Who are the poor? Who are the rich? Who are the hungry? Matthew and Luke have different emphases. Matthew speaks of the poor in spirit. Luke just has – the poor. But which is correct? Is Matthew? Is Luke? Does Matthew fill out what Luke really meant?
What is faith? Historically, Roman Catholics and Protestants differed, and the differences were clearly marked. Rome taught that faith was unformed (fides informata), and as such, it needed to go through a process to be FORMED. In its basic sense Rome taught that faith was marked by ASSENT. Assent to what one might ask? Assent to the magisterium of the church, and this assent is unconditional. What the church teaches must be believed. Unformed as it is in itself, faith must take a journey from being unformed (informata) to that of being formed (formata). LOVE is what gives faith its needed form.
Hello Martin Luther! Luther’s epiphany came when he discovered from the Apostle Paul that faith alone ‘justifies’ (makes righteous), and it does so on behalf of SINNERS. But faith is not formless. Indeed, layered upon the notion of assent, the Reformers painted a fuller biblical landscape and added knowledge and trust. For the Reformation, justification is an in-breaking in the lives of sinners declaring them just, which of necessity expresses itself in LOVE (Gal 5:6). Good works come forth like a fountain – they gush forth in a selfless kind of spontaneity with deliberate focus on THE OTHER. Faith opens the door for love.
For Rome, justification is the process by which faith is formed by love. For the Reformation, faith doesn’t need to be formed – WE need to be formed in love. Faith is the gateway; it opens the door for love’s expression. Furthermore, for Rome, justification is never a sure thing – because it’s never a COMPLETED thing; its destiny is always open and unsure. Where one ends up depends on how one allows love to form their faith.
For the Reformation justification is a sure thing. They distinguished between justification and sanctification. Justification is not only God’s act on behalf of SINNERS. It’s a COMPLETED divine action on behalf of sinners. That’s why God commands us to “fear not,” and to “trust Him.” Trust is an essential ingredient in the faith that God gives us. Faith itself is FORMATIVE – expressing itself in LOVE.
Justification is also gracious and unmerited; indeed, grace is more than unmerited – it is DE-MERITED favor. Yet, as great a deficit as we have (it can never be earned nor repaid); this gift of God (our faith) imparts assurance. We do not wait for love to form our faith; rather, faith comes fully operational, and as such, it imparts comfort and assurance, and opens the floodgates of LOVE.
(Malachi 3:1-4; Hebrews 2:14-18; Luke 2:22-40 / RCL)
Some people yearn for more than a piecemeal approach to their faith. They yearn for something deeper, something richer than an anecdote here and there. The first step in doing this is to understand the overarching purposes of God. We find these in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. There we find God’s three-legged stool: SIN – JUDGMENT – MERCY. This is what God is teaching us in the first eleven chapters – not the only thing, but it is the main lesson. Sin was so bad that he actually DE-CREATED the world in global judgment, and then RE-CREATED it – giving to Noah a near repeat of marching orders that he have given Adam in the Garden. But EVEN HERE, even with a near total annihilation of humanity, it proved to be an inadequate measure. Why? Because the number of sinners was not the essential problem. Sin returned all the more stronger, and the last leg – MERCY, seemed to have been spent. Babel with its judgement was the last train to stop. All hope was gone.
Then came Abram. Abram has theologians troubled. What was it about Abram that God found worthy? From Abram came Jacob/Israel, and what we learn from them is that it was not because they were more numerous, and it certainly was not because they were more righteous. if anything, Israel was a stiff-necked and rebellious people. Rather, it was because of God’s thirst for his own glory, which is the exaltation of his name (Deut 7:7). Israel, then, was chosen because God is free in mercy to distribute it to whomever he so chooses. The hope for humanity lies OUTSIDE of our current resources. We suffer from the guilt of sin AND the pollution of sin. It is God’s intervention that we must have. Death must be destroyed. Justice must be satisfied, and the human heart needs a new creation.
WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
Man is alienated from God by sin.
God is alienated from man by wrath.
THROUGH THE CROSS
God looks on man without displeasure.
Man looks on God without fear.
Sin is expiated and God is propitiated.
Does God have speech? Well, that all depends. He doesn’t have vocal cords, but as a mother stoops to communicate with her child, so God stoops to communicate with us. This speech of God includes, but is not limited to human verbal speech. He speaks through conscience; he speaks through nature; he speaks intuitively. ALL of it is the speech of God.
God’s delightful speech to humanity is when he reveals himself to be the forgiver of sin! In and through this verbal revelation, God’s inner sanctum is seen for who he truly is – He is gracious, slow to anger, and overflows with mercy and kindness. The fact that this speech of God is revealed through human language should be of no surprise nor worse, a stumbling for any; after all, he made us verbalizers, so it is nothing but raw naturalistic reductionism to deny him the freedom to reveal through human speech. Hear ye the words of God through Christ – sin has been defeated! Alleluia!!!
Jeremiah 33:14-16; 1 Thessalonians 3:9-13; Luke 21:25-36
Many scholars believe Luke 21:25 marks a transition where Luke had been discussing the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem (21:5-24), and then switched to discussing the end of the world (21:25-36). The problem with this view is the transition itself; it is blunt, and the transition is anything but clear. It’s so “not” obvious, some would argue – there isn’t a transition!
If there is no transition from the topic of Jerusalem to the end of the world, then it helps with the conundrum in 21:32 where it is said “this generation” shall not pass until ALL has taken place. In this instance, the text would not be addressing the end of the world, but the destruction of Jerusalem, and some who were then living – DID SEE the destruction of Jerusalem! Liberals who believe there is a transition, and that Jesus had changed topics from Jerusalem to the end of the world, feel that Jesus died a hapless death, due in large measure to his eschatology, i.e., Jesus believed, pursued, and proclaimed a “new creation.” Furthermore, he believed that he brought it! He gave himself to that cause, and it met an ill-fated death by crucifixion. He thought he was bringing in the new creation, but alas, Jesus turns out to be just another religious zealot, and those living did NOT see the end of the world.
Historic Christians, however, do not work with the groundless prejudicial assumption that Jesus’ death could be a human tragedy in any final sense. Jesus was not self-deluded. He was not just another religious fanatic. Our Lord’s death was tragic only in this sense – sinners judged and condemned to death God in human flesh. But make no mistake, his death was not intrinsically tragic; to the contrary, it was eternal salvation for sinners!
So what is the meaning of “this generation” that will not pass until all these things take place? That’s a great question! I don’t think we can be rigidly dogmatic here. My sense is that Jesus DOES SWITCH topics from Jerusalem to that of end of the world. The apocalyptic language is too strong to speak only of Jerusalem, e.g., the powers of the heavens will be shaken (21:26). Indeed, it bespeaks of an unraveling of the creation account found in the beginning of Genesis. God withdraws his staying powers, and the world reverts back to the chaos found in Genesis 1:2. In judgment God disorders his ordered creation. It is then that God creates the new heavens and the new earth (Rev 21:1). But the hearers that were listening to Jesus did not see the end of the world, so once again – to whom is “this generation” referring? I follow those bible scholars who believe it references generations of UNBELIEF in one form or another; in other words, “this” generation, i.e., the wicked will not perish before Jesus returns (Luke 7:31; 11:29-32, 50-51; 17:25). In summary, “this generation” is the generation of wicked resistance found throughout time.
Whatever your eschatology, all Christians who hold onto “the faith, which was once and for all delivered to the saints,” (Jude 3) do believe in the physical return of Jesus Christ to earth, and at some point, Jesus will judge the world in righteousness – gifting salvation to those who believe, trust and persevere, and rendering flawless judgment upon those who have rejected his rule and reign. Come quickly Lord Jesus!
(We were without audio for the first 13min, but that is when the sermon begins, so go to the 13min mark and you’ll be fine)
(Daniel 7:9-14; Revelation 1:4-8; John 18:33-37)
What does it mean for Jesus to say, “My kingdom is not of/out/from this world? The church has been debating this from the time Jesus spoke those words. Some say, to use Niebuhr’s phraseology, Christ is “against culture.” We will and must suffer through the very faithfulness to which Christ calls us. The kingdom does not advance through military might nor political muscle. Others (Niebuhr identifies at least five), “Christ is the transformer of culture.” Here, Christ transforms all power through his people who bring all things under the Lordship of Christ. Dominion theology is extensive; no sphere is left unconquered. In our brief summary of three, the last is “Christ and culture in paradox.” Here, no simple antithesis, but no great transformation of this present order either; rather, the Christian’s relationship to culture and centers of power are paradoxical. The believer is called to serve, yet confrontation is inevitable, because “All human action, all culture, is infected with godlessness, which is the essence of sin (p. 154, “Christ and Culture”).
Ever since sin entered the world, man has sought to build his city over against the rule and reign of God. Though it is a project doomed to failure, it is the backdrop of redemption history. Without it, God’s glory is diminished; indeed, it is unrealizable. Letting sin be sin, allowing his people – indeed his own Son – to endure suffering is God’s plan. It’s not some human battle of tit for tat, but a sovereign allowance that serves as a backdrop of the display of his glory.
Is it salvageable? Redeemable? It would appear not. Its antithesis is such that it must be judged and its poison annihilated. In Rev 18 Babylon receives its long awaited judgment. Sphere by sphere, e.g., craftsmen, merchants, artisans, human intimacy, God’s indictment shouts – NO MORE! The city of man, whose posture is unstoppable in its rebellion, is slayed by the word of God. Not until the water of life arrives, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, is there any hope of restoration. Redemption demands an entirely new order, a new creation. We get that in Revelation 21:9-27 and 22. Our response can be none other than the one who received the revelation: “Amen. Come Lord Jesus!”
(some materiel was gleaned from Joseph Mangina’s commentary on Revelation)
(Daniel 12:1-3; Psalm 16; Hebrews 10:11-25; Mark 13:1-8)
In our Psalm this morning we find the tension that is throughout Scripture: God works in you, not to believe through you, but so that – YOU believe! “Preserve me, O God, for in you I take refuge” (Ps 16:1). This request of preservation comes on the heels of a because – “because in you I take refuge.” The cause of this bold request is twofold. First and foremost, because God is trustworthy. Second, because the Psalmist places HIS TRUST in the trustworthy God. Both are true; both need to be present. But clearly, the former (God’s nature) is the fruit of the latter (our trust).
Last week we saw that Ruth was sandwiched between Judges and 1 Samuel, and we concluded that its placement was intentional. It was before Israel had a king (Judges) and the first king (1 Samuel). Ruth prepares us for embracing David over Saul. Saul was unfaithful just like Elimelech was unfaithful. Elimelech left the promised land to find resources in a foreign land, and Saul was unfaithful in not obeying the Lord; Saul sought the blessing in ‘his own way.’ Saul and Elimelech failed to TRUST in the Lord. That is the purpose of Ruth’s canonical placement; it tells us that DAVID’s lineage is where the promised seed shall come (Ruth 4:18-22).
Mark has his own bookends or “inclusio.” Jesus enters the temple in Mark 11:27 and departs in 13:1. Is there significance? I think so. In the Old Testament, and because of Israel’s disobedience, God “departed” his promised templed-presence in Ezekiel 10:18-19. Along with the cherubim (which guarded God’s presence in the ark of the covenant) the Lord departs. He leaves from the east gate of the temple, which is the direction the river flowed from the temple in Ezekiel’s vision (Ez 47:1-12), and which brought life on both sides of its banks – nothing ever shall wither – because the waters flowed from the life-giving sanctuary of God. In symbolic form, Jesus now leaves the temple and goes to Mt Olives where he looks eastward at the temple and speaks of the judgment upon Israel (Mark 13:1-2). The life-giving waters of God’s templed-presence, i.e., Jesus Christ, have departed from the covenant people of God. But Ezekiel will prophesy a NEW COVENANT in which all the types and shadows of water-imparting life shall be substantively present among the people of God (Ez 36:24-27). God’s law and the human heart now dancing together in new covenant delight!
Next we take a look at Daniel 12:1-3. At the opening the writer speaks of THAT time. What time is that? For that we need to turn back to chapter 11, verse 36 and following. There, we find the Antichrist, the one who “exalts and magnifies himself” over against the true and living God, and the same one whom Paul will call “the man of lawlessness” and “the son of destruction,” who then will take a “seat in the temple” (2 Thess 2:3-4).
Lastly, is there any hope in the coming judgment? Absolutely! There’s hope for the wise! The wise are those who have placed their faith and trust in Jesus the Christ. As Thomas Schreiner summarizes Hebrews 10 – Unlike the priests of old, Jesus does not stand in activity; having finished his work – He SITS. Jesus does not offer sacrifices repeatedly, he offers ONCE. Jesus does not offer many sacrifices; he offers only HIMSELF! God will raise them up on the last day. Believers in Christ shall “shine lie the brightness of the sky above…like the stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12:3).
I’m not including the other verses in the readings, as we lost video contact. You will not hear anything on Ruth nor Hebrews or Psalms. I still post it because we got through much of Mark, and I think it’s still worth hearing in lieu of the full message.
I said that I stole my garb from an Episcopal Priest. I wish to make two small corrections. It was an Anglican Priest, not an Episcopal, and I didn’t steal it. The priest – brother Theron – is a friend of mine, and he wanted me to keep it for further accompaniment. To date, I have not returned it, but I am sure Theron is delighted that it used in service of the gospel! 🙂
Jesus speaks more about money than nearly any other topic. Why? I think because money given reflects our heart-strands – we GIVE our VALUES. However, it would be easy to attack the rich here. You know…surplus giving, but as easy as that would be (and we should give sacrificially), I don’t think giving out of our surplus is the big idea (though on that standard, most of us are ‘the rich.’). It has more to do with the widow’s total love-devotion to her God. God does not require the rich to give everything away to the poor, but paradoxically, his calling is even more radical – we must lose our lives in order to find them; we must die in order to live. We must give away all our attempts at ultimate security and happiness through our own endeavors, and to cast all our cares upon him. The problem is…well, it’s impossible. We fail. We fall short. We contravene our own values. Our only hope therefore, is for God to do that which we cannot do. The human heart doesn’t need medicine; it needs an entire transplant! And God does this by His Spirit. He accomplishes this through hessed, or covenant love of kindness, mercy, and faithfulness.
Ruth 1:1-18; Psalm 146; Mark 12:28-34
The King’s Kingly Love is the extension of his justice throughout the land. This justice is administered in and through the law of God written on the human heart, and the gleanings of what some have called ‘natural law’ or prudential wisdom gleaned through nature. He rules the church in and through the total witness of Scripture. Though different, both are means by which he orchestrates history toward the final end, which is His glory.
Of the three major religions, Irving Singer, in his three-volume opus on Love, has unequivocally stated that love belongs to Christianity. Not in an exclusive sense; that would be absurd, but in terms of its defining ethos, and that’s what we find here in Mark’s gospel. What is the greatest of the commandments? LOVE. What is the greatest thing humans can undertake? LOVE. You see, in that sense, love belongs to Christianity. It is its heart and soul; it is who God is.
But this love is a kingly love. It is a holy love. Love is not defined by unlimited diversity anymore than it is defined by an unqualified tolerance. Unqualified tolerance is libertinism and it leads to anarchy. God’s kingly love has standards. His love has form and substance. It discriminates between truth-claims.
