter seed and pray that God would make it grow.

The Folly of the Cross

2011-06-12T07:17:00.000-04:00

1 Corinthians 1:18 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.

18 Ὁ λόγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστίν, τοῖς δὲ σῳζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν.

At the risk of committing an exegetical fallacy, I want to point something out in this verse. The word μωρία is translated as "folly" here. It could also be translated "foolishness." This word seems to be related to the word μωρός, which is where we get our word "moron" from. I normally chafe at this kind of a word association game, but I think it applies here for illustration purposes.

The point is that the cross seems foolish or even moronic to those who don't believe the Gospel. But for those of us who are being saved it is everything. It is the power of God.

This helps to explain the problems we have with evangelism and witnessing. As we talk to people about the cross we get a lot of funny looks and arguments. They don't understand how this works. What does a man dying on a cross have to do with my standing before God? If we believe the gospel we understand that it has everything to do with that. If not, then it is ridiculous. It takes God to open the spiritual eyes so that it makes sense.

This does not remove our obligation for evangelism, but it does provide comfort when a clear presentation of the gospel falls on deaf ears. The cross was folly to me before I was saved and it is folly to anyone else that cannot see with spiritual eyes. Remember that as you evangelize. You are evangelizing, right?

True Hope

2011-06-09T06:58:00.000-04:00

Romans 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.

13 Ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ εἰρήνης ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν, εἰς τὸ περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου.

This is part of Paul's closing. I tend to gloss over verses like this because they don't seem to pack a whole lot in them. They are just part of how he ends his letters, so why bother reading them closely? But as I looked for a verse to write on this morning this one kind of stood out. There is no exegetical nuance to draw out as far as I can tell at first glance, but there is some great stuff in here for the Christian life.

The most important question we must ask is about the nature of God. Tozer says that what a man thinks of God is the most important thing about the man. What does Paul think of God? This verse does not encapsulate all of Paul's theology, but we can learn something here. Paul refers to God as "the God of hope." He also finishes this verse with a mention of hope that we can have through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I am not going to get into all of Paul's argument, though one could preach a sermon on this and get into soteriology. The point is that God is the God of hope. The Holy Spirit has the power to fill us with hope. What is this hope all about? It comes from Christ. Because of Christ we have hope in this age and in the age to come. We have the promise of His provision in our lives. That does not mean we will be healthy or wealthy, but it does mean that God will provide what we need. We must accept that it is possible that we need to physically die as part of God's plan.

How do we come to grips with that? We have hope in the age to come. We know that because of Christ we will ultimately spend eternity in fellowship with God. Frankly, that is all the reward we need.

What does the Holy Spirit have to do with this? The Holy Spirit is the one who transforms us from being dead in our sins to alive in Christ. He also sustains us as we live as followers of Christ. The Holy Spirit is vital in our pursuit of God.

So as I look at this "throwaway verse" I join Paul in this prayer for both myself and for anyone who may be reading this. May we have true hope that only comes from God.

The Weaker Brother

2011-06-08T06:55:00.000-04:00

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

13 Μηκέτι οὖν ἀλλήλους κρίνωμεν· ἀλλὰ τοῦτο κρίνατε μᾶλλον, τὸ μὴ τιθέναι πρόσκομμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἢ σκάνδαλον.

Here in the South, many folks think that you're a Christian if you attend church, don't drink, and don't swear. There is a culture of abstinence here, particularly in the more Baptist circles. There are some pretty strange exegetical gymnastics used in some arguments. For example, I have talked with someone who says that the wine Jesus made was just grape juice and that the wine Paul told Timothy to drink was as well; however, he also says that when we are warned against becoming drunk from much wine that refers to wine with alcohol. That of course is patently ridiculous and a great example of just trying to defend one's doctrine no matter what the text reads.

This verse is probably part of the best argument for abstinence. More reasonable exegetes understand that the Bible does not prohibit the use of alcohol and in fact encourages it in moderation (it makes the heart glad). But there is always the "weaker brother" argument. We are encouraged not to partake in some of our freedoms lest we cause someone to stumble.

This argument certainly has merit if we have specific examples. If I am with someone who has struggled with alcohol I am not going to drink a pint of beer. That much is obvious. However, if we're going to be consistent then we need to think even more deeply about this. If I'm with someone who has struggled with covetousness and poor stewardship then I am not going to browse in Best Buy with him. If I'm with someone who has struggled with gluttony then it would be unwise to dine at the Golden Corral (for both of us and for various reasons). The key is to think outside of our American box of "respectable sins" as Jerry Bridges calls them and think of sin in general.

However, I think that it is unreasonable to expect a Christian to think of the hypothetical "weaker brother" everyone he goes. If that were true, then perhaps we should all be Franciscan monks. But even then someone who has a bent toward religion would struggle because it would be easy to find pride in asceticism. It is logically impossible to avoid hindering every possible person around you. Of course, we should be reasonable and prudent, but we don't need to avoid every potential stumbling block for every potential person. Romans 14 speaks to knowledge of a brother who is stumbling because of some freedom. Respect that if you know about it, but don't shut down your life for someone hypothetical.

Submitting to Authorities

2011-06-07T20:55:00.000-04:00

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

1 Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν.

This is one of those verses that many of us choke on. After all, here in America we can point to all kinds of corruption in the government. Everyone has that and everyone can find governing authorities that clearly have beliefs that are antagonistic to the Christian. For example, a wildly pro-choice elected official should cause problems of conscience to the sincere believer. Can't we just ignore a President who holds beliefs that are clearly contrary to Scripture?

But we have to deal with this verse. I find the phrase αἱ δὲ οὖσαι interesting. This is a participle that is broken up by the weak adversitive δὲ. Basically, what this reads is "those that are." In other words, anyone who is in power is there because God put him there.

A lot of American Christians have problems with Barack Obama, and legitimately so. I have my issues with his politics. Yet he was instituted by God. Taking this further, Nero was instituted by God. Stalin and Hitler were instituted by God. Their positions were established by Him and they were put there by Him for His purposes. To think less would be to grossly understate His sovereignty.

I realize that this philosophically borders on theodicy in a way, but we cannot ignore this verse. When we reach a tension like this we have two choices. We can say that God must fit the way we think things should be, which is what a lot of people do. Or, we can change our view of God based on Scripture. That is the way we should do it. That's easy to write, but difficult to do.

Living in Peace

2011-06-06T06:50:00.000-04:00

Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

18 εἰ δυνατὸν τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν, μετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες·

We've turned the corner from theology to praxis. This happens in all of Paul's letters. At some point he stops describing who God is and then explains what we should do with this knowledge. Not coincidentally, that's also how a good sermon should go. It's important to get this straight lest we slip into legalism. If one were to preach anything in Romans 12-16 without first addressing the material in Romans 1-11 then he may as well be a self-help guru rather than a preacher. The glib seminary explanation for this is that you must preach the indicatives before the imperatives.

This verse is one that has intrigued me for a while and now that I look at it in Greek it intrigues me a bit more. There are no verbs in this verse. The first phrase εἰ δυνατὸν τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν could be very woodenly translated something like, "If power from you," which should be smoothed out to, "If there is power from you." The ESV translation above captures this well, but it is still interesting to see what they had to work with. The second half has the participle εἰρηνεύοντες.This is a present active nominative participle. Basically, it means "living in a state of peace." According to Wallace, this imperatival use of the participle is quite rare and most of the occurrences are in Romans 12 and 1 Peter. It is important that the participle have no connection to a finite verb, which is the case here.

This explains how we get our English translation. But what to do with it? I have found that this verse can be quite burdensome or liberating depending on how we look at it. It is burdensome in that we are expected to do what we can to make peace. We are to do everything in our power to live in peace with everyone.

However, it is liberating in that once we do what we can then the rest is between that person and the Lord. This means that we cannot force someone to forgive us and live peaceably us. We cannot force the contentious person to treat us well no matter how nice we are. This is vitally important as we can get caught up in our own efforts. We need to do our part and then trust God in His sovereignty.

Saving All Israel

2011-06-05T06:50:00.000-04:00

Romans 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

26 καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, καθὼς γέγραπται· ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ.

I have found that this is one of the favorite proof-texts for Dispensationalists. One cannot escape the construction in Greek. It clearly reads that πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται. The verb is a future passive indicative. The phrase means all Israel. There is no other exegesis than to read this to mean that everyone who is part of Israel will be saved. This is further emphasized by the construction at the end where Ἰακώβ is used as a metaphor for Israel. Does this mean that everyone who has a genetic tie to Jacob and is circumcised will be saved?

This is why one must study hermeneutics and not stop with exegesis. Exegesis is vitally important to understand what a text reads, but it doesn't tell anyone what it means. There is a distinction.

Here we need to look back at the rest of Paul's argument. He established earlier that not all Israel is true Israel. In fact, earlier in this chapter he establishes that there is a remnant of ethnic Israel, but the existence of this point demonstrates that there is a distinction between natural ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel.

So who is Israel? In the greater context of Pauline theology, it is clear that believing Gentiles can be thought of as Israel to some degree. We can create a false distinction if we want, but the language in this chapter, Galatians 3, and Ephesians 2 is pretty stark. Christ created "one new man in place of the two," as we see in Ephesians 2:15. Galatians 3:7 tells us that "it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham," and this theme is repeated throughout the chapter. Therefore, we cannot take this verse in isolation, but as we read it in context with the rest of Paul we see that the term "Israel" goes beyond simply those with a genetic tie to Jacob.

