Fulfilled Promises

 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?

Portable Water

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

The True Offspring

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.

Being a Jew

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.

Final Judgment

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?

The Wrath of the Lamb

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.

Emptied Teaching

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.

The New Temple

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

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.

What Was the Crime?

Matthew 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.


65 τότε ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ λέγων· ἐβλασφήμησεν· τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων; ἴδε νῦν ἠκούσατε τὴν βλασφημίαν·

(Note: I apologize for the long time between posts.  We were out of town for Thanksgiving.  Also, posting has been less frequent because of a memorization project I'm working on.)

If anyone wonders about whether Jesus claimed to be divine you don't need to look any further than the sham trial that the Jews put Him through.  We can debate some of the phrases He used until the cows come home.  We can wonder how He would have been understood in first-century Palestine.  But here we don't have to wonder.  The text tells us.  The high priest said that He was guilty of blasphemy.

Frankly, if He truly had blasphemed then He would have deserved death based on the Law.  If anyone claims to be God who is not God then He has blasphemed.  This is why the high priest could confidently say τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων.  They did not need any further witnesses if the accused basically convicted himself.  But Jesus was not guilty of anything because He was God.

I tend to gloss through these parts of the gospel because they are quite painful to read.  The injustice done to my Lord disturbs me.  I hate seeing examples of injustice anyway, but when it comes to my Lord it is just intensified.  But I think that we need to slow down here a little bit because we get Christology from these passages too.  Jesus is God.  Let's worship Him accordingly, amen?

The Kingdom

Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."


17 Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν καὶ λέγειν· μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.

There is a lot of talk about "kingdom" in the circles in which I run.  What is the "kingdom?"  Some focus more on an upcoming thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth with the saints.  I have a hard time seeing that in Jesus' statement here.  Very literally you could translate μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν as "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near."  The verb ἤγγικεν is in the perfect, so that generally has an aspect of "has come near" since the word means "to come near."

There are those who would then take this passage and say that there is a near/far aspect to what Jesus is saying. But it seems to me that taking this verse in its obvious sense it would mean that Jesus is telling the Jews that all of the Old Testament prophecies about the kingdom are currently being fulfilled.  And, in fact, in a few years you will see it all come together with my death, burial, and resurrection.

That seems to be the simplest sense of the text.  Maybe I'm applying Occam's Razor too closely to it, but I think that is a good rule of thumb for hermeneutics.  Jesus is telling His listeners that He represents the kingdom of heaven.  It is fulfilled in Him.

What does that mean for us?  It means that we need to repent and believe.  Jesus is sitting on the throne in heaven.  He has inaugurated the kingdom of heaven.  It means that we need to give Him the worship He is due.  We can't simply acknowledge Him as someone who can save us.  We need to acknowledge Him as Lord.

Unworthy to Untie

Matthew 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.


11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·

This is one of those verses that is strange for a native English speaker to read in Greek.  The phrase ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν is translated "mightier than I."  But quite literally you have "mighty is me."  This is because Greek does its comparative adjectives differently than English.  Greek doesn't do "good, better, best, " or more regularly, "strong, stronger, strongest."  Again, you can trust your translators here.

While that is an interesting linguistic note, I think that John's statement is worthy of reflection.  Later on Jesus will say that no man born of woman was greater than John the Baptizer.  And yet here we have John's statement.  He did not consider himself worthy to do the most menial servant work for Jesus.  John understood his place before the Lord.

Do we?  Here in America we try to turn Jesus into a vending machine or a cosmic genie.  We want Him to give us the lives that we want.  Yet this verse makes it clear that we are always going to be subordinate to Him.  If John the Baptizer was not worthy to carry Jesus' sandals, where does that leave us?  It is true that Jesus is that "friend who stays closer than a brother," but He is also God.  We say that He is worthy of praise and honor and glory, etc.  But do we act like we believe that?

This verse helps me remember just who He is.  Let's respond accordingly, amen?

He Has Called His Son

Matthew 2:15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."


15 καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς Ἡρῴδου· ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.

Matthew is making a very clear reference to Hosea 11:1 which reads: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.  If you look at Hosea you see that he is clearly referring to the Exodus.  The nation of Israel was still relatively young, but God graciously called Israel out of Egypt and we have the record of that in Exodus.  You don't have to read the Old or New Testaments very carefully to find that the Exodus is a major theme used to explain what it means to be a Christian.  We are previously in bondage to sin and through Christ we are set free.