The book of Ruth is sandwiched between Judges and 1 Samuel. The book that ends in lawlessness (Judges) and the eventual enthronement of the true king of Israel – David, a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel). Elimelech ‘left’ the promised land, because of famine. He sought strength and sustenance outside of the promised land. Likewise, Saul, the first king of Israel sought to implement God’s kingdom through his own wisdom and strength – outside of God’s promises. He sacrificed the best animals after holy war, when God had strictly told him to destroy everything, and save nothing.
Canonically, Ruth is place between Judges and 1 Samuel to affirm the Davidic throne and promises of God to his people. It hints at Gentile inclusion, as Ruth, a Moabite, displays unwavering faith in the God of Israel. Of course David failed too, but typologically he pointed forward to the second Adam (1 Cor 15:45-49), the one who would NOT fail, but who trusted perfectly as the God-man. That man is Jesus Christ.
(Jeremiah 31:7-9; Psalm 126; Hebrews 7:23-28; Mark 10:46-52)
One of the greatest paradoxes of the Christian faith, is that one must lose their life in order to find it. To lose your life in one sense, is to admit that it isn’t really about you – you are not the originator of anyone’s story – not even your own. You didn’t ask to be born. You didn’t choose your parents. You arrived on the scene with ZERO contribution. Therefore, instead of trying to find God in your story, it is wiser to find yourself, in HIS story. History belongs to Him. HIS-STORY is what brings meaning to our stories. To be sure, you are in that story, or you wouldn’t be here!
So how do we find ourself in HIS story? One way is our baptism. Baptism, which we celebrated today by baptizing Kirby James Cover (parents of Jeff and Carolyn Cover), points us in this very direction. Baptism is a sign and seal of our life in Christ. Our salvation resides in and through him! Indeed, only by losing yourself in THAT sense, will you ever have any hope of finding yourself!
The writer of Hebrews puts together argument after argument that Christ is superior in every way to the old order. He is superior to the Old Covenant’s greatest prophet – Moses. He is superior to the Old Covenant’s entire Levitical priesthood – Aaron and his sons. The typical Jew was burdened with the need for a continuous sacrifice and an ever-revolving door of priests. It’s not hard to imagine this burden – “Is this sacrificial system going to go on forever? Will we forever be offerring our animal sacrifices? Will the stench of burnt meat be endless?”
God’s answer to that conundrum is an emphatic – NO! In Jesus Christ, God himself provides the enduring sacrifice, of which the effects are permanent and eternal! Halelujah!
(Job 23:1-17; Psalm 22:1-15; Hebrews 4:12-16; Mark 10:17-31 )
The heart of the good news of Jesus Christ is the love of God – expressed through propitiation, or the belief that Christ bore the wrath of a holy and righteous God; one who demanded justice be satisfied.
So many, both friend and foe, have misunderstood the doctrine of sola scriptura. It is not correct to say that Scripture is our *only authority; rather, Scripture is our only *ultimate and *final authority.
Last week we saw how Psalm 8 was lifted from its temporal and historical context and elevated to its consummate fulfilment in Jesus Christ. Generic *man became the GOD/MAN. Jesus was Psalm 8’s particularistic FULFILMENT. Jesus, and Jesus alone, was the one who SET ASIDE his *visible authority to rule and reign; in that way, Jesus became – for a little while – a little lower than the heavenly beings, or God (Psalm 8:5). He set aside his visible rule and reign (Phil 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:6-8).
Now this week we encounter Psalm 22 and the cry of dereliction – My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Much of the Psalm expounds this forsakenness. There are – cries, but no answers (v. 2) – poured out like water (v. 14a) – bones out of joint (v. 14b) – a heart that is melted (vv.14c,d) – strength that is dried up (v.15a) – tongue that sticks to the roof of the mouth, so he can no longer speak (v.15b). Indeed, the near breakage of his faith screams. The only explanation the Psalmist can come up with that explanations Yahweh’s silence is that – it must be that he is NOT A MAN (v. 6)! How else could the one enthroned not hear one who TRUSTS IN HIM!!???
Moving on to Mark 10, how could Jesus demand forsaking ALL as the requirement for eternal life, when he accepted Zacchaeus’s double payment to those whom he defrauded? Why did not Jesus tell Zacchaeus, “You must sell ALL.”? Why different standards? But that’s the point, it’s NOT different standards. Zacchaeus was a good tree, a tree that, because of the grace of God, did TRUST; whereas the rich man never did TRUST. The ALL merely *revealed what was truly in the rich man’s heart – SELF RELIANCE.
Of course NO ONE *truly trusts in God as they should. No one, that is, except Jesus. That’s why, when we lift Psalm 22 out of its historical and temporal context, we find its ultimate fulfilment in none other than Jesus, the anointed one of God, the second Adam. He, and he alone, truly TRUSTS God. This trust is found in the cry of dereliction itself. Did you ever stop to realize what little words preface the double forsaken bewilderment? They are MY God, MY God. It’s the word MY. You see, even when Jesus’ humanity was cracked under the wrath of God poured out upon him, his cries of dereliction were prefaced with MY – thus indicating that even there – No! ESPECIALLY THERE, Christ TRUSTED. Because of such trust Luther correctly pointed out that these two small words point us to the perfect and unquenchable trust Jesus had – even as he was forsaken – he cries out trustingly – MY God…MY God. Hallelujah!!! Jesus enables the IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY to become a reality. God will not be denied his people; he will not be denied his rightful rule and reign!
In the twentieth-century, few ideologies persevered like Marxism. Fueled by the founder, the world was the scene in which economics *determined the flow of history. Marxists were confidant that capitalism would fall like a house of cards. They had determination and patience to spare. Why? Because their end was guaranteed; the outcome was certain.
Likewise, Christians have a confidence that is sure. Possessing more than hope, we know the end, which enables the very hope to which we cling. In 1931, Gustaf Aulen, wrote a classic entitled “Christus Victor” in which he argued that the classic view of the atonement was that of Christ as Victor! Indeed, it would be hard to argue against the importance and centrality of Christ’s victory obtained over the powers of darkness on the cross. Summarized quite nicely by our Lord Himself, who upon his last breath cried – It is finished! It would be even harder to argue that the Christian’s confidence is not the direct result of such victory. We know who wins. We know the final outcome. Paul’s confidence in all areas (soteriologically and eschatalogically) rests in Christ’s victory on the cross.
One of our texts (Heb 2:9), however, points to an interlude – a postponement of final, complete victory. This interlude seems to usher in an ambiguity to that complete and total victory – It will come through suffering (Heb 2:10). In Christ’s suffering – his death – he destroyed the one who had power over death (Heb 2:14), which is the elephant in the room with regard to human sorrow. If Christ has suffered for our salvation, we, his servants, should expect the same, for the servant is not above his master (John 15:20).
Psalm 8 seems to simply point to man as an image bearer. Small when compared to God’s intrinsic glory, but as image-bearer and vice regent, it affirms man’s glory as creature. Our Hebrews passage, however, suggests Psalm 8 is filled with eschatology. What do I mean by that? In particular, the consummation of God’s creative act; it declares the focus of Psalm 8 is not generic man, but the God-man, the Son of Man. In other words, from the beginning of creation itself, God had in his sights, the fully glorified man. The first Adam failed. The second Adam rendered faithful obedience and brought God’s original design to perfect completion. Hallelujah!!!
Sin can cause sickness, and in particular, sickness that can take us out – death. We are to confess our sins, therefore, so we can be healed. Not all sickness results from sin, but ‘some’ does, and therefore we should lead lives of transparency, and our sins should be on a short list, so we don’t let them dig down deeply into self deception, resulting in our death. Who can discern his/her errors? Answer: only God.
Battles come on different fronts. We just briefly covered sin and confession. Now we must cover sin’s mortification through spirit-filled dismemberment. In Mark 9, Jesus was symbolically discussing our intense struggle against sin through physical dismemberment, but he did not advocate real, physical dismemberment, but rather the pain and agony that comes from a will that fights for faithful obedience. Deut 14:1 and other texts actually prevent physical dismemberment, i.e., cutting yourself, so the long-held notion of the analogy of Scripture moves us to conclude that there is a spiritual dismemberment through denial of the sinful passions, will and intellect. Its activity is properly put under dismemberment, because it is ever so painful, ever so present, and ever abiding until glory. If Jesus’ imperatives “cut off & tear out” don’t somehow move you, then Jesus ends by saying those who do not mortify the deeds of the flesh in this life will meet with pain that is eternal and will be everlasting – hell.
Where is grace in all of this “effort?” It sounds like a works-righteousness program. But it’s the farthest thing from that – for its empowerment comes from the gift of divine grace; in other words, you first must be made a good tree ‘before’ you undertake the warfare of dismemberment, and becoming a good tree is to have faith in the person and work of Jesus the Christ. Without this first movement, it reeks of self righteousness and works righteousness, but placed in the hands of faithful beggars, it is all a work of divine grace! Hallelujah!!!
There are two errors in the church with regard to the demonic. One, we grant them near omniscient/omnipotent status, and the other is attributing a fable status to them. But I would say the worst error for many Bible-believing Christians, is to affirm demonic reality, but not engage life with that affirmative reality before us. In other words, as Schaeffer was fond of saying: We believe something to be true, even as we sit in a chair of unbelief, i.e., in practice. The demonic is not some Roman genre of non-historical literature. They, and the realms they inhabit, are real.
Second, the demonic inhabit our moral swirl. What do I mean by that? They are present as we struggle with jealousy, envy, and self-centeredness. It is, as James will tell us, wisdom from below…and yes – the world of the demonic (James 3:15) and hell itself (James 3:6). James tells us to “resist” the demonic in this fallen world (4:7). A large part of that resistance is leaning into God’s call upon our lives, i.e., think on ‘the pure’ and quell selfish ambition and jealousy. American Christians spend too much time wondering if they are “in” God’s will, e.g., should I have this job, live in this city… The majority of our time ought to be seeking the good and well-being of our neighbors, e.g., spouses, children, and any other person God sets in our path.
Lastly, simple moral striving will get you nowhere! What? That’s correct. Christianity is first and foremost about THE PERSON and WORK of Jesus Christ. It is his sin-bearing and warrior-conquering activity of the Son of Man that enables a believer to engage the demonic and resist the devil and his minions. Viewing the atonement through the lens of “Christus Victor” (a dominant view in the early church) is a neglected theme by evangelicals. Yes, Christ bore the wrath of God, but he also obtained VICTORY over the demonic! Miss this crucial step (what Christ has done objectively), and you miss the entire Christian life. In short the indicative (Jesus bearing God’s wrath and defeating the demonic powers) is the absolute essential bedrock from which the imperative (commands) must proceed. Short of this, all one has is moralism that more often than not drifts into rigid legalism.
But thanks be to God! Christ has been raised. Christ is risen! It’s hard to over-emphasize this truth. In Mark’s gospel (Mark 9:31) he utilizes what grammarians call the present-future or the futuristic-present to emphasize the current drama of redemption. Jesus was able to reference the upcoming events as being in the present. Why? Because IT IS WHERE HISTORY IS MOVING, and he is emphasizing this divine movement! The verb’s wooden translation would be akin to “is being handed over,” even though it is future. Add to this shout of God – the verb is also PASSIVE, and most Bible scholars say this is a DIVINE-passive. God is orchestrating; God is bringing this about. HE is DOING IT.
In short, the commands of God proceed from the work of God in Christ. He has defeated the demonic. Christ has obtained the victory over the demonic. Hallelujah! The drama that unfolds is God’s rule and reign, which until he returns, normatively comes under the guise of suffering. But we follow where our Lord himself went, for the servant is not above his master. The full, unequivocal rule and reign of God comes upon his return.
If you possess one attribute that requires many, you will not progress. Likewise, if you focus only in one area of the Christian life, you will make little progress; indeed, you most likely will do damage. So, by way of example, you could focus on affect (feelings), or the mind (doctrine), or action (good deeds), but if you limit yourself, you will be out of balance. You will falter in the pursuit of an integrated obedience, and your gifts could very well begin to be distorted. Driven by feelings, your life could be very inconsistent. Driven my the cerebral, you could be but a walking encyclopedia. Driven by action, you could become very performance oriented. Brothers and sisters, we must seek God’s presence in all of who we are: affect, mind and behavior.
We must live, abide, and dwell, in God’s fatherly acceptance in Christ. This is fundamental. Miss this, and you miss it all. Second, we must grow in our understanding as to ‘who’ God is, and ‘what’ he has done. Peter in our text (Mark 8 ) was settled that the Messiah was an individual. Yes, he got that right. But he was ignorant in terms of what this warrior/messiah must do – He must suffer for the sins of the world. Lastly, we must strive to conform – not to the world – but to the example of Jesus, the consummate learner and disciple.
The cross is THE pivotal point in history. Jesus ratified the eternal covenant of redemption through the shedding of his blood. Jesus is the Mediator of a new and better covenant (Hebrews 7:22), for in his faithful obedience, both his active (unwavering obedience) and passive obedience (enduring God’s holy wrath on the cross) have translated into God’s public proclamation that he was the Holy One of Israel (Romans 1:3-4). This public proclamation came in and through Christ’s resurrection from the dead – Hallelujah!
The second in a series of three in which Dr. Jeon gives us great biblical and theological insight into the Covenant of Abraham. Drawing on Ancient Near Eastern treaties, Dr. Jeon concludes that the Abrahamic Covenant followed the Royal Grant Treaty. This treaty was one in which the vassal king was awarded a land grant for having defeated the king’s enemy. The king promised to defend against all enemies of the vassal king, and the king himself swore an oath to the protection of the vassal king by walking in between animal parts, symbolically portraying that the king would undergo his own destruction should he fail to follow through with his promise.
God did the same thing for Abraham in Genesis 15. With a theophonic presence (God’s miraculous near direct presence upon the earth) God, in the form of a flaming torch, walks between the body parts, promising Abraham’s lifelong protection. Here he swore an oath that he himself should be destroyed if he fails in his promise. Abraham – the vassal king – is a type of Christ and is awarded this divine protection from Almighty God.
Born in a small village south of Seoul, Korea, Dr Jeong Koo Jeon, professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Faith Theological Seminary, Baltimore, Maryland, gives us the Prediluvian (before flood) and Postdiluvian (after flood) Noahic Covenants in one lecture. Vast in its scope, Dr. Jeon demonstrates how the two covenants come together in a harmonious interplay. Postdiluvian Noahic Covenant (common grace) allows for and enables the Prediluvian Noahic Covenant (saving grace) to begin the long march toward the Parousia. This long march is the human drama of redemption progressively reaching forth toward a full consummation in Jesus Christ.
Get pad and pencil and your bible and learn how the drama of redemption begins to unfold in the early part of human history. After the flood, God lays down his bow, unstrings it and sets it in the sky (the rainbow) – promising never again to destroy the world with water. He will have his people to glorify his name, so God’s forbearance restrains his just judgment, as he gathers his bride to himself. There are many threads here, and one would do well to listen with others and have a group conversation after listening. Iron sharpens iron. Here is a lifetime of learning summarized in 90 minutes. It is a goldmine. There are two more lectures today: The Abrahamic Covenant and The New Covenant. I will post these as I am able.