But what does this mean for us? It means that God has expanded His salvation program. In the Old Testament it focused primarily on the Jews, though there were some believing Gentiles (i.e. Melchizedek). Now the focus is primarily on Gentiles since God hardened the hearts of the Jews.

I do need to point out that there will clearly be an influx of believing Jews just before Christ returns. To deny that would be to deny the clear language of this chapter. God is not done with ethnic Israel.

All of this fits into the grand narrative of God saving a people to Himself. And just as the Jews were found like an abandoned baby in its blood, so also we are completely dependent on His grace for our salvation. Let us give thanks to Him as we consider that this Lord's Day.

End of the Law

2011-06-02T06:35:00.000-04:00

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

4 τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι.

Paul is continuing his address to the Jews as he explains the importance of Christ. A quick look at commentaries shows that translating and understanding this verse has had some debate over the years. The word τέλος has a sense of "end" but it can also have a sense of "fulfillment." Apparently few see it that way today, though Barth did. If we see it as "end," what does that mean? It means that this speaks to Matthew 5:18 where Jesus says, For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

So if Christ is the end of the Law then it would seem that there is some tension with Matthew 5:18. Heaven and earth have not passed away, so clearly something has happened apart from that. I think that we get our answer from the phrase εἰς δικαιοσύνην. I'm not sure why that is translated "for righteousness" rather than "into righteousness," and I don't have time to mine the whole entry in BDAG right now.

The point is that in Christ's active obedience He fulfilled the requirements of the Law. As you read through the Pentateuch you see a lot of rules that people had to follow to atone for sin. Yet we know that the Law was unable to truly save. In contrast, Jesus is able to truly save. He lived a perfect life of obedience to fulfill the Law. so as we read the Pentateuch we see all of the requirements of the Law fulfilled in Christ.

This seems so simple, doesn't it? Fundamentally, it really is. Believe in Him and His righteousness will be credited to you by God. However, believing in Him will also change your life forever. This is not a matter of punching a ticket to heaven, but giving your life to Him. I am here to tell you that I would not have it any other way.

The True Offspring

2011-06-01T06:52:00.000-04:00

Romans 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

8 τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, οὐ τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκὸς ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα.

Romans 9-11 gives us a lot of insight as to the current nature of "Israel" and how that term relates to God's covenant people today. Does it refer to people who have a genetic tie to Abraham or to those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ?

This verse implies the latter. Who are τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας? Paul uses this chapter to show that although Ishmael was a child of Abraham, he was not part of the promise. The promise was through Isaac. In other words, having a genetic tie to Abraham was not enough.

What about Isaac? Could having a genetic tie to him be enough? Paul goes on to explain that before either one did anything outside the womb he loved Jacob, but hated Esau. To us this may seem arbitrary, but it's part of God's plan for saving His people.

So maybe it's about having a genetic tie to Jacob. In one sense that is true as the twelve tribes come from him, though two are indirect as they come from his beloved son Joseph. But we know from passages such as Numbers 24 that the ruler was to come from Judah. We see that later in 2 Samuel 7 as God makes His covenant with David.

So does this mean that you need a tie to Judah? To David? To Solomon? To...Josiah? Who are the σπέρμα of Abraham?

The good news is that we have Christ, so we can see how this all works out. True Israel today is not associated simply with being able to trace genes to any of these men. It comes from being a new creation in Christ. To be sure, God is not done with those who have a genetic tie to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But as things stand right now we who are in Christ are part of Israel. Let's enjoy the blessings that come from being added to God's covenant people. We are just as deserving as Jacob was--meaning that we don't deserve it one bit. But we can still rejoice in being chosen by grace.

On Our Side

2011-05-31T21:04:00.000-04:00

Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

31 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν πρὸς ταῦτα; εἰ ὁ θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τίς καθ᾽ ἡμῶν;

This is one of those very simple verses that packs a great punch. This comes after Paul describes what theologians call the ordo salutis, which refers to the order of events by which man is saved. I've heard the previous verses described as a "golden chain" as God links things together for our salvation and His glory. Paul then writes this verse immediately afterward.

The key phrase does not even have a verb in it. εἰ ὁ θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τίς καθ᾽ ἡμῶν; This is a first-class condition. As we read this, we should assume that God is indeed for us. We have to supply the verbs as it literally reads, "If God for us, who against us?" Really that says it all, doesn't it?

If we really believe this and really submit to His will then there is no room for anxiety. The command of Philippians 4:16 is hardly burdensome if we truly believe this verse. How can we be anxious? God is for us. That means that no matter what happens it is ultimately for our good and for His glory.

Now I would probably not lead with that to someone in Joplin, MO whose neighborhood was just devastated by a tornado. But I would try to get there. Most people know Romans 8:28 about how God works all things together for the good of those who love Him. This verse is a corollary to that. If we are children of God then God is for us. Therefore, no matter what happens is ultimately part of His will for our lives.

What we then have to decide is whether or not God is worthy of our trust. How we react to trials will give us the answer to that pretty quickly. Do we trust Him or don't we? He is for us. What can possibly stand against Him? Satan can resist Him, but we know how it will all work out in the end.

The Ongoing Battle

2011-05-31T20:57:00.000-04:00

Romans 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

23 βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου.

This comes at the end of a chapter that is somewhat debated. Is Paul speaking of himself in his redeemed or unredeemed state? I don't see any reason from the context to think that he has had a flashback to his unredeemed state. No, I think that he is speaking to his current life as a believer who has to constantly fight his flesh.

I wanted to focus on this verse because of the struggles I've had with this in the past. The most egregious was when I used this whole passage to justify my life of ongoing sin. After all, I could look at the Apostle Paul and his struggles. If he struggled with sin then why couldn't I? Besides, he also had a thorn in his flesh, right?

That's a fairly obvious one to debunk. But I think there is something more subtle here as well. I kind of slipped into gnosticism with this verse. In fact, I would say that the language I used while with Setting Captives Free was more or less gnostic. I started to equate the flesh with evil. That is certainly a fair inference from what Paul writes if we take this passage in isolation.

However, that's not the overall sense of biblical revelation. Solomon spoke of the joys of physical pleasure and even wrote a whole book about sex. Paul addresses eating in 1 Corinthians. He puts it in its proper place by telling us to sacrifice our freedoms for the sake of the consciences of others, but he also seems to imply that we can eat with gladness. In other words, we do not need to be ascetics.

The point is that we need to take a reformed view of the body. God made our bodies for our good and His glory, just like everything else. All things were created for Him (Colossians 1:16). I do not think that Scripture calls us to asceticism, but to discipline. We are to discipline our bodies and make them our slaves, but we do not need to run in fear of our bodies. We do need to subdue them to the will of God, but we should also enjoy the good things He created out of common grace like food, the beach, sunsets, the mountains, sex, etc.

Maybe you've not had this problem. However, if you've had any experience in Independent Baptist Fundamentalism I suspect you have. Enjoy God's common graces!

How We Must Live

2011-05-27T06:48:00.000-04:00

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

22 νυνὶ δὲ ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας δουλωθέντες δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἔχετε τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν εἰς ἁγιασμόν, τὸ δὲ τέλος ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

This is the chapter that begins with the rhetorical question as to whether we should go on sinning so that grace may abound. Paul responds with the emphatic μὴ γένοιτο, which is translated "by no means" in the ESV. I think a stronger translation is something like, "may it never happen!" or "let it never be so!" though of course neither of those flow as nicely in English.

The point is that Paul uses this chapter to explain what it means to be a child of God. The key phrase here is νυνὶ δὲ ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας δουλωθέντες δὲ τῷ θεῷ. The words ἐλευθερωθέντες and δουλωθέντες are both aorist passive participles. They get a verbal sense to them with the pronoun νυνὶ. What he is saying is just what the text says in the ESV. He is saying that two things happened when we were saved. First, we were set free from sin. Second, we became slaves of God.

The reason I want to emphasize this is because Americans in particular tend to minimize the idea of slavery in the New Testament. We might go on and on about what slavery meant in that culture as we try to explain Colossians 3:22 or Ephesians 6:5. No matter how we slice it, a slave was bound to his master. Therefore, he had to do his master's will.

If we are truly saved then we are slaves of God. Now of course slaves disobey from time to time. We will deal with that tomorrow. The point is that we need to be in the mindset of total devotion to the Lord. To think less is to minimize what happened on the cross.

Where are you? Are you a slave of God or of sin? It's going to be one or the other.

Still Paying

2011-05-26T06:43:00.000-04:00

Romans 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

17 εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ὁ θάνατος ἐβασίλευσεν διὰ τοῦ ἑνός, πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσιν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Paul continues his argument explaining the problem of sin and the need for justification. Here he uses a first-class conditional sentence, as seen by his use of εἰ followed by the verb ἐβασίλευσεν in the indicative. According to Wallace, a first-class condition assumes truth for the sake of argument. Here Paul assumes that death reigned through Adam because of his sin. We of course know this to be true because we have the record of Genesis to tell us this.

This verse is one of those verses that pretty much encapsulates the gospel. All of humanity has a problem because of Adam. We are born with a sin nature, which means that we are sinners by nature and by choice. In other words, we come into the world with an inclination to sin and that is just what we do. We are free to choose, but because our nature is bent toward sin we choose sin. This alienates us from God.

But the the second half of this verse is pregnant with hope, isn't it? Here we see that despite our sin problem God gave us a solution in Christ. It is a gift that God offers everyone. The question is whether or not we will take it.