Even though this is a repeated theme, Matthew's use of this verse is a bit puzzling.  After all, Hosea was referring to the nation of Israel.  Matthew is clearly referring to the child Jesus.  Although some disagree, I find it highly unlikely that Hosea was thinking of Jesus when he wrote Hosea 11:1.  So what was Matthew doing?  Was he using a Jewish hermeneutic where you can take any language you want from the OT as long as it suits what you want to say?  I don't think so.

I think that Matthew was using typology here.  You also could think of it as sensus plenior, if you mean that Matthew was adding meaning that the original author could not have intended.  I come to this conclusion based on the research I'm doing for a thesis on this topic.  When I have it done I will certainly post it.

But what difference does this make?  I think that Matthew is identifying Jesus with Israel.  Just as Jesus is the better Adam, the better Moses, the better Aaron, and the better David, He is also the better Israel.  He is the consummation of the Old Testament.  Certainly the Old Testament spoke to the nation of people known as Israel.  However, in a greater sense it was leading them to Messiah.  Here Matthew is telling his Jewish audience that in this boy they had the fulfillment of their search.

Every Bible reader needs to decide what is at the center of his Bible.  Is it Israel?  Or is it Jesus?  Israel is certainly important, but I would maintain that Israel points us to Jesus, not the other way around.  I believe that at Christocentric hermeneutic is the way to go.  This verse is a large part of why I come to that conclusion.  Seeing Christ throughout the Old Testament without resorting to ridiculous allegorizing magnifies my view of God and gives me great hope.

No More Hippie

Revelation 19:15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

15 καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, καὶ αὐτὸς πατεῖ τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος,

Although I'm not sure that I subscribe to the futurist view of Revelation, there is still much to be gleaned from it.  Folks of every millenial persuasion agree that Christ is going to return in glory.  This passage in Revelation 19 is one of my favorites because it describes just that.  Sadly, much of the church has the image of Jesus as a hippie in a pink dress.  He is Jesus meek and mild who doesn't get mad about anything and just accepts everyone with open arms.  Of course, He does accept repentant sinners with open arms.  But He does not say that "it's all good."

Here we get a glimpse of how it will be when He returns.  He will come back as a judge.  It is not going to be pretty.  Think Aragorn riding in to deal with orcs.  Quite literally, He is going to kick ass and take names.  There are no two ways about it.

I love this because as a man I like having a hero.  Our culture has made many men into heroes.  They could be suave and tough like James Bond.  They could symbolize raw strength like a character in a modern action flick.  They could be intellectuals like Thomas Jefferson.  They could be complete goofballs like Tim Carrey.  We all have our role models and our ideas of what a man should be.

Let's look to Jesus.  He showed incredible grace and compassion while He walked on the earth.  But He did not just sit quietly while detestable things happened.  He cleansed the temple with whips (perhaps twice).  He pronounced woes on the Pharisees.  He did not back down from fights when it was time to fight.  And He will ultimately come back in glory to judge the world.  Are you ready for that?  Are you going to be part of the nations that He strikes down with the sword or will you be on His side?  You'd better decide now before it is too late because the mercy runs out at the day of judgment.

He is Worthy

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, 10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."

9 καὶ ᾄδουσιν ᾠδὴν καινὴν λέγοντες· ἄξιος εἶ λαβεῖν τὸ βιβλίον καὶ ἀνοῖξαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους 10  καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

We're starting to get into the visions now.  I don't claim to know what they all mean beyond what John interprets for us, but I do know that there are plenty of doxological passages in here.  This is one of them.  John has a vision of a scroll with seven seals.  The problem is that no one can open the seals.  This grieves John because he desperately wants to know what is in the book.

Fortunately, there is one worthy to open the seals.  He is the one seated on the throne.  Based on the description here, this person can only be Jesus.  Or, if you prefer, King Jesus.

I really don't have any profound truths to draw from this.  I think the proper response is the same as the living creatures and the 24 elders.  All we can do is bow in reverent awe of who He is.  Jesus alone is the one worthy to break the seals.  Jesus alone is able to set us free from our sins.  Jesus is the reigning Lord on His throne right now (see Ephesians).  He is the beginning and the end.  Everything in history points to Him.  Everything in the future points to Him.