Sometimes we form our opinions on the smallest of data. With the book of James, we are told Luther said, “It was an epistle of straw” (preface to his NT 1522), but rarely are they aware that Luther himself deleted that from all later printed editions of the NT. It is true that Luther had life-long doubts about James (as did Erasmus), but it wasn’t because he thought Paul and James had a fundamental disagreement (Luther argued for harmonization in LW 34: 175-176). One thing is certain: Luther’s hesitancy was not new. James had been cast by the early church as one of the ‘disputed books’, e.g. church historian Eusebius and Origen (Mainly for its lack of citations by early church Fathers and paucity of direct reference to Christ). Liberals would then claim interpolations (insertions by later copyists) to explain the words ‘Jesus Christ’ (found only 2x in the book of James, 1:1; 2:1;) in order to make it seem like a Christian text, when in fact it was nothing more than a dressed up Jewish document. Unsurprisingly, like other attempts to lessen Scripture’s authority, there is no manuscript-evidence for such a claim. Sadly, I have found most American evangelicals are steeped in ignorance as to the formation of the Canon, and I enthusiastically recommend “Canon Revisited” by Michael Kruger, to make up such deficit. When one is unaware of even the most basic rudiments of how the Canon came to be, ‘a book dropped from heaven’ approach is a poor and ineffectual witness.
Identifying the rich (are they believers?) and the context (is it a believer’s court or simply worship?) of this setting (James 2:1-13) is a challenge, but one thing is certain – radical strands of Liberation Theology can offer no help, when they categorically state :
“the rich are outside the sphere of salvation and faith,…” (Maynard-Reid, cited in Blomberg/Kamell)
This implies the rich, by virtue of wealth itself, are excluded from God’s saving affect and action. While acknowledging the difficulty of wealth and Christian faithfulness, such Marxist’s lenses reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the radicalness of the grace and mercy of God – both in terms of its design and power. Wealth, in the hands of a true Jesus follower, can radically impact the kingdom for good.
(to hear more, listen to the message somewhere around the 27: mark, and be sure to listen to the benediction at the end of worship!!)
The Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs) has had a hard go of it within the church. Not a small section of church history has been – to put it mildly – uncomfortable with human sexuality, and in particular, with its pleasure and sensuality. Twelfth-century commentator, William of St Thierry, captured the apprehensiveness well, saying the beckoning and urgency for intimacy in the Song of Songs was: “wholly without modesty” (from Jenson’s Interpretation Commentary). Some went even further, claiming the lover was a “peeping tom” (2:9), and not a few objected to the fact they were not married (contextually a sound conclusion). But this is human love poetry, and the parameters are not all in place; it is not a discourse on sexual ethics! Sex outside of the covenant of marriage is sinful, but it’s the longing that the writer seeks to establish and celebrate.
Of course this brings us to a confluence with our other texts – it’s not what goes into our mouths, it’s not only the forms of our worship that make it acceptable; rather, it is the inner reality (Mark 7:15). One can sing in the choir; one can be a deacon; one can tithe faithfully; one can serve the poor. Indeed! One can give their very life to be burned as a sacrifice…and still miss out on the worship of God in spirit and truth (1 Cor 13, John 4:23). One must see God as the ultimate supreme being – whose beauty – captures the heart and moves it to thanksgiving and service. But one cannot throw out the baby with the bath water; one must live a life of sacrificial praise and obedience, and thus our passage from James. If one is a hearer only, then one’s religion is empty and wasteful (James 1:23).
All of this to say that it’s not progression in time that makes the difference as to an enlightened understanding of human sexuality, ethics, and our relationship with the true and living God; after all, it was a thousand years before William of St Thierry that the early church father, Origen, penned:
“Blessed is he who enters holy places, but much more blessed is he who enters “the Holy of Holies.”…Likewise, blessed is he who knows holy songs and sings them . . ., but much more blessed is he who sings ‘the Song of Songs'” (Origen, Song of Songs Commentary, p. 266, cited in Jenson).
To be sure, The Song of Songs, then, is about human love. One would be in denial to say otherwise. In this, it is unashamedly affirmative and celebrative of human sexuality. But Origen was onto something. Human love, as beautiful and lovely as it is, is shadow (not less real in terms of creation), and it ‘points’ to something greater, more lovely, and more pristine – God’s love for his bride, the church. I hope you are singing the song.
(for more, listen to the message)
(There is no voice for the first 7 minutes of worship. The message, however, was unaffected)
The garden of Eden was a garden-temple. God DWELT there. For his creation, there was an intimate presence, a divine discourse and engagement that was free and natural. It wasn’t idyllic; it simply was. When Adam ceased to ‘guard’ and ‘protect’ (Gen 2:15) God’s garden-temple thru humble service, and chose rather to rebel, he was immediately removed from God’s garden. The cherub was then placed by God to ‘guard’ and ‘protect’ God’s tree of life.
Something has changed from God’s temple-garden (Eden) – now two kingdoms are operative – God’s and Satan’s. In response, God took exclusive dwelling in another garden-like domain – the tabernacle and then permanently, the temple. Interestingly, just as Adam was to guard and protect God’s garden-temple, now the Levitical priests, who had exclusive access to the Holy Sanctuary, are given the duty to “guard” and “protect” (Numbers 3:7-8). All of this is an ever growing and unfolding drama of redemption in which Christ becomes the one who guards and protects his cherished presence within the church – His people! (John 6:39-40) He will have a people who are called by His name, who populate the earth and represent Him in his rule and reign!
One of the tensions in Scripture is how to fit God’s unconditional promise-grants, i.e., a promise of David’s sons to sit on the throne forever (1 Kings 8:25), with two other truths 1) the presence of conditionals, i.e., IF only your sons pay close attention (1 Kings 8:25), and 2) the historical judgment and captivity of Israel that resulted in judgment and exile.
One could point to 1948 and modern Israel, and then claim that those promises will yet be fulfilled on the soil of the country Israel, or, one could say that those conditionals themselves functioned on two different levels 1) historically: whereby Israel failed, was judged, and then sent into captivity, AND 2) typologically: Israel’s collective failure was replaced with Jesus as THE Son of David (in terms of ascribed lineage), and so David’s lineage is preserved – and thus fulfilled – forever thru the God/man Jesus the Christ.
God is one who accomplishes all His good pleasure (Eph 1:11). We find in Revelation that the tree of life is presented as being “in the paradise of God,” and is promised to all who conquer (Rev 2:7), and in Rev 22:1-5, where, like Eden, a river flows from God’s throne and the Lamb. Where there’s a throne, there’s temple; where there’s a temple there’s a king; and where there’s a king there’s a kingdom. In heaven, God historicizes his presence in the midst of people who bear his name!
(To learn more, listen to the message)
Too good to be true? Sinful…yet forgiven? A moral stench in the nostrils of an all holy God…yet pleasing to him like a son? That’s where the adage, “Buyer beware!” has its source. We were told by our wise parents that If something sounds too good to be true, it is because it is too good to be true!
This is the great conundrum of Scripture. How can Holy God dwell with sinful man? Some say that if you’re a good person, that is good enough. Some point to Scripture itself. In our very text (1 Kings 3:6), God is said to have shown “great steadfast love to David – BECAUSE…he walked before you [God] in faithfulness,” and he repeats such promises for faithful obedience to Solomon himself saying, “IF you walk in my ways…THEN I will lengthen your days.” There’s an undeniable CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP with obedience and God’s favor, AND YET, the Psalmist writes:
“If you regard iniquity, O Lord, who could stand?” (Ps 130:3)
It’s clear, the implied answer is – NO ONE could stand. If implication is not enough for you, then the Psalmist says elsewhere:
“Enter not in to judgment with your servant, for NO ONE living is righteous before you” (Ps 143:2).
So neither David nor Solomon could stand before the all holy God, YET they were said to be causal agents in the bestowal of God’s favor. What happened? Did God drop the standards of the Psalmist? Was the Psalmist just flat out wrong?
My best take on it is that both David and Solomon functioned typologically; that is, they represented something deeper, more real, than their approximate obedience. That something more is the perfect obedience of the SON OF GOD – Jesus! Both David and Solomon were righteous on some level. Both rendered sufficient obedience to keep their kingship and Israel’s relation to the LAND intact. They did *merit* the earthly on some level, but in such shadowy typology – their “this-world” land promise and kingship promise gave way, and pointed to the perfect obedience of the Son of God, who ALONE rendered faithful obedience sufficient enough to stand before the scrutiny of God (coran deo). As the second Adam, Jesus truly merited God’s favor.
(to learn more, watch the rest of the video)
Christianity is Christ. It’s about his person (Who is He?) and his work (what has He done?). If your church does not continuously proclaim and teach on these two most fundamental of all questions, I have but one piece of advice for you – leave!
As Christ is called the second Adam by the apostle Paul (1 Cor 15) in parallel to the first Adam (Gen 1&2), so too, Christ is the *second* giver of bread (John 6), as compared to and contrasted with the first giver of bread, which was Moses (Ex 16), but there is a qualitative difference between the two. With the first and miraculous giving of bread (Moses) – ALL DIED. With the second giver of bread (Jesus); ALL POSSESS ETERNAL LIFE. and will be RESURRECTED! Moses and the miraculous manna in Exodus 16 are TYPOLOGICAL and their fulfillment is found in Jesus Christ.
Where was God on 9/11? You’ve heard that question many times over. Just as important, just as weighty…where is God when the walls press upon you, and your resources are depleted? Oftentimes our situations seem frightfully overwhelming and we wonder, “Where is God? Why is he silent?” Then comes the blame game, and leaders are ripe for attacks.
When God lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, he sovereignly brought them to a position of weakness. Their resources that they had brought with them out of Egypt had been depleted, and now, in the Wilderness of Sin, with no resources within nor without, they came to their divinely designed crucible. They were tested, and they failed (Exodus 16). Earlier they were without water. They failed their too (Ex 15:24). How? What did failure look like? They failed to believe that God was in control; that God had their well-being at heart – they failed to trust God.
How did their lack of trust manifest? Interestingly, by slight of hand, they blamed their leaders – Moses and Aaron: “Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt…for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger” (Ex 16:3). They grumbled when they were without water (Ex 15:24) and now they grumbled as they faced their food shortage. Moses sums it up succinctly, “Your grumbling is not against us but against the LORD.” Moses knew this to be true, because earlier, God said these experiences of a lack of resources were a test from Him (Ex 15:25-26).
Where does this take us? What do Christians glean from this? The answer to this question is found in Exodus 14, where Moses instructs Israel:
“Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will work for you today…The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to be silent” (Ex 14:13-14).
Did you get that? They had only to be SILENT! And what did they do? They GRUMBLED. We too had only to be silent, but like Peter – we DENIED our LORD and failed to see the salvation that God had given us in his Son. We had only to behold God’s work for us. In Christ God was working. He was fighting on OUR BEHALF. But like Peter, we couldn’t; we couldn’t see God in our darkness. His work came under its apparent opposition – defeat! We have not beheld the only begotten Son of God. No. We, with Peter, have CRUCIFIED HIM. But now awakened by faith, we can SEE, where before we were blind. We can see that God was fighting on our behalf and working a great salvation!
The phrase “Christ Is Our Peace” is the Believer’s most sure and solid resting place. The pronoun ‘he’ is placed first, and contextually speaking, this brings emphasis to Christ. The ESV brings this out in its translation of Ephesians 2:14 – For HE HIMSELF is our peace. Even stronger, the grammar indicates yet more emphasis on Christ, as though Paul said, “He [Christ] – in his own person – is our peace.” Why the emphasis on the person as opposed to our faith? Why the concentration on Christ’s person (which implies the cross)?
Answer: It is what Christ did on the cross – independent of everyone’s faith – that made peace a reality. In other words, God did something on his own, for his own internal reasons and necessity, i.e., God satisfied divine justice, secured victory over the powers, and ‘changed’ his own orientation to include a message of unequivocal peace. In order to avoid distortion of the good news, however, Paul, while acknowledging Christ’s work independent of faith (2 Cor 5:19) quickly stated in his letter to the Corinthians that we must accept the reconciliation (2 Cor 5:20). We must receive Christ in order to fully benefit.
Our last text (Mark 6:30-34) helps us keep our feet on the ground. Jesus, sensing the need to escape and restore, invites his disciples into solitude. That’s right. Solitude, to rest and restore. God has not made us for a continuous treadmill of non-stop activity. Life is not measured simply in how busy we are. We are meant not only to proclaim the glorious gospel of reconciliation, but also to enjoy his fatherly presence – to bask in reconciliation. Have you secluded yourself to do this of late?
Learn more about how God promised an eternal ‘sonship’ on the throne to David (Ps 89:3-4), while at the same time spoke of ‘conditions’ to the sons on his throne (Ps 89:30-32). See also how Christ’s work on the cross changed doom and gloom into hope, by listening to the message.
(starts around the 24 min mark)
“Oh Lord, if you were to regard iniquities…who could stand?” The answer to that question could not be more clear – No one could stand. When David began the process of bringing the ark of the Lord to Jerusalem, Uzzah attempted to stabilize the ark, after an ox had stumbled, and God responded. He “struck him down” (2 Sam 6). In other words, God killed Uzzah. This angered David, but it also struck fear in him. So much so that he did not bring the ark into Jerusalem, but dropped in off to the house of another. Perhaps David wondered, “Will the ark bring blessing or curse?” In the course of time, with evidence of God’s blessing upon Obed-edom, David did eventually return the ark to Jerusalem.
The tension, however, between judgment and mercy, wrath and forgiveness, would not fully go away. Haunting Israel were questions similar to these: “Will these sacrifices ever disappear? Will we forever offer bulls and goats to keep God’s wrath from falling upon us that he so terribly poured out on Uzzah?” The tabernacle, the temple, indeed Jerusalem itself, would all be but shadows pointing forward to the coming of Jesus Christ. Final resolution would only come when Jesus Christ would appear. Being the perfect ‘lamb of God,” Christ would bear our punishment and would obtain grace and mercy.
(Hear how this comes about through the first few verses of Ephesians. Message starts around the 30 min mark)
Are you called to spread the good news of Jesus Christ? “Well,” you might say, “I’ve been struggling with this for years,” and I might respond – “Stop the doubts! You ARE clearly and unequivocally called!” Wouldn’t that be nice? It is. The text of Scripture imparts THIS calling to all believers. You don’t need to seek it. You don’t need to see IF you’re called – you ARE CALLED!
Here in Ezekiel, God speaks to Ezekiel. In our Mark text, Jesus calls and sends his apostles. In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, he says we are called to be HIS ambassadors to share the good news of reconciliation! You see, brothers and sisters, you ARE called. You don’t need to ponder IF you are called; the text is clear, no need to ponder and seek. See what else Ezekiel’s calling means for us sinners in our calling that we NOW POSSESS from him (message begins around the 35 minute mark, but there are several mini-messages throughout the worship service).
If you are a believer, especially if you are a called elder to preach and teach (1 Tim 5:17), in some sense you have been entrusted to herald, proclaim, share, sing, read, and any other format, the good news of what God has done in and through his Son, Jesus, who is the Christ, the anointed one of God. That is your main calling in terms of the extension of God’s kingdom.
However, life has many layers to it: suffering, vocation, loving neighbor, et, al., and until the kingdom that Jesus inaugurated comes to full disclosure at the end of the ages, God has determined his people will continue the sufferings of the Messiah, the Christ, the anointed one. As he rules and reigns from the right hand of God, often under an apparent opposite, he is weaving a beautiful tapestry for his eternal glory and our eternal happiness. In the vernacular, we are destined for storms! How do you handle the storms God has brought about in your life? There is only one sure foundation to endure and profit from storms – and it is revealed in the form of two questions:
1. Do you have Jesus in your boat?
2. Is it the Jesus of Scripture?
Christians are not masochistic, meaning, we don’t enjoy suffering; it is not *an end in itself.* That being said, we are called upon to do more than simply “endure’ suffering.” Paul says we rejoice in our trials (Ro 5). But how is “rejoicing” not masochistic? That is easy to answer. Simply put, we are confident that God is the author of our suffering; minimally, he allowed it, but more than minimalism, Christians believe, though not fully grasped in this life, God is transforming us into something beautiful. We are honored that we can share in the sufferings of Christ – not redemptively, but in helping to weave God’s tapestry on the theatre of human history. History is HIS; it belongs to HIM! He is not simply *doing the best he can, given life as it is.* NO! He is choreographing an eternal weight of glory in which God’s people will forever take delight and render praise!!