I realize that this would be a fine place to split hairs about election and God's sovereignty. The problem is that I don't know who the elect are. Spurgeon famously said that if God put a yellow stripe on the back of all the elect then he would be in the business of lifting men's shirt tails. But since God didn't do that he had to preach with the assumption that the elect would hear and believe the gospel. That's what I'm trying to do here. My prayer is that those who read this would accept the free gift of grace that God offers.

Who are the Heirs?

2011-05-25T20:38:00.000-04:00

Romans 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

14 εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐκ νόμου κληρονόμοι, κεκένωται ἡ πίστις καὶ κατήργηται ἡ ἐπαγγελία·

We continue walking through Paul's argument here. Basically, what Paul has told us is that circumcision is not what saves anyone. Works cannot save. It is through faith and faith alone that we are saved.

What does this mean? As a Gentile, I am thrilled that God would open up His kingdom to me. Frankly, I deserve nothing better than the Moabites got, for example. I would be, as David put it in 1 Samuel 17, an uncircumcised Philistine. Or at least I may as well be because I am not a Jew.

Yet in His grace God chose to save Gentiles as well as Jews. It is not those who adhere to the law, but those who have faith that are saved. The personal application is that we must know Christ. We'll keep building on this as we go through Romans.

On a more global scale, this tells us that we need to be careful about mixing up the current nation-state of Israel with the Israel spoken of in Scripture. Yes, God still has a plan for these people and they will be gathered in at the end of the age. But we don't have to get all worked up over the President's plea for them to retreat to their 1967 borders. I don't want to get too political on this blog, but I do ask that you think through the implications of this combining of Jew and Gentile as it pertains to politics. Things are not quite as simple as some would make them seem.

The God of Everyone

2011-05-24T16:45:00.000-04:00

Romans 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, ³⁰ since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

29 ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν, ³⁰ εἴπερ εἷς ὁ θεὸς ὃς δικαιώσει περιτομὴν ἐκ πίστεως καὶ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τῆς πίστεως.

This is how Paul ends a pretty lengthy and difficult argument. Frankly, I don't get a ton out of this when I read it in Greek because it is difficult to follow his arguments. But a quick read in English clears things up.

Paul begins chapter 3 by asking if there is any advantage to being a Jew. It seems that they do have an advantage in that God chose them to speak His Word. We call that the Old Testament. He also used the Jews to bring the Savior of the world in Jesus. In that sense there is a huge significance to being an ethnic Jew.

However, he ends the argument with these rhetorical questions. When he uses the construction οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν he is basically saying, "isn't that so?" That's what the particle οὐχὶ does. It's sort of like the French phrase "n'est-ce pas" that is tacked on to the end of a sentence when you expect a positive answer.

The point is that Paul is leveling the playing field between Jews and Gentiles. When Paul refers to the "circumcised" or the "uncircumcised" he is referring to Jew and Gentile. Basically, he is dividing the world into two classes of people - Jews and non-Jews. That includes everyone. And he says that God will justify everyone by faith.

In other words, genetics will not save anyone. Removal of foreskin on the 8th day will not save anyone. Only faith will save people. That faith needs to be in Christ. If you are reading this and are Jewish I entreat you along with Paul to trust in Christ as Messiah. If you are reading this and are not Jewish I entreat you along with Paul to trust in Christ as the one will justify you before the Lord. In other words, I don't care who you are -- you need Christ. Will you trust Him?

Being a Jew

2011-05-23T06:59:00.000-04:00

Romans 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

29 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι, οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.

This is the end of a long argument that Paul makes about what it means to be a Jew. He uses the word τῷ κρυπτῷ to describe what it means to truly be a Jew. This word means "hidden," which certainly stands in start contrast with the sign of circumcision. His point is that one's ancestry is not the important thing here. Even the sign of circumcision is not the important thing. It is a matter of the heart.

I won't go so far as to say that God has finished with ethnic Israel. We will see more about that as we go through this book. But what is undeniable is that somehow Israel and the Church are combined right now. We will definitely see more of that as we go through Romans. If we know Christ then we are sons of Abraham. But we're not just any sons of Abraham. Ishmael was a son of Abraham too, but we see that his descendants build mosques and a few of them crash airplanes into buildings.

We are Abraham's covenant children if we are in Christ. We will see more of this in Colossians 2 as well. Of course, this is all fascinating in its own way, but what difference does this make to us? It means that as Gentiles we should be completely cut off from the blessings of God. But as sons of Abraham we get to enjoy salvation and blessing.

I just finished going to school with some people who make a huge deal about the Jew. We should make a big deal out of them because the Bible does. We need to make sure that we realize how Christ is at the center of all of this. It is not about the nation of physical descendants of Abraham anymore, but about the spiritual descendants. Those are the true Jews. So, in a manner of speaking, I am more Jewish than Jerry Seinfeld.

Come, Lord Jesus!

2011-05-21T07:34:00.000-04:00

Revelation 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

20 Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα· ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

I find it interesting that I read this chapter today. As most people have heard, there is a guy in California named Harold Camping who has predicted the rapture today. It seems that he has been able to discern something in the Bible that leads him to calculate today as the day of Christ's return for His people. It seems ironic to me that he could have scoured the Bible so thoroughly and missed Matthew 24:36, but apparently he did.

This verse actually gives the Preterist some weight to his argument. After all, Jesus says ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. The particle ναί gives a sense of emphasis to the affirmative. The word ἔρχομαι is in the middle voice, so it is difficult to pin down exactly. You can't necessarily put it in the future tense. I think that the word ταχύ is the really interesting one. I learned the gloss "quickly" for it. I checked the NIV, NASB, and the KJV on this. The KJV is the only one that translates it "quickly" rather than "soon."

I'm not sure that is incredibly significant, but understanding it as "quickly" indicates more a sense of manner than time. For what it's worth, Beale agrees with the idea of "quickly" as well. If we take it as "soon" then we have a strange case where Jesus' version of "soon" does not look anything like what we would consider "soon." But if we take it as "quickly" we understand that when He comes it will be sudden and decisive. That seems to make a lot more sense.

We need to remember that when it comes to eschatology there is a sense of already and not yet. Here in the present age there are some things that Christ inaugurated at the cross. However, we wait for the final consummation upon His return. That's what this verse points us to.

My prayer is the same as John's. I want to see Christ come. I'd love for Harold Camping to be right for myself, but it grieves me to consider all those who do not know Christ. We need to balance this hope with 2 Peter 3:9. Let's remember this as we hope for His return, but also as we share the gospel with those who do not know Him.

Back in the Fire

2011-05-19T07:04:00.000-04:00

Revelation 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

10 καὶ ὁ διάβολος ὁ πλανῶν αὐτοὺς ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ θείου ὅπου καὶ τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης, καὶ βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

We saw yesterday that the beast and the false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation 19. Here it appears that Satan joins them and this is a continuation of what was described in Revelation 19. However, the language in this verse is a bit ambiguous. The English translations have to add "were" to this phrase: ὅπου καὶ τὸ θηρίον καὶ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης because it lacks a verb. It is very literally "where also the beast and the false prophet." This means that the tense of the verb is an interpretive decision. It could just as easily be "are" or "will be."

Beale gives the following explanation:

The devil is again highlighted as the one who deceived the nations to attack the saints. His deceiving activities are mentioned again to show that he will undergo judgment because of such deception. He will be “cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also the beast and false prophet [supply “are” or “will be cast”]” (see on 14:10 for the OT background of “fire and brimstone”). The devil is cast into the fire together with or immediately after his two fiendish allies. The probability that 20:7–10 is a recapitulation of 19:17–21 makes unlikely the supposition that he is cast into the fire ages after his Satanic cohorts have gone into the fire at the end of ch. 19. Some think that for 20:10 to recapitulate the events associated with the demise of the beast and false prophet we would need more explicit language, something like “After the battle of Gog and Magog, Satan was thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast and false prophet.” But this is not a necessary expectation, especially since the style of recapitulations in the OT prophetic literature is not characterized by such explicitness, nor are the recapitulations elsewhere in Revelation so characterized.

G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 1028.

Of course, here he makes an assumption as well. He is assuming that this is a recapitulation of what was described in chapter 19. But I think that his last sentence is compelling. We've already seen how Revelation keeps recapitulating itself. Or, as I have heard it said, the book of Revelation is like getting different camera angles on a close play while watching a football game on television. The point is that it is perfectly plausible to see this as a recapitulation rather than as a continuation of the same vision described in Revelation 19.

What this means is that if you see this as a recapitulation you are likely to end up amillenial like Calvin, Luther, and most of the historic church. If you see this as a continuation from chapter 19 you are likely to be premillenial like Piper, MacArthur, and much of the modern church. Salvation does not hinge on how you interpret this, but it is something to consider.

Final Judgment

2011-05-18T07:05:00.000-04:00

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.

20 καὶ ἐπιάσθη τὸ θηρίον καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης ὁ ποιήσας τὰ σημεῖα ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, ἐν οἷς ἐπλάνησεν τοὺς λαβόντας τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ θηρίου καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας τῇ εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ· ζῶντες ἐβλήθησαν οἱ δύο εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς τῆς καιομένης ἐν θείῳ.

This is what happens after the return of the coming King who will defeat Satan once and for all. We see the King in the previous verses. I know that I write this a lot, but I cannot emphasize too strongly how He is going to return. We have emasculated Jesus in our culture and reduced Him to a hippie in a pink dress. He is going to return as a conquering warrior. This is the hope that we have as Christians.

I'm going to write more tomorrow as there is something in the next chapter that seems to merge with this. I'm tempted to consult some commentaries, but I'm going to try to stick to the text by itself. In the meantime, consider this Jesus that the book of Revelation describes. In the gospels we see Him as a suffering servant. Here we see Him as a conquering King. The question you need to answer is whether He is your King right now. Are you going to submit to Him now or when you are forced to later?