Yes, He is worthy of our praise.  In fact, only He is worthy of our praise.  What or who else are you praising?  My list is too long to count sometimes.  Let's give Him the praise only He deserves, amen?

The Hall of Faith

Hebrews 11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

39 Καὶ οὗτοι πάντες μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, 40  τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ ἡμῶν κρεῖττόν τι προβλεψαμένου, ἵνα μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελειωθῶσιν.

This ends Hebrews 11, which is sometimes called the "Hall of Faith," kind of like Cooperstown, NY houses the Baseball Hall of Fame.  Here we read about the great saints of the Old Testament who were faithful.  You don't have to read much of Genesis to see some striking stories of faith.  These folks serve to inspire us.  They inspire me because as I look at their whole lives as portrayed in Scripture I see that they struggle with sin like I do.  Yet here we see them commended for their faith.

But what I want to focus on is the ἡμῶν κρεῖττόν τι  that God provided.  What is better for us?  Christ.  He is better than any of the sacrifices in the Old Testament.  He is the perfect sacrifice for sin.  He is the perfect man.  He is the perfect example for us. It is only by His blood that we can be free.

Keep this in mind as you go about your day.  Our natural inclination is toward the Law.  We want to curry favor with God through our lives.  At least I know that I do.  However, Christ already came as the perfect sacrifice for sins.  We can find true freedom and hope through Him.

Do you know Him?  Have you accepted this precious gift of "something better?"

Better than the Prophets

Hebrews 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις 2  ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

I admit that the book of Hebrews has always intimidated me.  I've never been quite sure what to do with it as I've tried to jam it into a theological system.  I've decided that this time through I'm just going to take it as face-value as much as I can.

Even if you don't know much about the book of Hebrews you've probably at least heard the "at many times and in many ways" line.  What did God do?  He λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.  More literally it is that He "spoke to the fathers by the prophets."  But since this is a book addressed to Jews and presumably written by a Jew, it is fine for the author to use "our" here.  Whether or not that is appropriate for a Gentile to read it that way is another discussion.

I notice that there is no adversative in verse 2, but that is added by the translators.  The phrase ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων is most literally understood as "on these last days" or something similar.  We need a conjunction here to make it work as good English.  Incidentally, the HCSB, KJV, NASB, and NET do not add the conjunction, but the ESV and NIV do.  This is one of those places where the ESV goes a bit beyond the literal.

I think it is valid to add the conjunction here because it would seem that there is a contrast between God speaking through the prophets and now speaking through the Son.  You may note that the word "his" does not exist in the Greek, but that it is consistent with the phrase ἐν υἱῷ.

Why am I going into all this detail?  I think it is important that we handle the text faithfully, which is one of the goals of this blog.  And, frankly, because I have a little bit more time this morning than usual :)

What do we get from this?  What I see is that the prophets had their place.  God spoke to the Jews through the prophets.  As we see one fulfilled prophecy after another we can take great assurance in God's faithfulness and His sovereignty to accomplish His will.  But in the times of the author of Hebrews (I suspect Paul, but we can't be sure), God spoke to His people through His Son.

This means that the Son is better than the prophets.  It means that He fulfilled what was predicted of Him.  The Jews missed it as they were waiting for a king like David who would throw off the shackles of Rome.  They didn't realize that Jesus was the better David who would ultimately come to set the captives truly free, rather than simply politically free.

There is much debate about whether the NT should interpret the OT.  When I read this I see no question.  We'll get into this more when we get to 1 Peter 1.  The point for now is that God has spoken to us through His Son.  Let's listen to what the Son and His apostles have to say.  That is not to say that we throw out the OT.  Far from it.  But let us realize that Jesus came as the fulfillment of the law.  I am finding that it really makes things much clearer as I read my Bible.

The Need for Discernment

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι.

Paul is wrapping up this short letter with some commands to Titus.  This is the first of three verses about the kind of person who gets involved in μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις, or "foolish controversies."  The δὲ in there is the weak adversative that we translate "but."  Incidentally, the difference between this word and the stronger αλλα is one of the good reasons to study Greek.