Learn how his word this week will help you to live faithfully… (message starts around the 30 min mark).
The amazing story of Samuel and Israel’s kingship centers around TRUST. Israel, and all humanity, have a basic problem – by nature we are idolaters. Still, to be human… is to trust, yet we will trust just about anything except God. Now this may seem surprising, because most people believe in God, and even those who are fleeing traditional religion, describe themselves as *spiritual*. However, by God, I do not mean a god of our own concoction. I mean the one, true and living God revealed in history and in the pages of Scripture. The one to whom we are to give account. The one who is The Sovereign of all that is – that God, is the one whom we do not trust; indeed, the text of Scripture says our relationship is one of enmity. Trust, then, is our fundamental problem.
It is precisely because of our resistance to him that God usually has worked in contrarian form. He comes in through “the back door.” Time and time again, God drove home the point that success is NOT obtained through human ingenuity. God’s glory – and our happiness – are extended as a whole, only in and through God’s Grace through Jesus Christ. He will teach this lesson to each and every Christian. Like men and women throughout Scripture, God will providentially ensure that you are brought to the end of your own resources. He will, if he has to, break you; indeed, he may have to crush you. This is why Luther said that God must first “attack” us if we are going to have any hope in knowing him. Sounds paradoxical, because it is. Our resistance to his rule and reign is not minor. As Calvin said (echoing the apostle Paul), “Our hearts are idolatry factories.” He must break this resistance to win our hearts.
Therefore, you will be blessed by God only when your walls come down, when you rest and trust in his work on your behalf, only when the cross of Christ is that to which you cling. When this is the posture of your soul, then, and only then, will you bask in the sunshine of your Father’s favor and delight. (to hear how this fleshed out in Samuel’s life, watch this video. Message starts about the 34min mark)
Have you ever wondered why names were so important in the Old Covenant? You could tell a great deal about them and what God was doing. Adam means earth. Jacob means “holder of the heel” or “supplanter.” Adam was created from the earth/ground, and Jacob grabbed Esau’s heel and supplanted Esau’s birthright and obtained the father-blessing from Isaac.
Names and their providential meaning for the individual, were prevalent throughout the history of Israel; it was the norm, but it isn’t that way now. More often we choose names we simply like, names that are popular, or names that have family history. But in the OT, names bespoke of God’s dealings with humanity, and one can trace providential outcomes based on those God-imparted names. All of this has a purpose. It all goes back to the fact that God revealed HIS NAME, reflecting HIS CHARACTER to us, i.e., merciful, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, faithful…(Ex 34:5-7), and yes – SELF EXISTANT and FREE (Ex 3:13-15; 33:17-19). In revealing his name, we now are commanded TO TRUST in that name (1 Samuel 8). We are to refrain from making any CREATED THING our place of trust.
Paul begins our text in 2 Cor 4:13 with an echo from the past – “Since we have the same spirit of faith…(Ps 116:10). He ties a covenantal unity between the testaments with the lace of trust/belief/faith. And as the Psalmist brought affliction and trust together, so too the great apostle Paul ties them together, calling our sufferings “momentary afflictions” not to be compared with our eternal weight of glory! Hear the rest of the message (begins around the 30min mark).
(begins around the 30min mark).
The world woke up this morning to a CDC (Center of Disease Control) report that professor and Director of Pediatrics at John Hopkins called a “Wake Up Call.” There’s been a significant increase in the death of our youth (10-19 yr old). Sources of the spike ranged from poverty to gun control, mental health access and drugs. But are these symptomatic or substantive? Why do we as a culture NOT talk about God? Why do we treat that question as merely a religious question and not something more basic, more relevant to our daily existence? In economic parlance the statement of the 21st century was “I guess we’re all Keynesian now.” In terms of human causation I think its counterpart is “I guess we’re all naturalists now.” There seems to be no practical application allowed for in the social science arena that has anything to do with God. Though John Dewey’s prognostications concerning religion never even came close to reaching fulfillment, i.e., religion would soon become a mere footnote in history, his lingering presence is pervasive in nearly every arena.
Why is that? Like Freud, Dewey’s radical empiricism has effectively and affectively triumphed, even though his theory has been rejected. When tragedy strikes, questions of meaning, God, and virtue have all but been shut down in our national conversation. Maybe it’s time to reintroduce the late American psychiatrist, Karl Menninger’s 1973 ominous book titled, “Whatever Became of Sin?” because this will reintroduce a more basic question for us as a people to ponder, “Whatever became of God? (Watch now to find out why. Message begins around the 30 minute mark.)
“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.” This is the opening verse in chapter six of Isaiah. Uzziah was a good king and the Lord richly blessed him. He was king of Judah, and he started his reign at age sixteen. Isaiah says, “And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord…as long as he sought the Lord, God made him prosper” (2 Chron 26:3-5).
But then something happened. In verse 16 the text says: “But when he was strong, he grew proud.” Like Israel before him (who desired a king “like the other nations”) Uzziah desired to offer incense in the temple, as some had done in the Northern Kingdom (Israel). But there was a problem. In Israel, kings are not priests, and only priests are to offer incense. Uzziah went into the temple anyway. Azariah and eighty other priests went into the temple to confront him, but Uzziah would not give heed. Uzziah wanted to be a priest-king, like some of his counterparts in the Northern Kingdom. (WATCH THE VIDEO AND HEAR WHAT HAPPENED!)
This is Pentecost. By that I mean, according to the church’s liturgical calendar, we will take the next 27 Sundays to focus on the sending and the enabling work of the Holy Spirit. According to the New Testament, The New Covenant consists in the arrival of the Spirit. Now the Spirit was here and working – even before the book of Acts, but He was here in a restricted sense, e.g., coming upon various leaders at various times and places. With the arrival of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, and upon the ASCENSION of Jesus Christ in particular, the SON now rules and reigns from the right hand of God Almighty. His Ascension – his placement at the right hand of God, enables THE SPIRIT to indwell EVERY BELIEVER and follower of Jesus.
In John 14-16 Jesus talks about sending ANOTHER – the PARACLETE. Paraclete is not an English word per se; rather, it is a *transliteration* (letter for letter English replacement) of the Greek – παράκλητος (parakletos). Due to scant biblical and extra biblical material, the source and root meaning are hard to decipher. There was a time when a forensic or *legal* aspect was emphasized, but now the consensus seems to be the following:
1) comforter, 2) advocate, 3) counselor, and 4) helper
All of these are important aspects, and the context must drive whatever emphasis we should place on any given text…. Want to know more? Watch and listen. The message starts around the 25 min mark. (We apologize, but we did have some technological issues, but the audio is good.)
May 13, 2018
What is the gospel of Glory? In short:
It is the Son giving back to the Father those whom the Father had given the Son!
The language is covenantal. “I am praying for them…for they are yours…I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost… (John 17:9,12). God does have a special love reserved for his bride. There’s a special relationship, exchange, and a new heart has been imparted to her that makes intimacy possible. He KNOWS them; they KNOW him, and this is all made possible by the SON.
In simplicity, yet with inexhaustible profundity, Jesus told his disciples:
“You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:14-15).
Friends of God…Wow! Really…is that possible? But wait a minute. What does that mean? What does “friends of God” even look like? In this day and age, it can be but a cliché – God my buddy. But if we look at Christian revelation, we soon find that we are facing one of life’s most profound mysteries: God in human flesh has enabled sinners to know and love God. Divine enablement is the necessary truth in order to begin to understand how a divine/human relationship is even possible.
SCRIPTURE: RCL, April 29, 2018
Unlike the phrase “I am the door,” the vineyard verbiage is drawing from its abundant presence in Hebrew Scriptures. We get a huge trumpet blast with the added adjective – TRUE. Jesus said, “I am the TRUE vine.” This descriptor brings up the obvious issue: Are some vines not vines? If so, what does that even mean? I don’t think we can get anywhere biblically without some exposure to the background.
First, let’s start by acknowledging that according to the Hebrew Scriptures, Israel was God’s vineyard (Is 27:2-6; Jer 2:21; Ez 15:2-6; 17:5-10; 19:10-14). Second, if Israel is God’s vine, yet Jesus claims to be THE TRUE vine, we must seek resolution in some form of what theologians call TYPOLOGY, which is succinctly summarized as that which deals with:
“…the parallels between actual, historical (usually OT) figures or events…and their later, analogous fulfillment” (Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms).
In other words, for Jesus not to be contradicting the Hebrew Scriptures, there must be a sense in which Israel was ‘a vine’ and another sense in which Jesus is ‘the only true vine.’ The word you want to come away with is: FULFILLMENT. Jesus is THE TRUE vine, because he actually FULFILLED God’s original purposes. Israel was the vineyard of God, but only in so far as it POINTED FORWARD to a greater reality – and that reality is Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus is the true shepherd (all other shepherds fell short of God’s ideal), so Jesus COMPLETES God’s original design as shepherd. The same goes for the vineyard. Jesus ALONE is the fruit-bearing vineyard intended in eternity past. Jesus is God’s good pleasure historicized; he completes God’s design.
Third, interestingly, even when Israel was God’s vineyard, she bore fruit only because God cleared the ground (Ps 80:9); he planted it in fertile soil near abundant waters of nourishment (Ez 17:5). Fourth, in the midst of blessings, Israel managed to turn a lush and choice vineyard into a wild vine, and though she performed rituals of cleansing, the stain of Israel’s guilt was ever before the Lord (Jer 2:21-22). God, though slow to anger, gave them up and determined to set his face against them, for they were faithless (Ez 15:6-8), and played the whore (Jer 2:20). He would act in judgment against them. He would utilize the ‘east wind’ (Babylon) and take them into captivity (Ez 17:10).
Yet in all of this act/response from God to Israel and Israel to God, there was always hope. The prophets never left Israel without hope. A day would come when God would be their shepherd. He would give them good pasture (Ez 34:11-16).
Lastly, for this to happen, someone must take that divine furry; someone must bear the punishment. Israel’s faithlessness meant that God would utterly destroy the vineyard. It was barren even when it was alive, but God said in addition that he would BURN the ends and the middle; it would be utterly worthless because of divine judgment (Ez 15).
So what’s the ending? How can there be hope under such utter and complete devastation? Answer: Out of richness of mercy and compassion, God intervened on Israel’s behalf. Through REPRESENTATION Christ actually bears the furry of divine wrath. He bears the east-wind of God’s holy judgment into himself completely and finally! Wrath is gone. Divine favor and blessing return.
The powerful image of a shepherd is realized, when after a quick glance within our soul, we find a soothing poetic image – only to discover, we’ve never been around a shepherd, and perhaps have only seen sheep in a picture. Wow! Scripture and art are powerful conveyors of truth! That was not so in Jesus’ day. Sheep were encountered everywhere you turned. Indeed, sheep are the most cited animal found in Scripture, with more than 400 entries!
In John’s gospel chapter 10, Jesus calls himself the GOOD shepherd. A moment’s reflection here and we are in deep waters. In a newly published book entitled ‘The Lord is Good’ Christopher Holmes takes a classical view of the attributes of God and says:
“The affirmation that God “really is all those good things” – for example wisdom, goodness, beauty, and happiness – means, as we have seen, that God does not possess these things as if they were qualities, but is these things. Furthermore, each of the three is also “the supremely unified simplicity,” God being “not many but one.” The upshot is that “any one of them is the same thing as all of them.”
See what I mean about deep waters? Are all the attributes of God, e.g., wisdom, goodness, mercy, really just creaturely ways of understanding the simplicity of God? Now there’s a lively debate among theologians about the classical view of God, i.e., his simplicity, but this is neither the time nor the place to tackle that issue. The thing you should come away with from Holmes’s quote is that, whether or not his attributes are all one and the same within God’s simple being, they are NOT add ons, extraneous to himself; rather, HE IS those things. God IS GOOD. God IS LOVE. No creature can say this without committing blasphemy. God’s being is the well-spring of an overflowing cup directed toward his people (Psalm 16:5). His lovingkindness is better than life (Ps 63:3). Luther summarized this way: God’s love (or goodness, mercy, kindness)
“Issues forth for no reason other than joy in being able to give itself…from within out of the heart…which ever flows on and cannot be stopped or dried up or fail…for I draw my love not from thy goodness as from an alien spring, but from mine own well-spring” (Irving Singer citing Nygren). God, who is GOODNESS, more than just ‘follows’ you, goodness PURSUES (in Hebrew, radap) you, like a warrior who seeks out his enemy to destroy them, so God PURSUES you in HIS GOODNESS to GIFT YOU (Ps 23)
If you’re interested in more you can watch this video.
In the first verse of chapter 3 of 1 John, we are told to BEHOLD! What are we told to behold? – The GREAT LOVE of God! Something about God’s love is great. This is what explains the explosion of Christianity. In the Roman/Greek era, the gods were fighting among themselves. They were also unpredictable, and it was onto this scene that God announces his gospel (good news). I say this not only because I’m a Christian, but non-Christians have seen this as well. Irving Singer, the professor of philosophy at MIT, in vol 1 of his 3-volume magnum opus entitled: ‘The Nature of Love,’ says this:
“But what distinguishes Christianity, what gives it a unique place in man’s intellectual life, is the fact that it alone has made love the dominant principle in all areas of dogma.”
This is why the writer of 1 John calls God’s love – Great! And it is great for three reasons (see Robert Yarbrough’s commentary for exegetical detail) . First, it ACCOMPLISHES its purposes. It is effective. We – those who are in Christ – are called the children of God (1 John 3:1). God’s redemptive love imparts a new status and new being. It is a creative love. We are now given the status of being his children. But are not all people God’s children? Yes, in some sense they are (Is 45:11-12), but in another sense – in the intimate knowing kind of sense – no, everyone is not God’s child. Only God’s great and powerful electing love makes humans his children in that sense, in the intimate sense.
Second, God’s great love has PURPOSE. In the same verse God’s great love displayed resolve and purpose. He has and continues to seek the full number of God’s elect from all around the earth. God’s love is given SO THAT we might know him. and we come to know him by his Spirit that enables the dynamic intimacy to take place. God’s love is effective and has purpose.
Lastly God’s love is great because of its QUALITY…its NATURE. Singer, describing Luther’s understanding of divine love says:
“…it issues forth for no reason other than joy in being able to give itself.”
Wow! Did you hear that? That is something to behold! This is also why John says that God is love (1 John 4:8). That cannot be said of us. This is something God IS, but our love is derivative. We are given HIM in faith, and this enables us to love. Love, grace, mercy, kindness, compassion, in one sense are all synonyms of God’s love. Luther was fond of saying we should go to bed and arise with these truths flooding our hearts. We should meditate upon such love. When we do, it will become a delight that we cannot get enough of, and we will be visiting this wellspring over and over. It is what the Psalmist meant when he said:
“Thy loving kindness is better than life.”
Do you know this love? If you do, you will want to be enveloped by this love as if you were sitting under a water fall. God’s love is great beyond words. It is free. It is God’s gift.