Final Justice

2011-05-17T05:38:00.000-04:00

Revelation 18:20 Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"

20 Εὐφραίνου ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ, οὐρανὲ καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται, ὅτι ἔκρινεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ κρίμα ὑμῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς.

This comes at the end of chapter 18, which describes the ultimate fate of Babylon. Babylon is portrayed as a city of great wealth, but also of great sin. It is ultimately judged and will be destroyed. One could even conceivably make a parallel of what happened with New York on 9/11, but I don't think that is what this passage refers to. It is possible that is what John was predicting, but it is highly unlikely.

I do, however, suspect that Babylon is a metaphor of some kind. John and his audience would think of the actual city of Babylon. After all, it was Babylon that led to their captivity. But here we get a vision of Babylon falling some time in the future. At least, that's what we get if we take Revelation to be a continuous story speaking of the future.

Basically, we are left with three interpretive options:

The futurist view of Revelation is wrong and this speaks of a judgment already past from our perspective
The city of Babylon will be rebuilt, will regain its former splendor, and will then be destroyed
It is symbolic for a great city that is a hub of sin and rebellion

I'm inclined toward the third view. This is something that I need to study more deeply before I make any kind of final decision though. What do you think?

Once More

2011-05-11T06:36:00.000-04:00

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

9 καὶ ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὁ καλούμενος Διάβολος καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς, ὁ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην, ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐβλήθησαν.

As I noted in my previous post, we see cycles happening in the book of Revelation. Here we see the great dragon ἐβλήθη. This is an aorist to show that at some indefinite time he saw the dragon thrown down. It's not necessarily puncticular as some older theologians may say, but it did happen sometime. It's certainly not a continuous action.

My reason for bringing this up is to emphasize that Revelation probably should not be read as one continuous story. That is how I'm learning to read it in seminary, but I don't think that is right. One way I've heard it described is cameras at a football game. Think about when there is a close play on the sideline where you're not sure if the receiver got both feet in with control of the ball. You first see the play at full speed with one angle. Then you might see a reverse angle. Then you might see a view from across the sideline at 90 degrees from the play. Then you might see another view from straight above. Then there is the view down the sideline.

I think that's a good metaphor for how the story unfolds in the book of Revelation. Try reading it in that light and see what you find.

Round and Round

2011-05-07T09:40:00.000-04:00

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit.

1 Καὶ ὁ πέμπτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν· καὶ εἶδον ἀστέρα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεπτωκότα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ κλεὶς τοῦ φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσου

My point today is not so much exegetical as it is hermeneutical. The question is how we should read the book of Revelation. If we take the simplest approach, we just read it like a sequential letter. We take the first three chapters to be like a straight epistle and then we take the rest to be a description of what will happen at the end of time.

However, there is another way that I think is perhaps more plausible. Instead of reading it like a sequence of events, perhaps we should read it as sort of a commentary on itself. It looks like concentric circles that get larger and larger in scope. I'm not going to detail every example, but this is one of them. It seems like this is retelling what we just saw in chapter 8 with Wormwood falling to earth. In other words, I don't think it is a separate event.

I don't really have time to develop this more deeply right now, but I just wanted to point out that there are different ways to read Revelation. Obviously they are not all legitimate since God did not write it with multiple meanings in mind. However, I would submit that perhaps the literalistic method is not the best. I realize that is a heretical idea to a dispensationalist and I also realize that this opens the door a crack for liberalism to barge its way in. However, I also think that a plain reading of Revelation makes a lot more sense if we see it a continually retelling a story and elaborating on it each time rather than a straight sequence of events.

The Wrath of the Lamb

2011-05-06T19:16:00.000-04:00

Revelation 6:16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb,

16 καὶ λέγουσιν τοῖς ὄρεσιν καὶ ταῖς πέτραις· πέσετε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου,

If you were to take this verse completely out of context it would look absolutely ridiculous. The phrase τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου looks completely absurd. It's certainly not something that seems to warrant the preposition ἀπὸ which means "from," but it has the sense not so much of place like εκ does, but it has the idea of being kept apart from something. Their prayer is to be protected from the wrath of the lamb.

You will notice that in this verse the word "Lamb" is spelled with a big "L." It has to be or else it would not make any sense. A fully-grown sheep is hardly threatening. Who is afraid of a lamb? Lambs are for petting zoos. They are certainly not an animal to be feared. You should worry about an angry ram, but not an angry lamb. I keep thinking of the puppet Lambchop.

The point is that Jesus came to be the sacrificial lamb for the world. He was the perfect Passover lamb. He died a humble death on a Roman cross. Just like how the Passover lamb saved the Jews from God's wrath, Jesus' blood saves us from God's wrath and will save us from the judgment to come.

The problem for those who do not know the Lamb is that He will come back in wrath. He will no longer be like a cute and fuzzy animal to be cuddled. He will return as a conquering king. We can argue about rapture and millenial systems all day. We can talk about the proper way to interpret Revelation for another 2000 years, assuming that the Lord tarries. However, what we cannot do is expect His return to be like His departure. He is going to come back in glory to judge the world. You want to be on His side when He does.

Eternal Praise

2011-05-03T06:51:00.000-04:00

Revelation 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"

8 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ᾽ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες· ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

When I read this I immediately think of Isaiah 6:3. I am fairly certain that this describes the same thing. Apparently God created beings whose sole purpose is to spend eternity worshiping Him. Not that here they are seen in worship of Christ. How can we be sure that it is Christ? Verse 11 tells us: for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. This should remind you of Colossians 1:16 where we see that everything was created by Christ and for Christ.

So what do we make of this? There are some who consider this to be a very boring picture of heaven. Basically, these are the folks who want for heaven to be like a really ideal version of earth. Imagine your best day ever. Now multiply that for eternity. For some that may be an eternity of eating chicken wings while watching your favorite team win the Super Bowl. For others that may be an eternity of hiking in perfect weather and finding an idyllic scene with a waterfall. These sound great, don't they?

The problem is that they all fall short. I maintain that the greatest days we have here on earth are made greater because they are not eternal. It's no fun to see your team win the big game every year unless they lose periodically. Being trapped in a cubicle farm under artificial light during the week makes that hike in the woods that much nicer. There needs to be tension before there can be release. Read any good story and you will see that.

Why are we like that? Everything goes back to Genesis 3. Thanks to the Fall we live under tension all the time. Our nature is now such that we need the bad to enjoy the good. But heaven won't be like that. Heaven will be ideal all the time.

What does that look like? Unceasing worship of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We will be in the presence of God. And as we come into the presence of God the pressing cares of this world will fade away. As humans we read this passage and think that these seraphim got a bad deal. They remind us of the animatronic show at Chuck E Cheese that can do nothing but sound like a broken record. But what we don't realize in our fallen state is that they have the best job imaginable. They get to exist in the presence of the Lord and worship Him as He deserves.

If that still sounds boring to you, please let me know. We need to talk about who God is.

Keep the Love

2011-05-02T06:36:00.000-04:00

Revelation 2:4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.

4 ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες.

This is one of those verses where different translations communicate very different meanings. That phrase at the end is sometimes difficult. Should τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες be "the love you had at first," or should it be "your first love?" I can see a pretty compelling argument for the latter, as do the translators of the KJV and the NIV. The word σου is in the genitive, so there is definitely a sense of possession here. It links two accusatives together: τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην, so they should probably be taken together as the object of what was abandoned. It probably goes with τὴν ἀγάπην, which gives more credence to the KJV. However, that leaves the other accusative just hanging there.

I can see the reason behind this translation. John accuses the church in Ephesus of abandoning your love, the first one. This is because both of the accusatives are tied together with the genitive. The KJV translation is perfectly valid too, but this also seems to make more sense theologically, which is important as well.

Basically, John accuses the church in Ephesus of starting out great, but then losing some of the fire while keeping up the motions. This verse hits me upside the head every time I read it now that I understand it properly. This is a microcosm of my spiritual walk. It's not that I ever abandoned my first love, which is Jesus. But it's that I lost the love that I had at first.

Of course, the cure is the gospel. That's always the cure. We need to remain steeped in it so as to keep the fires going. If we remember who we are and from what we've been saved how can we help but be in love with the Savior? To do less is to severely cheapen grace.

The Coming King

2011-04-29T06:51:00.000-04:00

Revelation 1:14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, ¹⁵ his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.

14 ἡ δὲ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ τρίχες λευκαὶ ὡς ἔριον λευκόν ὡς χιὼν καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλὸξ πυρὸς ¹⁵ καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ ὡς ἐν καμίνῳ πεπυρωμένης καὶ ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ ὡς φωνὴ ὑδάτων πολλῶν,

In case you're wondering, I'm trying to follow the Johannine thread as I go through John, 1,2,3 John, and Revelation. It's kind of interesting to see John's train of thought, though of course Revelation gets a little scattered. This way it is easier to see the language that he uses and how it all fits together. We'll get back to Paul in a few weeks.

When I read this I was struck by the phrase ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ ὡς φωνὴ ὑδάτων πολλῶν. First of all, I find it a bit interesting to see the same word translated two different ways in the same phrase. The word ἡ φωνὴ has the glosses sound, noise, or voice. Since it has the possessive αὐτοῦ it does not make much sense to call it "his sound" or "his noise." The translation makes perfect sense, but it could throw you off if you were not paying attention to the possessive. I've been there.