Any conservative reader of Scripture will of course agree to this.  But this is where the discernment comes in.  What is it that makes a controversy μωρὰς (from which we get our word "moron," and in this case I do not think this leap is an exegetical fallacy) instead of essential?  We all agree that the gospel is primary.  When we get to Jude we'll see an extremely clear command to contend for the faith.  How do we decide whether or not it is a vital doctrine or one that is μωρὰς?

Personally, I use salvation as my filter.  Is this something that someone needs to understand in order to be saved?  That's a bit nebulous though.  Does someone need a perfectly-articulated understanding of the Trinity?  Maybe or maybe not, but I would consider Christology to be pretty important.  Relegating Jesus to "a God" as the Arians do is a problem.  Relegating him to Lucifer's brother as the Mormons do is a problem as well.  Do we have to get Jesus right?

This is where discernment is vital.  I think that at the core we need to simply recognize that we are sinners who desperately need a savior.  We need to recognize that there is absolutely nothing we can do to merit our salvation and trust completely on Jesus' finished work on the cross.  If we agree on that as the core then some of the questions I asked above get answered pretty easily.  It does matter who Jesus is because we have to understand Him as fully God (the perfect sacrifice) and fully man (representing us).  We recognize the Holy Spirit and His work in salvation.  This covers the Trinity pretty well.

It's tough to do this though and I fear that I may have missed something.  But what I don't want to do is elevate any secondary or tertiary doctrine as primary.  I will fight you long and hard over the gospel.  I will fight very hard over God's sovereignty in electing and preserving His saints.  I won't fight quite as hard over the mode of baptism.  I will hardly lift a finger over eschatology.

We all need to determine where we put various doctrines.  How many things are in the core that must be believed?  How many do we hold with a fairly tight grip, but can let go of when pushed?  And how many do we hold with a very loose grip?

Thoughts?

Long Night of the Soul

1 Corinthians 15:19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.


19 εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ἠλπικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον, ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐσμέν.

Where do you go when you have a dark night in your soul?  What do you grab when God seems very far away and your faith hangs by a thread?  I have times when I look around at my life and the world and wonder if everything I believe is true.  Maybe Bart Ehrman is right about the Bible.  Maybe the Muslims are right.  Maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses are right.  Maybe the agnostics and atheists are more intellectually honest than I am.  What do I do with all of that?

I run to this passage.  Paul makes it clear that everything stands or falls on the resurrection of Christ.  If Christ truly was raised from the dead then we have a true faith.  If not, then ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐσμέν. 

So how does this help?  There are three possible explanations for what happened to Jesus' body.  The first is that He did not actually die on the cross, but merely "swooned."  Then when He was put in the cave He revived and somehow managed to get free and died quietly elsewhere.  The problem with this is that a professional executioner jabbed His side with a spear and pierced the sac around His heart.  They did not break His legs because they were sure He was dead.  It is extremely unlikely that He merely swooned.

The second possibility is that the apostles stole His body.  There are two major problems with this.  One is that there were a lot of powerful people who really wanted to produce a body so as to stop the spread of the new movement.  They couldn't do it.  The other is that the remaining apostles were all martyred for their faith.  Now the 9/11 terrorists were willing to be martyred for what they believed to be the truth, but could you find eleven men willing to die for what they know to be a lie?  You might, but it is extremely unlikely.

The final possibility is that the resurrection actually happened and that Jesus was indeed the Christ.  That is what I believe because it fits the facts better than any other theory.  Ultimately we all have to decide what we are going to do with Jesus.  Do we worship Him or not?  Everything hangs in the balance.  What is your choice?

Being Known

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;

Some Jewish exorcists thought that they could do what Paul did by invoking Jesus' name indirectly.  They spoke of the Jesus that Paul preached.  The evil spirit was not impressed by this and overpowered them.

This begs a question for us.  Do you know Jesus or do you just know about Him?  Do you know a Jesus that has been made for you either by things you've experienced or things you've thought?  Or do you know the Jesus of Scripture?  Is He a hippie in a pink dress or is He the King of Glory who will return in triumph to judge the world?  One is cultural and one is biblical.

It is vital that we know Him.  When He comes to judge the world you are going to want to know Him.  He is either going to be your best friend who has come to take you home or He is going to be someone you don't know and you will be terrified of Him.  I look forward to that day.  Do you?