First, in our 1 John reading (1 John 1:1-2:2) we have a very strong affirmation of the humanity of Jesus. He took upon Himself flesh and blood. He was not a ghost. It was not a vision (contrary to Ehrman) filled with meaning – it was God robbed in human flesh. He says the one whom we SAW, TOUCHED, HEARD was the WORD OF LIFE. If the one who wrote 1 John also wrote the gospel of John, then the emphasis with Thomas fits like hand and glove. Thomas wanted to see; Thomas had to touch; Thomas wanted to hear. And before we get too critical of Thomas in John’s gospel (20:25), we mustn’t forget that Jesus himself proactively revealed himself and his visible wounds to the disciples, and when he did, the text says that they “were glad when they saw the Lord.” They themselves had their faith strengthened by ‘seeing’ Jesus; it was proof-positive that he had been raised from the dead.
Interestingly, Jesus summarizes his visible appearance and the apparent strengthening of their faith with a question, “Have you believed because you have seen me?” Well, in some sense, yes, and Jesus was the one who initiated that kind of evidence, but Jesus’ comments do not stop there. He says, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” I conclude from this a TENSION. Evidence can both help/assist in believing, yet – it is tempered by a celebration of those who believe and yet have not seen. Elsewhere, Jesus says people will not believe – get this – EVEN if someone were raised from the dead (Luke 16:31)! Belief, then, it not a mere acknowledgement of resurrection; rather, belief is divine work whereby the eyes of rebellious sinners are opened to the beauty and love of God.
Lastly, we have in our Acts’s reading, the Marxist counterpart to holding all things in common. Marx was raised in a Lutheran home. He knew the Bible, and it was the text in Acts (and others) that helped form his utopian vision of caring for one another. But does the text support Marx’s conclusions? I don’t think so. Acts does say that the believers had everything in common. However, the verb used in Acts to indicate this sharing is an imperfect – the beginning of an action, but its terminus is not declared, and so it implies an ongoing action. Why is this significant? In short, when the text says there wasn’t a needy person among them, it was because they “sold” and “brought” the proceeds to the apostles. First, it was voluntary. But second, it was ongoing. If it was a complete stripping of personal property, how many times can you give away all you own? Answer: ONCE. Therefore, private property was retained, and the giving occurred on an ‘as need’ basis. They continued to sell and bring the proceeds
Not a few have been critical of the church’s handling of money. The late Francis Schaeffer was critical, saying that we drank too heavily from the wells of personal peace and affluence. He said the church did not share its material possessions frequent enough nor deeply enough. I don’t know about you, but this stings; it hurts, and it hurts because it is true. Lastly, it is not without significance that the resurrection is discussed right in the middle of this discussion of sharing our STUFF! I think the significance arises in that sin has so permeated our being that we are…(here’s the big secret) – SELF CENTERED. We want love, but we don’t want to give love. Receiving dominates our spirits, and when that occurs, conflicts arise – personal, familial, local, states, and nations, indeed – the entire world. We need RESURRECTION POWER to live in a manner that both reflects and imparts the very life of God.
(RCL) SCRIPTURE READINGS FOR:LORD’S DAY (Easter), APRIL 1ST 2018
“The cross is in the first instance God’s attack on human sin.” (Forde)
You will remember past president, Bill Clinton, in one of his campaigns had an effective jingle, “It’s the economy stupid.” Well, small ‘t’ tradition, Easter, falls on April Fool’s Day. How ironic is that! I’m sure some atheists are gleeful, but I want to jump in the fray with a jingle of my own, “It’s THE RESURRECTION, stupid!” You see, Paul here in 1 Corinthians 15 is giving those in Corinth what he “first received.” This is a quotation derived from oral tradition – BIG ‘T’ Tradition – which are the teachings Jesus handed down to the apostles themselves. Death, burial, and RESURRECTION – all essentials, all non-negotiables, if one is claiming to be a follower and disciple of Jesus Christ. There is content to the Christian life, to Christian identity.
There’s more. In the same chapter, and in verse 10, Paul says, “But by the grace of God I am what I am,…” In the context of an absolute doctrinal affirmation, i.e., the resurrection of Jesus, Paul includes his own conversion/identity within that resurrection power. Becoming a believer entails a supernatural change…a work of God by resurrection power – instilling in us new affections and new thinking. God creates something out of nothing. Just as Christ was raised (passive) from the dead, we too are raised from the deadness of our own sin – to new live in Christ through the power of his resurrection!
Lord’s Day, March 25, 2018
Isaiah 50:4-9a; Psalm 31:9-16; Philippians 2:5-11; Mark 15:1-39
WHO is the servant in Isaiah? I am reminded of the Sunday school joke where a child responds to a question of a squirrel’s identity with “Well, I know it’s brown with a tail, but the answer must be Jesus!” Christians can be like that. When asked about this meaning or that, we say it refers to Jesus. And we have interpretive permission to look at the Hebrew Scriptures through fulfillment from Jesus himself (Luke 24:44; John 5:39). But it’s important to see God’s plan of redemption historically. We know Is 53 “by his stripes we are healed” and we correctly see Jesus, but that’s because we have the benefit of hindsight. It wasn’t quite as simple back in Isaiah’s day. Israel collectively is called God’s servant; the remnant is called God’s servant; Individuals were called God’s servant; indeed, Isaiah himself was called God’s servant (Is 20:3)!
While over-simplifying things, the problem of identity comes from the Davidic king chapters of a conquering righteousness (1-39), and that of the suffering servant (40-66). But as a Christian, while I find complexity, I do not find an unsolvable conundrum. Why? Because the two are brought together quite nicely in Jesus the Christ – the Annointed One – the Messiah of God. The Davidic King is able to change the heart and rule the land in righteousness, precisely because he takes upon himself the sins of Israel; indeed, that of the whole world – Hallelujah!
If ‘fulfillment’ is not in your verbal repertoire, then you are missing something very fundamental to the Christian faith. After a long, long history of disobedience, Jeremiah tells God’s people that God is sending them into captivity because of their sin. But in the midst of that, he also gives them hope – for he is going to bring a NEW COVENANT. One that is NOT LIKE the one given to their fathers, i.e., Moses, and the Mosaic Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-32). The contrast could not be more emphatic – NOT LIKE… What is the difference? How is the New Covenant – NOT LIKE – the old? Precisely in this: In the old, one was to obey and live; whereas in the New Covenant, it is hear and live, and then obey. The order is important; indeed, it is vital. The Old Covenant was established on a *works principle* whereas the New Covenant was established on a *grace principle*. I don’t see anyway around it. There is a fundamental dis-junction between the two covenants.
One disjunction is in its priests. The old had a perpetual life & death motion. The older priests died, and new were needed, which bespoke of the inherent impotence of the animal sacrificial system of the old covenant. Priests were always needed, because animals had to be sacrificed.
However, under the New Covenant there’s but ONE PRIEST. In our Hebrew passage we find Christ, like Aaron, was properly installed, because he was appointed. No priest was self appointed. But Hebrews joins together two Psalms 2 & 110; thereby revealing a SON/PRIEST. Now we see that God’s Son is the New Covenant Priest.
But there’s more. The New Covenant priest is after the order of Melchizedek. In that sense he came from a different lineage. Jesus was not a Levite; rather, he was from the tribe of Judah. Priests of the old covenant had to come from the tribe of Levi. The New Covenant Priest was not a Levite; furthermore, his lineage was that he was a Son after the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek BLESSED Abraham, and Abraham gave him a tenth. The LESSER is always BLESSED by the GREATER; thereby making Jesus’ priesthood SUPERIOR to that of the Aaronic lineage.
We must not miss the fact that the *works principle* was not set aside, but rather fulfilled in Christ. Jesus came as our representative, which is the second requirement the writer of Hebrews lays down (the first was that he was appointed). Jesus came as one who suffered, who toiled, who *merited* the substance of the New Covenant, so that he could distribute the gifts by grace – DIVINE FAVOR. So the *works principle* was not set aside – it was FULFILLED in the SON-PRIEST, the Christ of God!
Just as the Greeks in our John passage – all genuine believers WANT TO SEE Jesus (John 12:21). But don’t miss the one very important element in the exchange. Jesus does not deny their request, but nor does he answer it affirmatively; rather, he merely tells Andrew and Philip, “The hour has come.” If you want TO SEE JESUS, you must first see him in the god-forsaken SON on the cross. You must find him in his cry of dereliction “My God…my God, why have you forsaken me?” Paradoxically, our salvation is found in the Son-priest’s abandonment, punishment, and judgment! If you don’t first find Jesus there, you CAN’T FIND him ANYWHERE. In the New Covenant the SON/PRIEST is THE SACRIFICE. He is the propitiation of our sins, and not only ours, but those of the whole world! Hallelujah!!
May God bless you as you search for Jesus, but remember, you must first find him on the cross of abandonment. If you don’t find him hanging on the cross, it will do no good to have him hanging on your earlobe or anywhere else.
Tolkein reminded us quite rightly that not all those who wander are lost, but wandering is not the word here – it’s WONDERMENT. Christian pilgrims who are wandering on planet earth are also to be enraptured in WONDERMENT!
There are some impediments to Christian wonderment, and they don’t all come from outside of us; some of the impediments stem from poor theology. How so?
One of the worst, comes from misunderstanding God. We have been told that God’s love is divine; it is AGAPE love, and agape love is a SELFLESS LOVE – it is not put into action by its own interests. Rather, it is ‘other’ directed. It sees the need of the other, with no consideration of itself.
Now the trouble with the worst errors comes from their partial truth. There’s a truth here that cannot be denied, but I would change it up a bit. Instead of agape’s impulse having no consideration of the lover’s interests, I, and others, believe that agape gives even when its own benefits are eclipsed. It is deeply sacrificial, but it is not disinterested. Why is this distinction important?
I think the notion that agape has no self regard in terms of its motivation is not biblical. How could the love of God not be motivated by obtaining the bride (the church) for the groom (Christ)? It’s utterly impossible. God’s love does not eclipse his own interests; rather, God’s love, while in a sense unconditional, is very much motivated by his end game – HIS OWN GLORY, which entails a bride and the celebration of intimacy. How do we conceptually understand this?
There must be a difference between SELFISHNESS and SELF-REFERENTIAL. We see this when Paul told the Corinthians that he was not coming to see them; he did not want another painful visit. Otherwise, if he came, who would make him glad and joyous? Paul’s reluctance to come out of consideration of his own joy, is CONSISTENT with self-referential JOY; otherwise, Paul’s statement is either selfish or incoherent.
But if my obedience is motivated by my joy, doesn’t that make my behavior selfish? In Keysian metaphor, echoing Nixon, “Aren’t we all Hobbsians now?” The answer to this is an emphatic NO! Experiencing the joy of loving others does not make for an ulterior motive that eclipses the pureness of love; rather, it’s a GOD-GIVEN counterpart that God has wired into our humanity, and it is to be celebrated, not hidden, and certainly not denied. God redeemed us in order to have a bride for his Son! God redeemed us in order to make us joyous in HIS LOVE! Once you see this, you’ll never look back. It’s so simply. It’s so obvious. It’s so explicit in the text. Take John’s gospel, chapter 16:
24 Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.
If that’s not explicit encourage to ask/obey SO THAT our JOY MAY BE FULL, then I don’t know what would constitute such evidence. It’s clear to me throughout Scripture that an appeal to our joy, our happiness, is a rock solid foundation to the Christian life. Therefore be obedient and be joyous!
Have you ever wondered, “What is faith?” The church has wondered and grappled with the relationship between faith and reason for nearly 2,000 years. It was Tertullian who rhetorically exclaimed, “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?” Anything? Is faith a LEAP in the dark? Or worse, as Tertullian would say in a different way, do we believe, precisely, “because it is absurd?”
Not that Luther cleared anything up in a neat and tidy fashion. He too loved paradox and hyperbole. He called reason ‘the devil’s bride,’ and ‘a damned whore.’ But if we dig a little deeper, Luther also had great things to say about reason. She was beautiful and divine! In what sense is reason the devil’s bride and in what sense is she beautiful and divine? Following Siegbert Becker’s thought, Luther was more careful than at first glance. Luther understood reason to be in constant search, which put it in touch with new information that changed earlier claims. In other words, human knowledge, based on reason alone, is in a continuous state of flux…of change. This kind of knowledge was inherent in humanity’s search. It will always be the case. Our knowledge today will not be the knowledge of our tomorrows.
Faith on the other hand, is not like reason – in this sense – it YIELDS CERTAINTY, CONFIDENCE, AND ASSURANCE. And it does so, not on the basis of probability, but on a gifted apprehension of God’s revelation in Christ…his person and his work. To be sure, faith is grounded in history: Jesus existed. He existed in real history. He died. He was buried like any other dead man, but he was RAISED from death by the power of God. His suffering and death have meaning, because they accomplished something. Faith sees this accomplishment. God’s word declares the accomplishment, and faith trusts, puts its confidence, and rests in what God has done. In that sense, faith is a gift, a gift of apprehension, and it is not based on simple human reasoning as such.
Abraham believed. He hoped against hope. In other words, though both of their bodies were, for all practical (human perspective) purposes, dead, they no longer had the ability of reproduction. Nevertheless, Abraham believed God. In this sense his belief was against reason. Yet he believed that God could and would do what he said. In that sense it was in keeping with reason. There is a sense in which faith is against reason, and there is a sense in which it is eminently reasonable. It all depends on which lens one is looking through.
Jesus underwent a baptism unto repentance; God makes a covenant with Noah, and Peter appeals or prayerfully asks for a good conscience. Can we tie these together? Let’s start with the indisputable. First, God has only destroyed the earth ONCE with waters of judgment, and this stemmed from an egregious violation of natural law. Bizarre as it may seem, angels apparently had relations with humans. This brought about God’s judgment. In the words of NT scholar, Tom Schreiner,
“It is quite plausible to understand the sin in Gen 6:1-4 as the climax of sin, the enormity of sin now being great enough to justify the extermination of all humanity.”
When humans transgress the natural order of God’s world, God judges. When the boundaries of natural law, or the created order are violated, judgment is set in motion. This is why nations need to pay heed to the natural order of God’s creation. God forbears with great mercy, but it is not forever.
There are over 600 references to water in the Scripture, and while waters often typify affliction and judgment (Ge 7:11-12; Ps 42:7), they also typify creation (2 Peter 3:5) and salvation (John 7:37-39). While a plethora of images abound, it seems in Noah’s flood, both judgment and salvation are merged together in a unique manner. In ONE event we have both justice through judgment and salvation through mercy. Peter ties this event in with our baptism.
When Jesus was baptized, he undertook such as our ‘representative’ on behalf of God’ s people – toward repentance. In that sense, he underwent judgment ‘on our behalf.’ In so doing, he took our sin of judgment upon himself; thereby becoming Lord of the covenant to ‘distribute’ gifts to men, primarily, the forgiveness of sins. Like the ark, in Christ we escape divine judgment – Christ himself bears it for us!
When Peter prayerfully requests of God for a good conscience, he refers to our Christian initiation into the faith – our baptism. Since, by divine substitution, Christ becomes sin for us, then by divine representation, we become righteous. This is what Luther called the Great Exchange! In other words, we appeal to the Lord of the covenant in and through our baptism. He has made an oath to forgive those who trust in Jesus. Like the self-malediction of the rainbow whereby God promises to destroy himself if he breaks the Noahic Covenant, so too on the cross. That’s how sure our forgiveness is in Christ! On the cross Made effective by his resurrection, we now are in possession of his meritorious sacrificial death. In our baptism, we died with him and were buried with him, and we are – and will be – raised to life in him. Baptism is the new covenant reality of an old covenant shadow – all pointing to Christ! Waters of judgment and waters of life…all shine forth in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ!