When I read this I think of the innumerable trips my family took to Niagara Falls in my youth. Even a relatively small waterfall makes a fair amount of noise. A tour of the waterfalls in western North Carolina will make that clear. But there is something different about Niagara. There is so much water going over two very high cliffs that the sound of the waterfalls pretty much overwhelm everything else. You can't hear much else besides the water when you're there, particularly if you are near the falls.

Think of that sound when you think of Christ. Anyone who focuses on "Jesus, meek and mild" has clearly never read Revelation. He is no hippie. He is coming back as a conquering king and there will be no question about who He is when He returns. This is the all-powerful alpha and omega. Are you ready for His return?

A Pastor's Joy

2011-04-28T06:46:00.000-04:00

3 John 4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

4 μειζοτέραν τούτων οὐκ ἔχω χαράν, ἵνα ἀκούω τὰ ἐμὰ τέκνα ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ περιπατοῦντα.

John is telling Gaius here that his greatest joy is that his spiritual children are walking in the truth. He uses a comparative adjective μειζοτέραν to explain this. That is where we get the "than" in English since it is difficult to express this in Greek. The first clause is something like, "I do not have greater joy than this" which is connected to the ἵνα clause. What gives him such great joy? He loves to hear that his children are walking in the truth. Note that he uses the participle περιπατοῦντα, which suggests that he is particularly glad to hear that his children are in a general, continuous state of walking in the truth.

What does this mean for us? It means that we need to walk in the truth. How do we know what the truth it? We learn it by reading, studying, and memorizing God's Word. That's the truth. How do we bless and honor our pastors? Letting them use your beach house for the week is a nice thing, but what they want more than anything is to hear about you walking in the truth.

As someone who is getting ready to go into ministry I can testify to this. I want to see God glorified in changed lives. I know that God's Word is powerful and active. I know that the Holy Spirit transforms hearts. I am fine with someone who wants to apply Galatians 6:6 to me in an appropriate way, but I would much prefer that someone note this verse if they really want to honor me for anything they may have learned.

Any pastors out there who want to comment on this? Is there any greater joy than to hear that your people are walking in the truth?

Proper Discipleship

2011-04-27T07:11:00.000-04:00

2 John 12 Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

12 Πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν γράφειν οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος, ἀλλὰ ἐλπίζω γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν πεπληρωμένη ᾖ.

This is the penultimate verse in this very short book. John does not want to write any more, but he wants to speak face to face. Literally, this is "mouth to mouth," so I'm pretty sure that it is an idiom. The point is that he would prefer a conversation in person over exchanging letters. He then explains his reason with a ἵνα clause. He wants to do this so that our joy πεπληρωμένη. This is a passive perfect participle. Very woodenly, this would be "having been completely filled." Obviously the ESV is more smooth.

This is a verse that I have glossed over many times as I've read this short book. I tend not to concentrate quite as hard at the end of my sections of reading, to be honest. But I think that this is an important verse for discipleship here in 2011.

We are now a digital people. I like email, but I realize that makes me a 20th century dinosaur. Texting has replaced actual cellphone conversations as the preferred way to communicate. We update our friends with 140 character tweets. We update and interact with Facebook statuses. We write blogs. These are all inherently asynchronous ways to communicate.

Obviously John did not have all of these means at his disposal. However, he did have good old fashioned paper and ink. He had the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so he could write a letter like this one under His inspiration. Yet he still preferred to come and talk to the lady face to face. That was what it would take for their joy to be complete.

Why is that? There is something different about meeting with someone face to face. You can't read body language over texting, for example. This is especially true when you start abbreviating everything. I think of this in terms of discipleship. Obviously John was in a position to disciple this lady. It would appear that face to face was the preferred mode for this.

I struggle with this because it demands my time and energy. I can write emails on my own time. But being with someone requires being with someone. It is more messy and more risky. But I can't escape the clear witness of Scripture on this. It's not as if this is the only passage either. Refer to the end of Acts 14 sometime. We need to spend time with each other if we are to grow in godliness. Are you willing?

The Big Summary

2011-04-26T16:59:00.000-04:00

1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

21 Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων.

This is the last verse in 1 John and, frankly, it feels a tad tacked-on. You've read all this amazing stuff about Christ and what it means to live in Christ and then you hit this. Why is this here? John gives the imperative φυλάξατε. He is telling them to guard themselves. "Keep" is a smoother translation, but I think that the force of the word "guard" is better for understanding this.

Why does John add this? I would maintain that idolatry is at the root of all sin. We sin because we have idols apart from God. Let's take an easy one like pornography. This is born out of lust. We have decided that sex is more important than Jesus, so we run to pornography. That's an example of idolatry. Money is another easy example. When we make money more important to us than Jesus we are committing idolatry.

John adds this short verse because this is the key to everything. If we keep ourselves from idols then we will be able to live in such a way as John described throughout the rest of the book. That's sanctification in a nutshell, I think.

Of course, this is very easy to throw out in a blog post, but impossible to live apart from the Holy Spirit. I know this all too well. My prayer is that we all would keep ourselves from idols and run to Christ.

Why Do We Love?

2011-04-25T06:32:00.000-04:00

1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

19 ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς.

This is such a rich chapter that it is almost impossible to know what to write about. This is such a simple, but powerful verse. The chapter is about love and how love is the manifestation of Christ in us. In other words, if we don't love other people then we lie when we say that we know Christ. It is impossible for us not to love if we know Christ. But why is that?

This verse tells us why. We love because He first loved us. There is nothing magic in the Greek. The first person plural is in the present active indicative. This refers to the present act of loving. It is what we do. The other verb is a third person aorist. That means that in some unidentified time in the past God loved us first.

What this verse tells us is the means of how we love - we love because God first loved us. But it also tells us something about the timing. God loved us first. He loved us before we ever loved Him. Other passages shed more light into this truth. We cannot love Him unless He loves us first because we are dead in our sins. Dead people don't make decisions and they certainly cannot love.

When I consider this verse I am moved by God's immense love for an incredible sinner such as I. I think of all the times when I have sinned and cannot believe that He would extend His grace to me. Yet He does. If you know Christ this must move you too. If you're not, then I urge you to repent and believe.

Not to Lie

2011-04-24T18:33:00.000-04:00

1 John 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.

This ends one of the more confusing chapters for the English Bible reader. It looks like it is contradicting itself because previously John told us that if we go on sinning then we are not Christians. Now here we see that if we say that we have not sinned then His word is not in us. What do we do with this?

The answer comes from the verbs. Here the verb is ἡμαρτήκαμεν which is in the indicative perfect. However, the word in verse 8 is περιπατῶμεν, which is in the subjunctive. In other words, what John is getting at here is that if we are living in a continual state of habitual sin then we should not call ourselves Christians. However, if we say that we never have times of sin then we are lying. Confessing sin is at the heart of the Christian life. We can't call ourselves Christians and say that we do not sin.

This is a passage that really puzzled me until I learned Greek. I'm not saying that you need to know Greek to read 1 John, but if you don't know Greek this is where a good commentary really comes in handy.

Third Appearance

2011-04-20T10:22:00.001-04:00

John 21:14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

14 τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον ἐφανερώθη Ἰησοῦς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν.

As we finish out John, here we see Jesus appearing to the disciples and giving them a big catch of fish and a nice breakfast. Just after this verse Jesus reinstates Peter. Here I want to focus on this verse because of what it means.

This verse is one of those where we have to decide if we trust the Gospel accounts or not. If you trust the Gospels you cannot get around the fact of Jesus' resurrection. He appeared to them three separate times so that they would be sure that He really was alive. If it happened one time perhaps it was a fluke from their emotions. If it happened twice perhaps we could still come up with some plausible conspiracy theory. But here we see a third appearance. This leaves no doubt that Jesus really was raised from the dead.

As we find ourselves in the middle of Passion Week, it is important to consider this now. We're getting ready to celebrate Easter. This is when we remember what it is that makes Christianity unique. Anyone can celebrate some equivalent of Christmas because everyone who ever called himself a prophet has a birthday. But only Jesus has a resurrection day.

This should be cause for immense celebration. Because Jesus lived a perfect life, suffered, died, was buried, and raised we have atonement for our sins through faith in Him. We can celebrate our first spiritual resurrection with Him that we enjoyed when we were saved. And we can look forward to our physical resurrection with Him on the last day.

Can you look forward to this as well? If not, repent and believe in Christ.

The Greener Grass Conspiracy

2011-04-19T08:58:00.001-04:00

One of the great benefits of running a blog and following publishers' blogs is that you occasionally get a free title to review. In this case, I got a copy of the short Crossway piece The Greener Grass Conspiracy by Stephen Altrogge.If that name sounds familiar, it's because he authored Game Day for the Glory of God. He is a Sovereign Grace pastor, so that should help you understand where he comes from.

The book weighs in at a modest 139 pages, 10 of which are front matter. It is divided into twelve bite-sized chapters, plus a short introduction. This made it the perfect book to take to the beach since I could honestly say "just a minute" to my three-year old son while I finished a chapter and then went to play with him. Each chapter ends with questions that would be great for a small group discussion.

The overall thesis of this book is that with the Fall came a conspiracy to discontentment. This started when Adam and Eve were not content with God's good provision in their lives. They chose to seek something more when they ate of the fruit. Of course, it's tempting to look down on them in hindsight, but we are no better. We think that they had it completely made in that they simply had to work the garden and avoid a single tree. What could be easier?

Altrogge makes the point that as recipients of the grace of God through the cross of Christ we are just as blessed as they were, but just as discontented. He gives a lot of examples that should hit home with men and women. He deals with the obvious examples for men like status and sex, but for women he discusses relationships. As a man who reads almost exclusively male authors I tend not to notice how strongly biased the illustrations tend to be toward men. It really stood out that Altrogge reaches out to women as well.

