Truly Blessed

Luke 11:28 But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"



28 αὐτὸς δὲ εἶπεν· μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες.

This is Jesus's response to someone who commented that His mother must be particularly blessed.  He contradicts the statement with this one.  The statement is introduced with the weak adversative δὲ, which is fairly common in dialog.  Then He uses the adversative particle μενοῦν.  He does this with two participles.  Basically, He says, "The ones who are hearing the word of God and keeping it -- those are the ones who are truly blessed."  That's pretty much the same as the translation, but with a bit of extra emphasis.

My point is that Jesus flatly denies that there is anything extraordinary about His mother.  We know from Elizabeth that Mary is special and that she is blessed.  However, you would think that if she had the status conferred upon her by the Roman Catholic Church it would come through here.  This was a perfect opportunity for Jesus to first agree with the speaker and then emphasize that those who hear the word of God and keep it are even more blessed.  Instead, He uses an adversative.

This is just one more reason from Scripture not to venerate Mary as the Roman Catholics do.  She should be honored and esteemed for sure.  But in the end she is just a woman, though one who was chosen by God for an incredible task  Let's remember that when we consider her, amen?

An Argument from Silence

Luke 9:21 And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one,


21 ὁ δὲ ἐπιτιμήσας αὐτοῖς παρήγγειλεν μηδενὶ λέγειν τοῦτο

This comes right after Peter's confession of Christ.  Of course, the more famous parallel account of this is in Matthew 16.  There Jesus goes into more detail about how Peter is the rock on whom He would build His church.  I think that the language of that passage states that it is indeed Peter and not his confession.  The Roman Catholic Church uses that passage to justify the papacy.

Here we have the same event recorded by a different author.  Luke was not there and was relying on witnesses. Now this does not prove anything, but I would expect that such an important concept as the leadership of the manifestation of Christ's church on earth should be repeated in another synoptic gospel that deals with the same event.  Yet Luke the physician is strangely silent.

Again, this proves nothing, but the silence is rather suggestive.  I don't think that Jesus really intended for Peter to be the first in a line of popes.  I cannot prove it, but neither can the Roman Catholic Church prove its claim to authority from Matthew 16:18 either.

Slice of Laodicea in America

Revelation 3:17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

17 ὅτι λέγεις ὅτι πλούσιός εἰμι καὶ πεπλούτηκα καὶ οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω, καὶ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεεινὸς καὶ πτωχὸς καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ γυμνός,

Here Jesus rebukes the church at Laodicea for being neither hot nor cold.  They were simply lukewarm.  Here He condemns them with evidence of why He would spit them out of His mouth.  It's a pretty indicting list, isn't it?

I think of the American church today.  It is clear that we are rich, we have prospered, and we don't seem to need anything.  We forget that we are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.  And why wouldn't we forget that?  We have built grand edifices to house our "ministries."  We have top-notch sound and video systems.  Our preaching is polished and we could hold our music up against anything published by any label.  It's quite a system we have going on.

The more theologically-minded of us may decry the pomp and money spent by the Roman Church.  The Vatican Museum is something to see and it makes the Protestant wonder how many mouths could be fed with the riches contained therein.  But the same could be said for our megachurches today.  Just the heating and cooling costs alone could feed a village of orphans in Uganda.

I do want to make clear that I think there should be excellence in what we do.  We should preach as well as we can and we should strive to have a gifted preacher delivering the sermon.  Someone with my singing "abilities" has no business trying to lead corporate singing.  But somewhere I think we've crossed a line.  My prayer is that I can be part of a reformation in this area.  Will you join me?

Justification by Faith

James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

24 ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον.

The title of this post and this verse seem to be at odds with each other, don't they?  This is a verse that the Roman Catholic Church uses to defend their view of the gospel.  In fact, the Council of Trent declared an anathema on anyone who believes in justification by faith alone.  Their view of how one is justified before God is rather complex and I suggest you look it up for yourself to understand just how it is different from that which came out of the Reformation and, if I may say so, that which comes from a plain reading of Scripture.

Yet we have James 2 in our Bibles.  Although Luther did take issue with this book, he did consider it to be canonical.  What do we do with James 2:14-26, and particularly 2:24?  The Greek doesn't help us here.  I suppose you could try to do something fancy with the ὅτι and somehow try to suggest some kind of causation with a translation of "because" instead of "that," but I think that the ESV gets it right.  What to do?

To me, this passage stands as a defense of what is sometimes called "Lordship Salvation," or as John MacArthur puts it, the gospel according to Jesus.  It is clear from reading the Gospels that faith in Christ means action.  How can anyone come to know the living God of the universe and not have his life changed?  Everything about a person changes when they know the Lord.  It has to.  Look at what happened to Moses.  Look at the apostles after the resurrection.  They didn't really "get" what was going on until after Jesus was raised and they received the Holy Spirit.  Look at how bold they became afterwards.

I also think that Ephesians 2:10 helps us.  That verse tells us that we were made for good works.  God didn't save us just to stare at our navels and talk theology, despite what some folks may think.  He saved us to action.

To be clear, this does not mean that we suddenly stop sinning.  What it means is that our hearts change.  We go from being bent toward sin to being bent toward the Lord.  There are times (perhaps extensive times) when we go our own ways, but ultimately our hearts are bent toward the Lord.  That's what having the Holy Spirit is all about.  If we accept the gospel merely as fire insurance we have missed it.  The gospel is about God, not about us.

Also, to be clear, we do not do works to earn merit before God, despite what a Roman Catholic might tell you.  We work because we are saved.  We are not paying off a debt (we cannot), but we are acting out of sheer gratitude.  God is glorious and as I've tried to show through this blog, He is worthy of honor and praise.  If we aren't inclined to that then we must question the state of our hearts.

To me, it comes down to a simple question.  If God is indeed God, how can we encounter Him and not be transformed?  Unlike the apostles we have a completed canon.  Let's read it and be changed by this awesome transcendent God that we serve.