Moses and Elijah were the two prophets that appeared on what is traditionally called, ‘The Mount of Transfiguration.’ Like Moses, Jesus too climbed a mountain. Like Moses, he too received a word. Like Moses, he too radiated a bright light. But these ‘like Moses’ traits far exceeded Moses himself. Jesus climbed a mountain, but gave the word; indeed, he was the word. Jesus’ light was effulgent, and was hidden; no dissipation was nor ever will be observable. He is the expressed image of God Himself! Jesus is the prophet ‘like Moses’ that God promised to raise up from among them (Deut 18:15).
Elijah was chosen, I think, because he was the single example of honoring, albeit passively, a request for a double portion of his spirit. He, like Moses, was inherently incapable of rendering such requests. Moses couldn’t, nor did he want to, stop the elders from prophesying (Nu 22), but he could but ‘WISH’ that all Israel could/would prophesy. Elijah could promise the request, but said if Elisha saw him, then his request would be honored. In other words, Elijah knew who COULD honor and impart the substance of such a request. Jesus, on the other hand, as Hebrews tells us, was a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT. Elijah was type of Christ in that he bestowed the Spirit, but not directly. Jesus was/is a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT. This is what marks the believer – the possession of the Spirit.
Paul, though, says that the ‘god of this world’ has BLINDED the mind of the unbeliever, so he/she cannot see. The lesson learned here, surely cannot be that Satan thwarts God’s purposes; after all, the true and living God works all things according to the good pleasure of his will. The Christian view of God is NOT a FRUSTRATED DEITY. The blindness, then, is intended by evil, by destructive propensities, but not so God. He blinds and frustrates the wicked. He hides in order that they may NOT believe, but it is only to the wise and prudent – the rebellious hubris of humanity.
God’s light is the gospel; the gospel is Christ CRUCIFIED. It’s that simple. Furthermore, it is this gospel that can tear back the scales of our blindness. It IS THE POWER of God to salvation. The gospel is the hammer of God’s word, and it does not return to him void.
God dwells in darkness. This darkness is not the frequent metaphor of sin, but rather the impenetrable place of his dwelling. He is the Sovereign One – He is not like us, i.e., he is not a mortal. He BOTH transcends time and space (Christians are not pantheists), and yet acts within time and space (Christians are not deists). This darkness of God’s dwelling is Himself. Theologians call this the aseity of God. We do not know what a being who is life itself, is truly like. Paradox dots our landscape. Indeed, if one wants to get technical, sub-contraries and antinomies fill our faith. Augustine, echoing Scripture says, “Will what pleases, and grant what you will.”
At first glance this could lead to an Eastern mysticism – a resignation like Doris Day, “Whatever will be…will be…the future’s not ours to see. Que Sera, Sera” But this is a distorted reality, and only a partially correct view of how and why things happen. The God, according to apostolic tradition, is both the God who calls, who demands, who places a ‘causality’ in and through our believing – AND YET, he is a God who works all things after the counsel of his good and pleasure-filled will! God transcends what our minds cannot comprehend, and he calls us to activity, to waiting, to believing, and struggle. Yet, he works in all things for our good. What God shouts through it all is that “He is GOOD!” We are to TRUST him in this.
Jesus was on God’s mission, because, being God – Jesus proclaims in word and deed that God the Father is ‘missional’ in the core of who he is. If we want to be faithful, we must keep these tensions. Failure on either side leads to fatalism on one side, or an open future that could grieve the heart of all forever and ever, on the other. Jesus both sought the individual with an intense and personal desire, and did the same for the crowds. Peter says, God’s inner being “does not want any to perish, but ALL come to a place of repentance (2 Peter 3:9). He can demonstrate a purposeful maximization of all his efforts, as we see in Mark 1:29-39; yet we can witness the seeming self-destructive behavior that drives all whom he wants to save – away (John 6).
The way to bring this all together – not without tension – is to know that God seeks; his heart is missional; he desires to save, yet he lays down the gauntlet to strip us of our bequeathed rebellion. In Luther’s sense, “God must first attack us, if he is to save us.”
With interesting factoids and a dose of alternative facts, we explore how we got to where we are now. Enjoy!
A complex web of intersecting problems creates a conundrum for theologians. In Deut 18:15 God tells his prophet Moses that He will raise up a prophet, like him. God tells Moses, “- it is to him you shall listen.” Moses stands out as a unique prophet within Israel. Through him, the law was delivered. Through him, God brought them out of Egypt. No Israelite had such credentials. In some Jewish traditions – The Law is eternal. Who, what, and how many “prophets like Moses” would this “new work” of God bring, and for what reason? Who could be greater than Moses?
As Christians, we believe that “greater prophet” was and IS Jesus The Christ…The Annointed One of God. He was greater in many respects, but one of the most important, and most basic differences, was that Moses was but a mouthpiece of God. He established the prophetic tradition of ending a prophetic declaration with “Thus says the LORD.” Jesus comes and ratchets it up. He BEGINS his teaching with “Truly, truly…I SAY…” In other words, rather than a mouth piece FOR the Lord; he WAS the LORD – the God/man. He was THE ORIGINATOR of God’s word. By Him all that is or was, was created by Him!
Second, Moses, as a prophet was but a lone channel of God’s voice. He had no control over the Spirit’s distribution. We see this inability to distribute, transmit, and gift the Spirit in Numbers 11. There Moses is totally incapacitated to bequeath the Prophetic Spirit to God’s people. Jesus on the other hand “breaths” the Spirit and distributes it to God’s people, e.g., John 20:22, and would later baptize the nascent church with the Holy Spirit in total. Because Jesus was THE ORIGINATOR of God’s Word, He now has the ability to DISTRIBUTE that same prophetic Word.
How was this possible? Paul in Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalms 68:18, but with a significant SHIFT from the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew Scriptures) and the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures). The Hebrew Scriptures speak of one who ascended on high and RECEIVED gifts from men. Paul quotes that passage, but alters the wording from “receiving gifts” to GIVING GIFTS. Why and how can Paul alter the inspired Hebrew text? Answer: because it has been revealed to him that redemptive history is PROGRESSIVE. After Jesus’ work on the cross, he was coronated King in heaven. As God/man he “received” all the gifts, SO THAT he could then GIVE them among His people.
In brief, Jesus is THE PROPHET that God raised up LIKE MOSES. He is the CONSUMMATIVE PROPHET. In Jesus, God’s full disclosure came to be; he embodied and spoke God’s word, because he was God’s word (John 1).
(Much of the thought-content of this was gleaned from O Palmer Robertson’s book, “The Christ of the Prophets.”)
What does it mean to be a follower of Jesus? It is interesting to note that nearly all (maybe it is all?) the names used to describe Christians at the beginning, soon fell into disuse: disciple, followers of the way, Christian, brother, friend, saint, and believer. Indeed, some names, e.g., Christian, most likely were derived from the persecutors of the faith, and then taken over by the church. But even that name fell off the landscape.
With what should be a prick of conscience, some of the names that returned, returned because of the martyrs who died for their faith. The early church historian, Eusebius, said “I am a Christian” was a standard confession by those who were set to give their lives, instead of deny their Lord. What seems to be the lesson here is that “what we call something” is not the essential. And maybe the significance of that, in part, is not to be too concerned with labels, e.g., mark of the beast, and more concerned about the content and meaning. We should spend less time quibbling over names, and more time “becoming” the people we were called to be!
The first mark of the follower of Jesus is to acknowledge the unique authority of the God-man. Rather than act according to the times, whereby disciples sought out and asked the rabbi, Jesus did the seeking and calling. He took the initiative. He was the one who called. Truly a greater Abraham, a greater Moses, a greater David, and a greater Solomon has come. Hallelujah!
It’s difficult to say what Paul was getting at in 1 Cor 7:29-31, and yet at the same time it resonates. No, I’m not being contradictory. You can have intuitions that exceed the boundaries of language. Relax. My gray-matter is challenged, but I don’t think you’re going to get by without some indulgence of paradox, which makes application notoriously difficult! How does one live with a wife AS IF you had none? How does one mourn AS IF one is not mourning, or buy AS IF one has nothing, or live in the world AS IF one does not? Sometimes the pendulum swings in response to error too far. I think in order to fight docetic, gnostic, and neo-platonic ideals, we’ve practically denied there is a tension. In a desire to reject “other-worldliness” we have become too comfortable “in the world.”
Bottom line, to be a follower of Jesus, is to live in close proximity to his declaration of forgiveness and THE INTIMACY that flows from ABIDING in such a DIVINE DECLARATION! Forgiveness is HIS WORD, HIS HEART, and it’s a set of conditions obtained by him alone before we believed (chew on that one for awhile). We don’t know God, if we don’t know THAT WORD of FORGIVENESS!
You’re told to be on a church planting team. You choose someone who is committed to the truth of its mission – who is burning with a desire to share God’s love and its God-revealed truth in Scripture. Your leader is ‘home-grown,’ one who knows the community well. This is wise. You map out a game plan. In order to maximize human hearing, you target large population centers. Because you are a steward regarding time and resources, you spend most of your time there in and along those human highways. You commit yourselves to be faithful…no matter the cost. Does that sound like the team you would choose? What if you didn’t choose? What if this great leader chose you? What if that leader was the God-man – Jesus Christ? Overwhelming, right? Couldn’t find a better team, right? Success guaranteed, right? Welcome to the world of the New Testament. Welcome to Bethsaida, the most frequently mentioned city in all the gospels. There was a famous thoroughfare close by called, ‘Via Maris.’ And Jesus spent most of his time there. There’s one problem. The mission failed miserably. The work was closed due to unbelief.
But did the mission fail? If you think so, I’d ask you to rethink it again. No one would question our Lord’s efforts. No one would question our Lord’s desires. God’s work, through God’s word, accomplishes both life and judgment. And while his most cherished and self-revealing work is his love and mercy, judgment is his too. Such is just judgment in motion. So, no, the mission in Bethsaida was not a failure. Look at these two verses:
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 (1 Cor 1:18).
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? (2 Cor 2:15)
In the context of this mission failure (which it is not), God renamed Peter, and informed Nathanael that he would see greater things. In those two acts, God’s lordship over identity and history are demonstrated. Let us measure success in terms of faithfulness and effort. Results are God’s.
I’ve held that the importance of knowledge is easily demonstrated in the first verse of Holy Scripture…”In the beginning.” Some claim this is a dependent clause and should read: “In the beginning WHEN God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was…” This would strongly suggest the eternality of matter, of stuff. But then God and the world would be in need of each other. God would be, in some sense, ‘dependent’ upon the world. I believe the weight of evidence to be on the side an independent clause – “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Matter is created ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing).
The second issue is that the ‘stuff’ of creation seems infected? It is chaotic, formless, and there is darkness. The easiest thing to do is to side with the possibility of sin already present; after all, the words do mean what the translations have – the earth was “without form and void” (though you could also translate it “a desert wasteland”); either way its setting is foreboding. There’s a heaviness to it all. Add to this a DARKNESS, and one is simultaneously curious, yet apprehensive. But maybe darkness doesn’t embody singularity. Maybe it isn’t always evil. Is there any textual support? There isn’t much, but what there is, is powerful. In Psalm 18 it says,
“8 Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him. 9 He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet. 10 He rode on a cherub and flew; he came swiftly on the wings of the wind. 11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him, thick clouds dark with water.”
Victor Hamilton sums it up nicely, “Possibly darkness has both a benign and sinister nuance in the Bible. It is sinister in the sense of being the opposite of light, that out of which light evolves. But there is also a darkness that is protective, a darkness that conceals the location of a thief and acts as a veil for God, lest human eye behold him” (The Book of Genesis). So maybe…just maybe, the foreboding darkness and chaos are intentional. Maybe God hides, even as he reveals – and without the stain of sin? Maybe we have ‘tamed’ God beyond what Scripture tells us?
With that absolute beginning, then, John’s opening (and perhaps even Mark’s) we have more deliberateness pointing us the way forward. God has begun another creation. The God of hiding has come out of his canopy and is ushering in a NEW CREATION thru Jesus Christ. I think he has, and I think each new day on earth, is a NEW BEGINNING for those whom God has chosen, his elect. In Jesus’ baptism by John, he has chosen to identify with us, to take our lot, our sin, and become THE SINNER by way of representative action. Luther called this the WONDERFUL EXCHANGE. My sin for his righteousness. This is the gospel. This is our hope.
Theology was called the Queen of the Sciences. I distinctly remember my atheist philosophy professor (Phd Berkeley) after a long exchange on the cosmological argument, said, “It doesn’t get any better than this.” Even he was enamored. When we’re brought to the precipice of human thought, it is exhilarating. We intuitively ‘know’ there is something, but the human brain seems caught in paradox. THIS is the God of Scripture. His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. He resides in darkness. This darkness is NOT a moral darkness; it is rather a darkness of being, an impenetrable being. Something that should cause fear and dread. However, in our day and age, we have tamed him. We’ve made him more palatable for human consumption. The old adage ascribed to various authors, “God created us in his image, and we have returned the favor – we have created him in our image!”
All of that is true, but tension abounds. I would argue that the emphasis (at least by way of volume) is on the fact that God has condescended and has REVEALED himself and his plans to us. As hard as it may to obtain full cognitive rest over the fact that human language is a medium of revelation, we must believe and trust that it is.
He has given his bride the privilege and responsibility of communicating COMFORT to God’s people – “Comfort, comfort my people”…shouts God through the mouth of Isaiah! Simeon is given special revelation to identify the child Jesus as the Anointed One! Mary is told that he will both save and harden those in Israel – BOTH are the work of God.
Simeon announcing what has become known as the ‘Nunc dimittus’ (Now, dismiss thy servant), he can now depart this world in peace. As Jesus Christ is the culminating revelation of God to us, we TOO can be dismissed, i.e., die. He has come. He has spoken it, and we joyously believe and trust him!
The Supremacy of The SON! The Supremacy of Christ! Yes, Christmas is a small ‘t’ tradition. Yes, we really don’t know when he was born. And, yes, the Christian Church has manipulated its own texts, both copies of Sacred Scripture and historical records. It’s all true. So…so, why proclaim his uniqueness, his effulgence? Why speak about his incomparable glory and oneness with the Father? Why? Because as true as the previous foibles (and there are more than foibles as well) are, there is an untouched history that is true and solid. Minimally, Christ died and was raised from the dead. This is the nucleus of Christianity, but not its mere history (as true as that is), but God’s interpretation of THAT history. God DID SOMETHING on the cross, and his first step to the cross, where our sins are nailed to the tree, is BECOMING MAN. The eternal became temporal. The infinite became finite…and – now get this – the SINLESS became the SINNER. God ‘became’ man, but in the resurrection Jesus WAS DECLARED to be THE SON OF GOD!!!
May you know the peace of Christ richly, deeply, and may you enjoy and love those whom God has placed in your path this Christmas Season!
With the literary device known as ‘parallelism’ Luke engages in a compare and contrast analysis of Zechariah and Mary. Both were chosen; both were visited by an angel; both were troubled; both had questions; both births were miraculous. However:
1) Only Mary was directly chosen by God
(Zechariah was chosen by human lot).