The overall tone is conversational and pastoral. I get the sense that this book could easily be a series of conversations over coffee. All the chapters but one open with a very short story that illustrates the point of the chapter. He uses familiar illustrations quite liberally throughout and they keep each chapter flowing. This makes the book readily accessible to most Americans.

Make no mistake, this is a book directed squarely at middle to upper-middle class Americans. This is a book for those who are living in the suburbs and have no serious trials in life. This is a book that will rock some worlds. Altrogge makes that clear by contrasting the trials of the typical American's life with those of people who don't know where their next meals are coming from. And by "typical American" I mean that he uses examples from his own life so that you really connect with him as you realize that although he is a pastor he is just a regular guy too. As with any good gospel presentation, Altrogge describes the situation we're in, explains the problem, and then gives the solution to the problem.

The solution is found in the cross of Christ. What it comes down to is that if we are saved then we need to understand what we've been saved from. We also need to realize the hope that we live for. Our hope is not in more stuff. It is not in relationships. It is not in affirmation from supervisors. It is in the hope of our eternity with Christ that was bought at the cross. This focus will help us overcome the conspiracy because we will realize just how trivial most of our life's pursuits really are.

If you've read any John Piper this should not be a new concept to you. If you've gone a step further and read some of the Puritans then this should not be new either. Altrogge has done a great job of taking Puritan writings and distilled them into an easy, popular form. The endnotes cite writers like Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Watson, John Calvin, and John Piper. If you know these writers you will recognize their teachings, but if you don't then this is a fantastic way to be introduced to them.

However, if you have read a lot of Piper or the Puritans then you can probably skip this one as there will be little new in it for you. As a future pastor, I plan on keeping this book on my shelf as a gateway to those kinds of authors though. I would love it if everyone under my care read and appropriated Desiring God or The Pleasures of God, but I know that won't happen. This slim volume should serve as an easy, accessible way to help folks change their thinking about the centrality of the gospel in all we do. If they want more depth then I can turn them on to Piper. But for the guy who is living Ecclesiastes 1-11, this book will be a huge help.

The Kingdom

2011-04-14T22:02:00.000-04:00

John 18:36 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."

36 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου· εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἦν ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή, οἱ ὑπηρέται οἱ ἐμοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο [ἂν] ἵνα μὴ παραδοθῶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις· νῦν δὲ ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν.

This was Jesus' answer to Pilate. Pilate didn't really understand what Jesus was all about and this answer didn't help things much. But it helps us when we consider what Jesus came to do.

The Jews were confused because they were sure that He came to establish an earthly kingdom. In fact, that's what they asked Him about in Acts 1. They were all set for Him to depose the Romans and set up His rule from Jerusalem. What nobody seemed to get is that He had to suffer and die on the cross first and then be raised on the third day.

Jesus had told them that the "Kingdom of heaven is at hand." Here we see that His kingdom is established. It's just not what everyone expected. Eventually He is going to return and reign in glory over the New Heavens and New Earth. Until then, His kingdom is a spiritual one.

Normally, I have a practical application from what I write, but here I don't. Instead, I just think that this gives me a hermeneutical principle as I read the Gospels. Enjoy!

Tozer and Listening

2011-04-13T06:04:00.000-04:00

I get this in my email once a year and am convicted about it once a year.

Prayer: Take Time to Listen

The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. I opened my mouth and panted, for I longed for Your commandments.
-Psalm 119:130-131

The Quakers had many fine ideas about life, and there is a story from them that illustrates the point I am trying to make. It concerns a conversation between Samuel Taylor Coleridge and a Quaker woman he had met. Maybe Coleridge was boasting a bit, but he told the woman how he had arranged the use of time so he would have no wasted hours.He said he memorized Greek while dressing and during breakfast. He went on with his list of other mental activities--making notes,reading, writing, formulating thoughts and ideas--until bedtime.

The Quaker listened unimpressed. When Coleridge was finished with his explanation, she asked him a simple, searching question: "My friend, when dost thee think?"

God is having a difficult time getting through to us because we are a fast-paced generation. We seem to have no time for contemplation. We have no time to answer God when He calls.
Jesus, Author of our Faith, p. 46

"Thank You, Lord, that You convicted me some time ago about this need for time to think, of the need for solitude and silence. Make this increasingly possible for me, but also for many of my brothers and sisters who have not discovered the value of this slowing down. Amen."

The Whole Point

2011-04-12T17:59:00.000-04:00

John 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,

1 Ταῦτα ἐλάλησεν Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶπεν· πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ,

This is the beginning of Jesus' "high priestly prayer" where He makes an appeal to the Father for the disciples. There is a ton to talk about in this prayer, but I want to focus on this verse. First, we see that ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα. Here Jesus uses a perfect to say that the time has arrived for the cross. Then He uses an imperative in praying for God to δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν. Why should God glorify His son? Jesus answers with a ινα clause: ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ.

What's the big deal about this? I think that Jesus' prayer gives us a model for how we should be focused in our lives. When we talk about the gospel we tend to focus on what Christ did for us. It is true that He died to atone for the sins of the world. To minimize that would be ridiculous. However, we should not maximize it either.

Here we see Jesus pray that the Father would be glorified in the sacrifice He was about to make. The cross is central to everything we do. But ultimately it is not about our redeemed lives, but about the glory of the Father. The change in us should be focused on glorifying God the Father.

With Blinders On

2011-04-10T21:03:00.000-04:00

John 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

17 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει· ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται.

Here Jesus is teaching His disciples about the Holy Spirit. He has a lot to say about Him, but this is one of my memory verses for Pneumatology and something struck me about it as I read it yesterday and reviewed it today. Jesus says that the world οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει. The word θεωρεῖ is what is translated "sees" here i the ESV. When I learned it as a vocabulary word, I learned it as "look at, behold." The word "sees" captures that meaning, but I think that reading it in English it may not be strong enough.

I have met more than a few materialists who are materialists because they say that they only believe what they can sense. Of course, they believe in subatomic particles and all manner of theoretical things because scientists have proven them. They also tend to believe in the theory of evolution because they need something to tell them how we got where we are. My point is not to argue about subatomic particles or the theory of evolution. My point is just that folks who say that they cannot believe in an unseen God will happily believe in other things that they have not personally sensed because they trust the witnesses.

Jesus is telling His disciples that this would be the case and He was right (go figure). The world does not look at the Holy Spirit even though evidence of His work surrounds us every day. The world certainly does not know Him. How could it unless they are regenerated? This is the contrast that Jesus makes. You (the disciples) know Him, because (ὅτι) He dwells with you and will be with you. As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:19, Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit. That is how He is in us. As Jesus was speaking this the Holy Spirit was only dwelling with them because this was before Pentecost.

The point is that the world does not see the Holy Spirit, but if you have become a Christian you must know Him. After all, He is the one who changed your heart. He is in us. What do you do with this knowledge?

Leaving an Example

2011-04-08T06:30:00.000-04:00

John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.

15 ὑπόδειγμα γὰρ ἔδωκα ὑμῖν ἵνα καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε.

I apologize for my lack of posting lately. I am really working hard to finish this semester well since it is my last semester. Blogging has gone on the back-burner, but since Noah woke me up early today I got a good start and have time for it.

This verse comes right after Jesus washed His disciples' feet. There are some who take this passage as a prescription for how we should treat each other in a literal way. They practice foot-washing. I understand that this is prevalent among the Grace Brethren when they have communion services.

I don't think that it is a bad idea for the pastor to wash people's feet, though it would be a bit strange in our culture. I can't think of any men I want handling my feet. The question is whether Jesus is speaking literally or metaphorically here. If you don't like the word "metaphorical" you could substitute "paradigmatically" instead. In other words, was Jesus giving a specific instruction or was He simply giving them a principle by which to live?

I would have to go with the latter. Though this is not an ironclad argument, the fact is that we do not find foot-washing in any of the other synoptic gospels. We do not find it in Acts or the Pauline epistles. I don't know what the practices of the early church were, but I do think that these other arguments from silence are fairly compelling. If it is meant to be done regularly, why don't we see it elsewhere in Scripture?

I realize that this is not a particularly strong argument, nor do I think it is a sinful practice today. However, I do think that we will not go wrong if we take this to be an example of extreme humility on Jesus' part, particularly given the context of the next few verses where He describes the master-servant relationship. We need to humbly serve one another in the body of Christ. There are plenty of examples of that throughout Scripture, amen? Are there examples of that in your life?

Authorities

2011-03-29T15:43:00.000-04:00

John 7:48 Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him?

48 μή τις ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπίστευσεν εἰς αὐτὸν ἢ ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων;

This is the question the Pharisees asked the "officers" who they sent as something of a goon squad to arrest Jesus. The officers refused to do this because they heard the power of Jesus' preaching. They understood something that the Pharisees could not grasp. Jesus was special and His preaching demanded a response.

The problem of course is that Jesus threatened the Pharisees' way of life. If He was right then they were clearly wrong. You don't just take a group of people who have made it their business to be the most right of all the people in society and then expect them to gracefully step aside. The Pharisees weren't going down without a fight. In a couple of chapters we will see how it all comes together.

This is clearly evident in the church today. It started with Rome and the Reformation. You expect to take a corrupt Pope like Leo and threaten him with the Bible? I sincerely doubt that he cared about anything beyond his own glory if the history about him is even partially true. But if Luther was right then that would destroy his whole way of life.

And lest we get on our Protestant high horses about this, take a look at the average megachurch. I just heard a story about a megachurch that could only offer $350/month to a church-planter because of budget issues. This was coming from a senior pastor's office that had a glass wall with a view of the Rockies. I suspect that most megachurches have the same problem. A severely obese person's heart works as hard when he is sitting as mine does when I go out for a run. Because I'm in decent physical shape I can push my body a little bit to run up a hill, climb stairs, etc. The obese person is always in a state of being pushed, so there is nowhere for his body to go.

I hope that the illustration is clear. To embrace the ideas in David Platt's Radical or even Francis Chan's Crazy Love is a threat to the way of life set up by today's churchianity. Why should we have small churches focused on discipleship? Does Mark Driscoll do it that way? How about C.J. Mahaney? John Piper? James MacDonald? No! They all have big churches with home/life/fellowship/small groups. Why should we do small churches.

Well, despite the success of these men's ministries (and I do think that they are all doing great works) I think that we need to let the New Testament guide us instead. Please hear me that I do not think that they are Pharisees either. My point is simply that the leaders and authorities of the day should always be trumped by Jesus. There is just no other way to look at it.

Who is your authority?

Emptied Teaching

2011-03-28T21:03:00.000-04:00

John 7:16 So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.

16 ἀπεκρίθη οὖν αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν· ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὴ ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός με·

Passages like this can put the Trinitarian into knots. I believe that this is a fairly good proof-text for the Jehovah's Witness view of who Christ is. Does this mean that Christ is of a different nature from the Father? If the teaching is not His then whose is it? How can it not be His if He is God?

These are the logical questions that come to my mind. But when I think of things like this I tend to gravitate toward Philippians 2:6-11. That is the great kenosis passage, so named because of the verb that describes how Jesus emptied Himself. By taking on the form of a man He humbled Himself from being simply deity.

When Jesus makes this statement in John 7:16 He refers to the fact that as a man He has no authority. But as God He does. And this ultimately came from the Father who sent Him. In other places we see how folks marveled at His teaching because of His authority. Here he explains it a bit more, but perhaps makes it more puzzling.

The fact is that if the Bible is held to be God's Word we need to live with the tension that Jesus was fully God and fully man as He walked on the earth. Maybe He chose this language because He knew that they could not conceive of how He could be God. What I do know is that it is certainly confusing, but if we accept by faith what Scripture says then we have to live with a little bit of confusion.

No Alternative

2011-03-27T07:40:00.000-04:00

John 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

68 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Σίμων Πέτρος· κύριε, πρὸς τίνα ἀπελευσόμεθα; ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἔχεις, 69 καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

We went from people following Jesus as a mobile Jack In the Box and MASH unit to them walking away when He called them to commitment. Jesus then asked His disciples if they too wanted to leave and this was Peter's response.

I admit that I have times of doubt. I wonder if following Christ is really worth it. I wonder if it is all true. I have several personal apologetics that I go through that help me when I have those times of doubt. Ultimately it comes down to this statement. Jesus has words ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου. I have come to know that He is the Holy One of God. What else is there?

Sure we could follow Allah. We could follow the god of the Jehovah's Witnesses. We could follow the god of Joseph Smith. We could follow our hearts like Oprah tells us to. We could pay homage to nature like the Wiccans. We could worship a myriad of gods like the Hindus. There are other options out there.

But who else has the words of eternal life? Only Jesus. Therefore, let's draw near to God through faith to Him.

MASH Unit

2011-03-26T21:08:00.000-04:00

John 6:2 And a large crowd was following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick.

2 ἠκολούθει δὲ αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, ὅτι ἐθεώρουν τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενούντων.

Jesus did a great job of attracting crowds through His ministry because He dealt with their needs. He helped them in practical ways such as healing them. Later in John 6 we will see how Jesus fed 5000 with a kid's sack lunch. This got to their base desires. After all, who doesn't want to be fed and made well?

The thing is that they were following Him for the wrong reasons. There is a school of thought in the evangelical world that we should attract people based on their physical needs. Or at the very least we should do it based no their felt needs. If they feel like they need help with their marriages then we should preach a series on marriage and challenge them to have sex for a certain number of consecutive days. If they are having financial problems then we should preach a message on stewardship, along with some Scripture-twisting to convince them that 10% is the minimum that a New Testament saint should give. And so on.

Jesus met people's needs, but that was not why His true disciples followed Him. They followed Him because He met their deepest needs. He filled their hearts as in John 4. This is what people need rather than a MASH Unit.

Why are you following Jesus, if you are? Certainly we should enjoy the fact that He does meet our needs, but hopefully we follow Him because He is God.

The New Temple

2011-03-21T13:50:00.000-04:00

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

19 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν. 20 εἶπαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος, καὶ σὺ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερεῖς αὐτόν; 21 ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.

It's funny that when I went through Acts I really struggled to find things to write about each day, but now that I'm in John I have more than I know what to do with. There are great things to write about the wedding at Cana, but I think that this passage after Jesus cleared the temple is worth discussing too.

One of the big hermeneutical bones that Dispensationalists pick with Covenantal folks is that they claim that they are more literal when they read the text. In other words, they take passages literally unless there is a good reason not to. That's certainly commendable as it demonstrates a very high view of the text. However, it is problematic when our Lord does not do the same thing.

If we did not have verse 21 we would think along with the Jews that Jesus referred to the physical temple. However, here the text tells us that Jesus was speaking in a figurative way. He was referring to His own body, which in context would have been completely unintelligible except for the clarification of verse 21. This does not mean that we should look for figurative allusions all over the place, but it does serve to point out that we need to be careful about how we define "literal interpretation."

If we take Jesus at His words then it seems to me that He became the new and better temple. There was no need for the old one because He would do away with the sacrificial system. This seems to imply that the temple described in Ezekiel cannot be a new temple set up in a millenial kingdom with real animal sacrifices on it. Otherwise, that would be going backwards to the types and shadows of the Old Covenant.

Matthew 2:15 shows us that Jesus is the true Israel. Here we see that He is the true temple as well. In short, Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament. He did it in a way that the Jews did not really understand and won't understand until God opens their eyes. Let's be careful about how literal we are and make sure that we are consistent. That's my goal. I'm sure that I'm inconsistent elsewhere. Hopefully this slow systematic approach to the New Testament will help me to see where.

The Word Became Flesh

2011-03-19T06:24:00.000-04:00

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

Now that I've finished slogging through Luke's Greek in Luke-Acts it's time to go back through John. As a preview of what is to come, I plan to go through John, 1-3 John, and Revelation. Then I'll go back to Paul. I believe that John wrote those five books, so I want to get a sense of how it all ties together. Plus, I think it's good to mix things up once in a while.

If you've been around church for any length of time you're probably familiar with at least the clause Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν. This is a clause that maybe gets a little bit overpreached, but let's break it down a little bit. The verb ἐγένετο is an aorist. That means that at some point in time the Word became flesh. Aorist doesn't necessarily mean puncticular as some older preachers may have learned, but what we do know is that at some undefined past time the Word became flesh.

The word ἐσκήνωσεν is also an aorist. This has the idea of putting up a tent to settle down. You may have heard it preached as "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us." I think that may be overtranslating it a bit, besides the fact that "tabernacle" is not a great expression to use in 21st century America. Basically, I think that we can understand this as saying that Jesus became flesh and for a time made His dwelling with us people.

What can we use to illustrate this? Let's say that you felt called to help the homeless. Since you're reading this on a computer I'm going to assume that you are not too badly off in your personal finances, even though you probably don't feel particularly rich. Would you be willing to grab a tent and live with the homeless in the woods near the highway? Let's take it a step further. I have a great box that we got from our new mattress. Would you be willing to take that and live with the homeless on the grates in the city?

To be honest, I wouldn't do either for various reasons. One big one is that it would be really inconvenient. I have a wife and children to love. I have work to do. I have schoolwork to complete. I have grass that needs mowing. I can't spare the time from what I consider to be really important.

Another is fear. Generally-speaking, the folks who are homeless are there for a reason. It's not always true, but there are often stories of addiction or other problematic behaviors. You're telling me to live with these people? I can't sleep with one eye open.

That leads to perhaps the greatest, but most shallow. It would be uncomfortable. These people stink. They aren't pleasant to be around. Camping in the woods would be great yesterday and today. The weather is beautiful. What about two weeks ago when it was raining sideways? I think you get the idea.

Now take all of those reasons and look at Christ and what He did by leaving heaven and coming to earth to be with us. I don't want to leave my comfortable house in Cary. He left heaven. I don't want to endanger my body. He came to die on a cross. I don't want to leave the comfortable sights, smells, and relationships I have at home. He left perfect fellowship with the Trinity to spend time with people who would all leave Him at His most difficult hour. We truly worship and awesome Savior.

Fully Committed

2011-03-17T21:03:00.000-04:00

Acts 27:40 So they cast off the anchors and left them in the sea, at the same time loosening the ropes that tied the rudders. Then hoisting the foresail to the wind they made for the beach.

40 καὶ τὰς ἀγκύρας περιελόντες εἴων εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ἅμα ἀνέντες τὰς ζευκτηρίας τῶν πηδαλίων καὶ ἐπάραντες τὸν ἀρτέμωνα τῇ πνεούσῃ κατεῖχον εἰς τὸν αἰγιαλόν.

This is a verse in the shipwreck narrative. Paul gave the sailors a little "told you so" and then watched as they resigned themselves to the destruction of their ship. Some tried to escape, but he explained the need for everyone to stay on the ship. The rest of the sailors agreed with him and they stayed on board. Then as their plight went on for a full fortnight they eventually realized that they had to just let the ship run aground.