2) Only Mary’s visitation was initiated with the angel’s personal identity
(Gabriel tells Zechariah his name in a rebuke).
3) Mary’s initial engagement with Gabriel was an angelic act of deference toward her
(Zechariah received no such deference);
4) Mary was troubled ‘more than’ Zechariah
(though the same Greek word is used, Mary’s use has an added preposition for intensity);
5) Zechariah requested a sign, even though the angel’s visitation had been an answer to his prayer
(Mary did not ask for a sign, but was confounded as to the seeming impossibility of it all).
6) Elizabeth’s pregnancy was miraculous in that an old woman who had been barren became pregnant
(Mary’s pregnancy was more than just stretching the natural order; it was a creation out of nothing – no sexual relations).
Now for the kicker. To be sure, Mary was blessed, and her response is an exercise of exemplary faith and trust, but she visited ‘because’ she had extraordinary faith? I think the Scripture says, no. Rather, Gabriel’s statement that Mary had found favor, is in the passive voice, and this strongly suggests that such a divine passive – the favor was gratuitous.
In a general sense, God came into what is arguably an extreme expression of male patriarchy, and he chose to speak directly to a woman, and tell her to name her son. For Luke, God’s ways are mysterious, but more than that, he inverts the world’s values and comes riding on an ass – declaring himself to be king!
In our worship service we changed our public confession and declaration of God’s grace. Added, was the word Hallelujah. In its verbal form it is an exhortation to “Praise Yahweh…Praise The LORD.” Its verbal root הֹלֲל (Hallel), means praise, shout an acclamation! Coupled with the English transliteration, Hallelu (praise) – is “jah,” which is short for YAHWEH (Jehovah), According to Jewish tradition/theology, YAHWEH is the unpronounceable ‘personal’ name of God. It is too holy to pronounce. That’s how we derive its meaning as “Praise the LORD,” or “Praise YAHWEH.” Without the vowels, the consonants are: YHWH, which, because there are four consonants, is called a tetragrammaton, and was in perpetuity (Qere perpetuum) to be read with the name Adonai (also a biblical name, but not a ‘personal’ name). Other names of God are more of an ascription than a personal name. In Hebrew culture, it is the PERSONAL name of God that should NOT be pronounced, for he is too holy.
Interestingly, the root for shouts of praise to Yahweh, is the same for “madness & folly.” So disconcerting to philologists, they declare, though spelled the same, there are two separate roots (now even 3 if you allow for ‘shinning’ as a separate root). Why? The disparity! The disparate meanings are too chasmic, too different. But I think many get it wrong here. I think the Jew of the day heard the various meanings as coming from one root. But even if there are technically two roots (or three), the point remains. There are two very different meanings.
What are we to make of that? I think Calvin got it right when he put forth the ‘Sensus divinitatus,’ or the sense of divinity. He followed Scripture. With the creation of humankind, God imparted a sense of divinity, and because of it, we must trust; we must repose; in short, we MUST WORSHIP. It’s in our DNA. The question is: Will we wrap ourselves around the darkness or will we come to the light of Jesus Christ?
In the opening of Mark, we looked at the BEGINNING of the good news of Jesus the Christ. As with the opening of Genesis (which simply means the beginning), Mark’s gospel opens up with THE BEGINNING of the good news of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ life is another creation, another divine intent yielding another divine repose, “God saw that it was good.” Jesus INAUGURATED THE KINGDOM OF GOD. He brought it to earth. Not ideally, but really and substantially. Christ brought the beginning of the end. We are in the LAST DAYS of two parallel kingdoms. Soon Christ returns. Soon the end of the ages will be upon us, and God will come to judge the living and the dead. HALLELUJAH!!!
In Lutheran terms, a theology of glory has a strangle hold on the American church. We have gold crosses, gold ear rings, necklaces, and we are told that God has a wonderful plan for our lives. Oh, how partial truths grip the imagination of idolatry! In the cross God is hidden. He is humiliated, scorned, crushed, and defeated. With the shadowy promises of the good life, typologically fulfilled in Christ, the prophets called upon God to “rend the heavens and come down (Is 64:1)!” Through time the prophets knew their only hope was God’s intervention.
After 500 years of near complete prophetic silence, the heavens were torn. God did visit to save his people. But the rending was more than any ordinary human could do. He clothed himself in human flesh, so evil could the flesh of the Son of God, like the carnivore who sinks his teeth into his prey and rips the flesh in two.
But God also did his own rending. God came and died a sinner’s death. He violently tore the flesh of the Son of Man in two. It pleased God to scourge him, to open heaven’s door of violent judgment and pour out the vials and grapes of wrath upon his Son. The cross is offensive. It’s repulsive. And yet through its apparent opposite, this defeat of God, we find the victory of God; it is our salvation.
Now we are in the final waiting hours of all history. Soon the new creation shall appear in all its glory. The image of God will final its glorious expression in and through God’s holy people. God’s people once again cry out to God to “rend the heavens,” only this time he comes not under veil, hiding through suffering, but he mounts a stallion and rides with a sword in his mouth – The Warrior Lamb is returning to mete out divine justice. Are you ready? Are you anticipating? He is coming!
Demands, threats, and comfort all in one? Matthew has been hitting his readers hard on the demands of the gospel (gospel in the wide sense…more on that below).
We have taken note of the future tense toward the end of Matthew. Regarding the kingdom, it is pointing to something that has not *yet* come. In chapter 25 vv. 14-30 Jesus speaks of the coming judgment. Some otherwise bible-believing preachers want to take a subpoint and make it the main, as if it were mainly about ‘stewardship’ of God’s unearned gifts, but the main message has to do with the rewards and punishments AT JUDGMENT. Yes, ‘the great Day of the Lord’ is the main focus. The seeking shepherd returns as the mighty warrior. He will bring his own into eternal joy, and he will judge those who have mocked his calling into ‘outer darkness.’
Some are concerned that salvation by works is presented here, though subtle, the gracious gifting of the talents indicates that what we have here is not salvation by works, but a salvation ‘that works!’ Or as bible scholar, Craig Blomberg,” states so beautifully and succinctly:
“Again, Jesus is not promoting salvation by works, but the demonstration of salvation by works.”
Matthew has been telling us about the Kingdom; it is like someone who found a rare pear; it is like someone who lost a coin, but now he switches to the future: Then the Kingdom of Heaven WILL BE LIKE… Why the change in tense from present to future? Answer: God is giving us a warning about the radical call to discipleship. The gospel – or Good News of God – is a great COMFORT to ears and hearts in need, but THIS COMFORT is the opposite of another kind of comfort, presumptuous comfort that comes from a half-hearted embrace. THAT kind of comfort is eternally dangerous, for it indicates a divided heart of allegiance, and God does not share his glory. Their comfort is one that allows two masters, but they are in delusion that God would share such purposeful dual citizenship. Even when they approach him, the use of his name is familiar, “Lord, Lord …” But he answers, “I never knew you.”
It would be a mistake to speak of the preparation as something that we do on our own. While much has been discussed as to the meaning of lamp oil (and from this I think it best left open), what cannot be allowed is a crass human effort that contravenes GRACE. This preparation, therefore, must be DEMONSTRATIVE in nature. In other words, such preparedness must be “evidence for” the regenerative work of God, not a true human prequel. Why the threats? I think the great biblical scholar Greg Beale has put it well:
“The elect remnant can be conformed to some degree to the spiritual anesthesia of an unbelieving community. But God delivers them from permanent identification with unbelief by shocking them out of their spiritual torpor through prophetic exhortations, which serve only to harden those who are truly apostate.”
Simply put, yes, God comforts. He comforts us sometimes when we think we are unrecoverable, unlovable; yet, the same God also challenges; he warns; he threatens, and this for our good. He knows what we need and when we need it.
Something has all gone wrong. Another shooting. At least twenty are dead. It’s tragic. But the human heart is tragic. We live in bubbles of self absorption. We intentionally hurt others. Sometimes this hatred, jealousy and envy spills over into the taking of another’s life. Micah, the prophet of God, has no other metaphor to describe our corruption than that of cannibalism (Micah 3:1-12). With Jeremiah, the prophet, “Our hearts are desperately wicked and deceitful above all things” (Jer 17:9).
Jesus came to inaugurate a different kingdom, a different kind of engagement with each other. It was – and continues to be – a radical agenda. It requires a divine miracle. It’s a transference from one kingdom to another. Luther had a latin descriptor called, “incurvatus in se” (a turning in on oneself), and declared that Christ’s sacrifice enabled an outward, an ‘other’ focus, where empathy, compassion, kindness and truth prevailed. His kingdom, and accompanying call, even extends to one’s enemies!
Paradoxically, we should be slow to pursue our own honor and service, in part, because we seek to bestow honor on others. If you are looking for a life-changing message, a life-changing truth, you need look no further – it is Christ and him crucified, and the bestowal of an abundant life of service and honor toward others, because one is enveloped in the life of God.
Faith, hope and love remain. The greatest of these is love.
Does God commanding something, make it right? Would that not mean there is no possible EVALUATION that one can enter into, when evaluating? God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. Would you have done that? Was the command a just command? This is a complicated inquiry, and I do not tackle that here nor in the message, but there is some truth here. God will not – indeed cannot – contravene his own nature. As difficult it may be to sort through this, it is a very, very, comforting truth.
Human ethics are grounded in that comforting thought, and so God can declare – “Be holy” because He IS holy. It all flows. It is an inner delight to know that the God of the universe affirms that our holiness will flow out of his. He becomes the lover of my soul. The one in whom I cannot be without. As CS Lewis described our longing for beauty:
“We want something…which can hardly be put into words – to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it.”
Praise God that we are in possession of this longing, in that we have been UNITED with Christ, in his death, in his life and resurrection!
It’s a difficult concept: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s. What does it all mean? Frankly, I’m not sure. I am sure, however, that one must not let something…anything, get between you and Jesus; that much I do know. There seems to have been some sort of compromise in the issuance of coins between Israel and Herod (ultimately representing Rome). The Jews were able to pay some taxes with a coinage that did NOT have Caesar’s image on them, nor the jingle, “Tiberium Caesar, son of the divine Augustus.” The rulers of the day sought to trap Jesus. They thought they had him in a corner, but instead of being check-mated, he revealed their hypocrisy. He asked for a coin, and they happened to have one on hand (the very thing they pretended to have scruples over). In effect, Jesus neutralized the graven image issue, and rendered his oft-quoted quip, “Render to Caesar…Render to God…”
Today, we are in danger of succumbing to a kind of nationalism that was present back in Jesus’ day. The Zealots wanted to overthrow the Romans and tried on several occasions. They failed miserably – eventually leading to Jerusalem’s destruction. There is no room in God’s kingdom for sharing God’s glory. As one of our members is fond of saying, “Salvation isn’t coming on AirForce One.” May we seek repentance and give God his rightful place in our lives.
If you thought homosexuality has caused God’s judgment…think again…think Scripture.
Recently, some prominent evangelicals have claimed that Katrina, and most recently Harvey and Nate, are judgments of God because of the sin of homosexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because apostolic witness says that same-sex intimacy is evidence of God’s judgment ALREADY in motion; in other words, homosexuality isn’t ‘the cause’; it is ‘evidence of’ A PRIOR judgment (Ro 1:24-27). If we want this nation, this American experiment, or this church, to be turned around, we better start with a serious examination of the real cause(s) of God’s judgment. Jesus was castigated by the religious community for being “a wine bibber” (some thought he drank too much) and “a friend of sinners” (some thought he chilled with the wrong crowd). My sense is, if we want to turn things around, we should figure out what has caused the judgment in the first place. Is it formalism? Is it neglect of the poor? Is it our heartless and faithless marriages? Is it avarice? Is it our overall sexual indulgences, e.g., pornography, sex outside of promise, treating people as objects…an idolatrous nationalism? May God have mercy, and may we come under similar attack, as Jesus did, for the glory of God.
Life got you down? Maybe you need suffering? Maybe you need re-framing? Maybe not. Maybe you just need the presence of a friend. But suffering is not new, and this may be an encouragement.
More grumbling. Having just had a similar experience (Ex 15), they now (Ex 17) are faced with more lack of provision, and before we get too boastful, do keep in mind it was the third day with no water. There’s always a tension to keep in the Christian life. Here, we witness the experience of the present lack of provision (and we’re not talking a lack of money for vacation), and the past where God provided abundantly; hence, the issue was GOD’S FAITHFULNESS.
I’ve always said that God can handle our anger…our push back, but be prepared for a little push back from God. His GOAL, because he is all-good, is to make something beautiful…a trusting sentient creature who holds tenaciously to the premise that God provides, that God is GOOD, that God is ABLE.
Premises? That’s correct. Premises are important to the Christian faith, but a believer must have more than premises. He or she must have the transformational encounter with the inner being of God’s heart, and that comes through knowing (in the fullest sense of the word) him in Christ.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard, “Let’s just get back to the church of the New Testament.” When I hear that, I can receive it hospitably, but another part of me responds, “You can have the 1st Century church; she was filled with troubles on many fronts, and I do not want to return!” The hospitable side of me understands the phrase to mean, “Let’s get back to the Apostolic Church, grounded in Apostolic belief and practice,” and to that I say, “Amen!” SIN is the missing variable in all utopias, and the church has spawned its share. e.g., cities on a hill, monasteries, and an array of others (I’m not against monasteries per se) . One great thing about our holy book is its realism. The failures from kings to apostles are there for all to see. And why is that? Answer: Because it is God who justifies; it is God who regenerates; it is God who sanctifies; it is God who glorifies. The last phrase is verse 3 of Romans 14, summarizes things nicely: “God has welcomed him.” The answer for a vibrant, disciplined, and healthy church is none other than the living in and through God’s acceptance. This alone truly stops bickering, backstabbing, slandering, and factions. God’s radical acceptance, and the work that cleared the way, is the reality on which all true growth and maturity rests.
Ruling Elder, Ed Wright, gives a message to CRPC on the close connection between the nature of faith and the exercise of faith, asking us, “Is a faith one does not plan to use, any faith at all?” The implied answer is: No. Faith by definition is active. As Luther would say: “We are justified by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.”
There are a total of six commands (imperatives) in the first eleven chapters of Romans, five of which are found in chapter six. There are forty-nine commands in chapters 12-16. Clearly, Paul builds a system of ethics on what God has done for us in Christ. This keeps us from antinomianism (against, or without law) and legalism (codes of behavior). God continually calls us to become what He has declared us to be in Christ!
“Paul, have you lost your mind? I mean, when the text (Deut 30:12-13) forbids us to say let’s go up to the heavens, let’s cross the sea, it is simply saying GOD is ALREADY near, in his word, in his precepts. Furthermore, when you speak of righteousness that comes through faith, well, that just butchers the text of Deuteronomy. It clearly says that wisdom, which is the law of God, comes from doing and keeping, not simply believing! Paul, you are confused and a terrible interpreter of Scripture!”
Okay, so that’s pretty much what a Jew could tell Paul. But we need to keep in mind that the promise to Abraham PRECEDED the giving of the law and circumcision – it was the act of BELIEVING, then, that was the beginning of HIS promises. The law, which came 430 years ‘after’ the promise to Abraham, cannot annul the promises God had previously made – and BY believing…Abraham WAS RECKONED (or considered) righteous.