I'm no sailor, but I would think that in general you would not just cut the anchors unless you had given up on ever using the ship the same way again. You would reel them in. But once you realize that your ship is lost then there is no need for an anchor.

I understand that the point of this text is not to teach us about being fully committed. However, as I read this today I was struck by the resignation of the sailors. They realized what was going on and they became intensely practical. I am reminded of the movie "The High and the Mighty" where the passengers had to get rid of all unnecessary weight so that the plane could make it through the rest of its flight. One woman kissed her fur coat goodbye before throwing it off the plane. But she still threw it off.

I am just struck by the intense practicality of the sailors. In a previous verse they had thrown all the wheat into the sea. There was no reason to hold on to all the stuff because it was unnecessary.

So what are you holding on to? Again, I would not preach this as an application to this text, but as I read it this morning this occurred to me. This blog is meant to be something of an online journal as I read through some text every day. I think my question is certainly biblical. How do you answer it?

Working the System

2011-03-13T20:14:00.000-04:00

Acts 25:11 If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar."

11 εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀδικῶ καὶ ἄξιον θανάτου πέπραχά τι, οὐ παραιτοῦμαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν· εἰ δὲ οὐδέν ἐστιν ὧν οὗτοι κατηγοροῦσίν μου, οὐδείς με δύναται αὐτοῖς χαρίσασθαι· Καίσαρα ἐπικαλοῦμαι.

I admit that I am always looking for ways to work the system. It doesn't matter which specific system it is. I just want to squeeze out the most efficiency and benefit that I can. It may be a trip for work where I can find a way to do something else on the side. It may be something as simple as an errand where I realize that I can do something else besides what I originally meant to do. The point is that I always like to find a benefit, particularly when it does not cost me anything.

I believe that is what Paul was doing here. He wanted to go to Rome so he could preach the gospel there. He could have simply been acquitted of the false charges brought against him, but instead of doing that he worked the system of Roman law. As we'll see going forward, he had a very rough journey to Rome. He traveled as a prisoner and nearly died. But he realized that he could get Rome to pay for his passage to the city of Rome so that he could preach the gospel there.

The point of this is not so much about the value of working whatever system in which you happen to find yourself. The point is that we must be opportunistic about the gospel. Pay attention when you talk to people. Can you work the gospel in to the conversation in a non-forced way? Is there some way that you can get a platform to preach it? If so, take it. But you have to pay attention if you are going to seize these opportunities.

By Any Means Necessary

2011-03-12T08:34:00.000-05:00

Acts 24:26 At the same time he hoped that money would be given him by Paul. So he sent for him often and conversed with him.

26 ἅμα καὶ ἐλπίζων ὅτι χρήματα δοθήσεται αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου· διὸ καὶ πυκνότερον αὐτὸν μεταπεμπόμενος ὡμίλει αὐτῷ.

The "he" in this verse is Felix. He had Paul imprisoned and this is what he did with Paul during that time. He had selfish motives, but he still talked often with Paul. What do you think Paul talked to him about?

I suppose that Paul probably made small talk with him. They probably were able to talk about current events and other mundane things. But I would be shocked if Paul did not regularly turn the conversation to the gospel. After all, Paul was all about the gospel. It didn't matter to him if Felix's motives were wrong, he was going to take every opportunity he had to preach the gospel.

Yesterday I was blessed to have a spiritual conversation with an unbelieving coworker. He is a theist, but just likes to dabble in various religions. I had a chance to talk to him about the uniqueness of Christianity, the historicity of the resurrection account, and various other matters. He hardly bowed his knee in repentance at that time, but I think it was a good chance for me to sow seeds.

I am not very good at bringing conversations to the gospel, but when a good opportunity does arise I try never to shy away. That is something I can almost always make time for. How about you? Do you share the gospel when you have a chance? Do you look for those chances? If not, why?

Good Infamy

2011-03-06T20:57:00.000-05:00

Acts 19:15 But the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?"

15 ἀποκριθὲν δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ πονηρὸν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τὸν [μὲν] Ἰησοῦν γινώσκω καὶ τὸν Παῦλον ἐπίσταμαι, ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνες ἐστέ;

I have pretty much always read this passage the same as Matt Chandler's take on it.That is well-worth 2 and a half minutes of your life to watch as he unpacks this quite well. I too have been fascinated by this brief dialog. The evil spirit actually speaks to these itinerant Jewish exorcists with this great line. They acknowledge the power of Christ (they kind of have to) and they of course know about the problems Paul caused them, but they had no idea about these guys.

Why is that? Well, part of the problem is that they were Jewish and not Christian. They did not have the Holy Spirit so they were really no threat at all to these demons. Why should the demons listen to them? I am sometimes reminded of a scene from one of my favorite vampire movies where the vampire tells a terrified Peter Vincent, "You have to have faith for that to work, Mr. Vincent."

In other words, these men had no power because they did not really believe. They just wanted to ride the coattails of what they saw happening in Jesus' name. They wanted the effects without the cost of discipleship. That should sound familiar to anyone paying attention to the American evangelical scene.

What it tells me is that I want to be known among the evil spirits. I want to be doing enough for the kingdom that at least I'm someone that they recognize. Of course, whether they do or not I still have the Holy Spirit indwelling me. But the point is that I would not want to be a complete nobody to them. I don't want to leave the fight bloodied and naked either. Basically, I want the name of Christ to be glorified in me.

How about you? If you were one of these men would any evil spirits know anything about you? I'm not talking about doing spectacular miracles in the name of Christ, but just for the work you do for the kingdom of God which will naturally oppose the kingdom of Satan. What are you doing to advance the kingdom?

Leading Churches

2011-03-01T18:01:00.000-05:00

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting ^cthey committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

23 χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους, προσευξάμενοι μετὰ νηστειῶν παρέθεντο αὐτοὺς τῷ κυρίῳ εἰς ὃν πεπιστεύκεισαν.

One of the problems I have with blogging through Acts is that I am not always struck by devotional moments to write about. But even when I don't have one of those I can speak to what I believe is a strong doctrinal matter.

There is of course disagreement about whether Acts should be read descriptively, prescriptively, or both. The more strongly charismatic see Acts as being both throughout. Of course, we can debate the matters of the sign gifts like prophecy and tongues. However, I think that this passage pretty clearly shows us how Paul meant for church leadership to work.

He appointed πρεσβυτέρους at the churches. Note that this is plural. He did not appoint pastors to be kings at the churches like bishops. He appointed multiple elders at the churches.

What does this mean? We should follow his model. We do not want to go down the road of the pastor as the king. Instead, we want to follow with having a plurality of elders to run the churches. For more information, this is a great resource.

Calling it Straight

2011-02-25T20:44:00.000-05:00

Acts 13:10 and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?

10 εἶπεν· ὦ πλήρης παντὸς δόλου καὶ πάσης ῥᾳδιουργίας, υἱὲ διαβόλου, ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης, οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς [τοῦ] κυρίου τὰς εὐθείας;

This was Paul's statement to Elymas the magician who was trying to thwart the message of the gospel as told by Paul and Barnabas. I think it's pretty strong to call someone ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης. Obviously Paul is engaging in hyperbole here. Or is he?

The point is that the gospel is righteousness. There is no righteousness apart from the gospel. Therefore, by definition, if you oppose the gospel you are ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης. This is pretty serious business.

The implication of this in our culture is pretty staggering. Take someone like Oprah, for example. She's a pretty good gal by the world's standards. She gives all kinds of high-end stuff away once a year on her show. She does what she can to help what she considers to be good causes. She tries to help people feel better about themselves.

Oops. Right there she is opposing the gospel by preaching a message of self-help rather than Christ-help. You don't have to watch much Oprah to see that she is drawing people away from the gospel and to themselves. Hence, I would put her in the same boat as Elymas here.

It's easy to pick on Oprah and she has almost become a trite example for illustrations like this. My point is just to exhort everyone to think through the messages that we hear. Let's be discerning about them. Are they for the gospel or are they opposed to it? Some may be obviously opposed like the difference between Islam and Christianity. Others are more subtle like the self-help messages of Oprah. Either way, we need to know our Bibles if we are to be discerning about this.

Freedom

2011-02-21T07:26:00.000-05:00

Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."

13 καὶ ἐγένετο φωνὴ πρὸς αὐτόν· ἀναστάς, Πέτρε, θῦσον καὶ φάγε.

This is another one of those verses that make little sense to us in our 21st century mostly Gentile context. Here Peter had received a vision telling him that he not only could, but should go out and eat any animal. Of course, in Peter's inimitable style he rebukes the Lord and is subsequently corrected. I find it fascinating that he is given two imperatives to θῦσον καὶ φάγε. This is not a suggestion.

This is not to say that eating vegetables is sinful. The context for all of this is the strict dietary laws that the Jews received from the Lord. As a good Jew Peter never would have eaten anything considered unclean. Here he is not only given permission to, but he is being told to. This ultimately leads to his interaction with Cornelius, who becomes the first recorded Gentile convert.

I think that the point is that the Lord is forcing Peter out of where he is comfortable. He is very clearly telling him that the old rules no longer apply. There is freedom in Christ for everybody. Go and do the unthinkable -- eat a ham sandwich. Go and do the unthinkable -- tell a Gentile about Christ.

So on the surface this verse is a great argument against some of the crazy PETA folks. While there may be health reasons not to eat meat I don't think that there are any good moral reasons. But even beyond the joys of pork this verse is part of a passage that explains how Christ must be preached to everyone -- even to those we find to be unclean.