Some say Paul was involved in what theologians call ‘Pesher’ interpretation, whereby you (sometimes very creatively) render an interpretation that is not readily apparent on a first reading, and as interesting as that may be, I think Paul is leaning heavily on Abraham, and he sees FULFILLMENT of wisdom in Deuteronomy through God’s PRIOR dealings with Abraham. The identification of the WORD in Deuteronomy as CHRIST, resulted from Paul’s epiphany on the road to Damascus. THAT word, i.e., Christ, is given to us precisely because CHRIST DOES SOMETHING for us that we could not do for ourselves. He became the SIN-BEARER of our sins, so he could be the giver of OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS!
The notion of hell can be like fitting a square peg in a round hole; the contemplation of those whom we know and love, in hell, can tear us up from the inside. But if we’re going to let the text speak, then we must place our faith in the already/not yet trajectory, whereby the future portrays God’s people rejoicing in the just judgment of God, “After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out, “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, for his judgments are true and just…” (Rev 19:1-2). In faith, at the end of the ages, we believe evil will be revealed in its fullness, and God’s people will rejoice in the fury of the lamb’s wrath.
But what about in the interim? If Paul is a safe guide (and we presume he is) then like the geysers of Yellowstone, redemptive longing will find its way through the prospect of God’s judgment, and we will do everything in our power to prevent the prospective judgment of God from becoming a full-orbed reality, i.e., I will become all things to all that I might gain/win those for Christ. Indeed, in pondering hell, we might find ourselves “could wishing” to take their place. Yes, hell is ‘that’ bad. The nineteenth-century Lutheran scholar, Isaak Dorner, said that what we witness in Paul’s longing to “become cursed,” is: “a spark from the fire of Christ’s substitutionary love.” Following Dorner, the great Scottish theologian, James Denney, comments on Paul’s posture:
“There is a passion in it more profound even than that of Moses’ prayer in Ex 32:32. Moses identifies himself with his people, and if they cannot be saved would perish WITH THEM; Paul could find it in his heart, were it possible, to perish FOR THEM.” (emphasis mine).
So even with the allowance of the ‘COULD WISH’ of the imperfect tense of Paul’s verbiage (Ro 9:3), it is clear: Paul longed for the salvation of those whom he feared lost to the point of enduring their punishment. In that longing, Paul reflected the spark from the fire of Christ’s suffering. The coming suffering of those heading for destruction should prompt us to do no less. If it does not do this, then we have not truly pondered the reality of hell. The church needs to get to the highways and byways and seek the lost for glory of God (Luke 14:23).
Union with Christ…produces a walking with Christ (Ro 8:13) that demonstrates a “putting to death” of sinful passions and behavior. The natural life of a Christian is a supernatural life. The Spirit who brings about our union with Christ, is the same person who energies this new-found life in Christ. It is relational; it is intimate, and it flows out of our ‘adoption’ as ‘sons and daughters’ of God. The Holy Spirit bears witness, not just to Christ and his work, but it bears witness TO OUR SPIRITS that we are children of God (Ro 8:15-16). As Calvin said, “He alone is truly a believer who, convinced by a firm conviction that God is a kindly and well-disposed Father toward him…,” which produces a “sweetness…of the divine goodness.” This is nothing less than a vibrant and dynamic personal relationship, which I think helps explain why God created us male and female; marriage testifies of this divine life (Eph 5). “Abba” is a transliteration from the Aramaic, and while some have said it equates to ‘daddy’, it is better understood along the lines of “Father, my dear father (Murphy, via Schreiner),” which is the “cry” of the believer’s heart.
What does the normal Christian life look like? Has the dominion of sin been broken? Was Paul using hyperbole in describing the Christian battle, or was he speaking as a pious Jew who lacked power and was therefore in bondage to sin and the law? Was Paul utilizing the ‘historical present’ in Ro 7:14-25 or was he really speaking in the present as the Apostle? Does the statement in Ro 7:14 of “being sold under sin” conflict with Ro 6:2 of having “died to sin” and Ro 8:2 as having “been set free from the law of sin and death?”
The Apostle Paul grounds all the imperatives (commands) in the indicatives (what God has done on our behalf). In one sense we could say the maxim is: “Be who you are,” but as several theologians have said, it’s probably more accurate to say, “Become what you are becoming,” e.g., Dunn, Kasemann, Moo and Schreiner. Thomas Schreiner hit the nail on the head when he summarized the Biblical worldview of Paul as: “The outworking of the imperative in everyday existence reveals that the indicative is truly operating. Without the gracious work of God as a priority, any attempt to carry out the imperative is doomed to abysmal failure or misguided self-worship.”
Carolyn Haeffelin brings us the Word of God.
One of greatest contributions of Christianity to the world has been the ineradicable dignity of humankind as the image-bearer of God. Just as it was no accident that science grew from the fertile soil of a Christian worldview, likewise, international law was given its impetus from a Jesuit who was compelled to affirm the inherent rights of others, i.e., non-Christians, for they too possessed inherent dignity. Without doubt our greatness stems from this wonderful truth. Christians ought to be those who walk with head held high, yet at the same time, engage the world in fervent mutual servant-hood (Gen 1 & 2). This dignity was imparted by a royal king who reigns and rules from his sovereign throne, who engages history, predicts history, and this because he controls history, i.e., go to Galilee (Mat 26-28). God is a speaking God, and Scripture is a direct result. Therefore, we have been given a directive to bring this revealed knowledge of Him to a lost and dying world that – contrary to Senator Bernie Sanders – stands condemned before the tribunal of God. Jesus Christ is the only liberator; he is the second Adam, who did for us what we could not do for ourselves. Lay everything aside; find him whatever it costs you – you will not be disappointed!
Why the cross? Why the death of the God-man? Questions such as these have been grappled with since the beginning of Christianity. On the one hand, we have a judicial system whereby arguments are made as to the ‘state of affairs’ and a judge (or jury) weighs the merits and pronounces judgment. If guilty as charged, a sentence is given. On the other hand, during a non-criminal, yet moral failing, humans can ‘forgive one another’. Certainly if we can, and God is of a higher order, then why can’t God merely say to us – “You are forgiven?” Let’s be clear, according to Scripture, none of us can forgive ourselves, let alone another. To be sure, we humans do ‘Let bygones be bygones’. We can choose not to hate and to communicate acceptance in spite of the wrong – but to truly forgive, is something that no human being has the authority to do. What we have in God is the marriage of the judicial and the personal, so that when God forgives he truly does, and he does so on the merits and the compliance of justice by means of the sin-bearing lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!! After his resurrection, Christ meets with his disciples and ‘breathes’ on them. The word translated as ‘breathe’ is what is known as a hapax legomena – words that occur only once in the Greek New Testament (the language the Scriptures were originally written). In the Septuagint – a group of 70 scholars who translated the OT into Greek (since that was the common language of the day), has this word, and when we look there, it is found in two very conspicuous places. When God created Adam (Genesis 2:7) and when God told Ezekiel to gather up the dry bones (Ezekiel 37:1-14). The breathing then is connected to the original creation and a prophetic dynamic; both instilling life into the lifeless. It is here that the meaning of the text should be gleaned. Pentecost is upon us and by his breath, his recreating breath of regeneration, true eternal life is breathed into his bride, the church. We now are the walking tabernacle/sanctuary of God.
The Apostles’ Creed says that Christ descended into hell. The PROBLEM? The earliest manuscript that has that particular phrase is from the fourth century, and it really wasn’t fully, universally and authoritatively accepted until the 9th century (functionally accepted the 6th – 8th century). The MEANING? That is a harder nut to crack. It depends on several factors. Are you talking the original framers of the creed (which were not the apostles, and we really don’t know who), the early church, Roman Catholics, Protestants…? Yes, it gets complicated. The verse in 1 Peter 3:19 is the main stay for the theology of Christ’s decent, but it is not really clear what nor to whom Christ proclaimed. Was it to the powers of darkness, only the people during Noah’s arc-building or to all who lived before Christ? Did the proclamation contain an offer to accept Christ, since they had never heard of them? All of these questions the church has grappled with, and I will not pretend to have all the answers. Some of the reformers took a ‘reader’s response’ approach and interpreted Christ’s descent into hell as that of undergoing divine retribution in our place. What IS CLEAR is that Christ is Lord and his proclamation entail the heralding of such good news!
It’s not mentioned explicitly in the text of John 14:1, but we know what’s coming: Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denial and a discouraged (lost?) faith on the part of the disciples; yet Jesus’ command was firm – “Let not your hearts be troubled.” I think bible scholar Frederick Dale Bruner is correct to translate it, “Let not your hearts be TOO troubled.” Those coming events would have been excruciating. Unphased by events is not holy living; it’s denial. Christians don’t deny reality; they live in it through the experiences by the power of the Spirit. That being said, what is the impetus for not living or wallowing in our troubles? As Peter said, it having TASTED OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD!
Many Christians walk around in shame. They feel the sting. Scripture has instructions for slaves and masters. In our history many Christian theologians attempted to justify slavery as an on-going institution established by God. How archaic and backwards is that!? As believers we must not hide our head in the sand; indeed, when looked at historically (the church was a persecuted lot and in no position to offer any comprehensive vision for social order. The church was birthed in real history, sin and all), contextually (trajectories point to sin as a cause of slavery, and implied adjustments, e.g., Onesimus and Philemon), biblically (slaves were to fear God, which meant an allegiance to God first, and such entailed their persecution) and socially (the elimination of slavery came from within Christianity), then I think we can determine slavery’s origin is to be found in the disruption of sin, and that any guidance for slaves within Scripture was patterned after the example of Jesus Christ himself, i.e., he was willing to undergo unjust treatment for a more holy allegiance, i.e., God.
What kind of evidence is needed to support the claim that Jesus has risen from the dead? Some, e.g., Hume, Sagan, would aver that one would need ‘extraordinary evidence’ to support the ‘extraordinary claim’. Without jumping into that debate, if we assume such (one of the problems is defining terms, which Sagan never did), then it would seem the criterion could be met and the tables turned. No other explanation makes much sense, e.g., stolen body by either Jesus’ followers (why do that?), or by Roman authorities (just show them the body), wrong tomb? (again, just show them the body) and legend (would you die for a myth through deception?).
Who is the servant in Isaiah? With purposeful ambiguity, yet with sufficient clarity, the answer is complicated. However, when all the data is analyzed the servant-redeemer (Is 50, 53) holds the most prominent place and has the greatest explanatory power. Without doubt, the servant is literal and collective Israel, but who also exemplifies traits that invite the wrath and judgment of God. Israel as ‘servant’ is blind and deaf (Is 42:19-20). Furthermore, Jesus as servant ‘counters’ the very attributes responsible for the displeasure of God. He has ears that were not given over to rebellion (Is 50:5); and yet, he undergoes a persecution (Is 50:6) that is redemptive (Is 53). All in all there is more than one SERVANT in Isaiah. As mentioned, the most prominent (Jesus) now has a tongue given to him by God that knows how to speak and sustain with a word those who are weary (Is 50:4)!!
Not quite to the level of Abbott and Costello, nonetheless, the interrogative (who?, what?, how?…) in the healing of the blind man in John 9:1-41 is a literary feat yielding a harvest as to the identity of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, the ‘who’ of Jesus never gets asked, until …
Can I be sure of my destiny? Short answer is: Absolutely! But after establishing that tremendous truth, which is based on the ‘reckoning’ of the righteousness of Christ, there’s even more!! Between now and our glorious end, there are the moments where suffering abounds, and Christians are never to be in the mere mode of ‘waiting’. To the contrary, God’s great work of transformation is taking place – creating a Christ-like character that will shine in glory forever and ever. This transformation produces hope in the here and now, for God has poured out his love, i.e., seen in the self-sacrificing act of Christ, through the Holy Spirit.
Those in Israel seeking righteousness were instructed – by God – to look to Abraham. Unfortunately, a culture within Israel had a romantic view of Abraham. From Jubilees 23:10 it was said of Abraham that he , “…was perfect in all his deeds…” Ironic, isn’t it, that such could be said of man who out of fear, pimped out his wife Sarah as his sister? In Romans 4:1-3 Paul tackles the Abraham issue, showing from Scripture that he was “declared or reckoned” as righteous when he believed, which was before he was circumcised. Believing, then, is the medium of God’s reckoning, not law keeping.
Jesus’ style was filled with a variety of communication modes. He exhibited hyperbole, satire, conundrums, tensions, directness, indirectness, parables, stories, and the list could go on. Here, on the Sermon on the Mount, Christ tells his disciples to let their light shine, but then he seems to say hide your good works. How are we to understand these seeming conflicted statements?
We apologize for the framing of this video. A button was apparently bumped, which shrunk the frame size.
After declaring the Law to be DURABLE and RELEVANT, Jesus begins to ‘contrast’ HIS authority with what they have heard had been said to them concerning various issues, e.g., love, lawsuits, insults, etc. Jesus’ use of the ‘adversative’ (but), has troubled bible scholars til this very day. Indeed, one will search in vain for ‘hating your enemies’; to the contrary, they were to love their enemies, e.g., Exodus 23:4-5; Job 31:29-30; Prov 24:17-18. A clue seems to be Jesus’ phrase ‘You have heard’ and not ‘It is written’. The Jewish people had a long oral tradition, and it was to this ‘bantering’ around the meaning of the law, where the ‘hate the enemy’ was probably derived. We see a lot of hyperbole in Jesus’ communication style, e.g., giving cloak and tunic would make one naked! That being said, something of non like-manner response is called up on from God’s people, when they encounter insults and the like. There is no casuistry (rule book) whereby every scenario can be laid out is a goal. We are to love our enemies; we are to suppress the initial impulse to meet aggression with aggression. The good of our enemy is to always be before us. This entails SELF CONTROL and is the mark of true manliness and spirituality.
Understanding the Sermon on the Mount is not easy. There are over 35 different interpretations, but most boil it down to eight or nine. Jesus’ relationship to the law was a concern; after all, crowds were following him and liking what they heard. However, he spoke with what seemed to be a self-appointed authority, “You have heard…but I tell you” and he even implied a Messianic self awareness, i.e., “I have come…” Bottom-line, Jesus did not come to ‘set aside’ the Law, but to FULL-FILL all that the Law truly means; he opened the pedals of the flower to its blossoming purpose! Jesus’ relationship to the Law, then, was one of fulfillment (v. 17). He also affirmed the Law’s durability (v. 18) and then finally, Jesus affirmed ethical relevance for the Law (v. 19).
Matthew and Luke seem to emphasize diametrically opposed notions. Luke the earthly poor and hungry, and Matthew the spiritual poor and spiritually hungry. Who’s right? Is Matthew? Is Luke? Are both? Are neither? The best approach to date seems to be BOTH. The poor are those who find themselves in situations whereby they experience poverty, brokenness, want, but who also trust in the Lord. Likewise, the rich, who sit under the eschatological WOES of God, are those who seem to have forgotten God and who ascribe to themselves a kind of law-giving status. They often mock God and abuse others. https://vimeo.com/home/myvideos
Christianity turned the world upside down. But how? Some have said by ‘inverting values of honor’. Instead of the strong and powerful, God through Christ comes in weakness, comes in vulnerability, submits to ‘the state’. He is judged by humanity; we put him (God) to death on a cross, but little did we know, it was the most egregious violation of justice – by us – that God used to save us. This is what Paul in part is getting at when he speaks of “the foolishness of what was preached” that saves those who are called and believe. Both the Greeks and Jews scoffed at this ‘inversion’ of power. To them, such was inherently weak and shameful. But God through Christ takes the plunge into human history and bears its scorn, ridicule and judgment, and thereby, he saves it! Soli Deo gloria!