I'm reading Iain Murray's Heroes right now, in which he gives brief biographies of several Christians. The chapter on Whitefield focuses on Christian unity. Murray gives 3 reasons why unity fails and 5 ways to increase it. This has been challenging and encouraging for me recently.
3 reasons unity fails:
1. Because fallen human nature is universally prone to prejudice, ignorance, and the adoption of wrong principles.
2. Because "church" in the sense of denominational organization is identified with the body of Christ.
3. Because if encounters constant opposition from the powers of darkness.
5 Ways to increase unity
1. Let us see other believers first as Christians
2. Let us desist, as far as possible, from controversies on secondary issues.
3. Let us be sure to recognize our own failures in this grace.
4. Let us seek to keep the unity of heaven before us
5. Let us seek closer fellowship with our savior, Jesus Christ.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
The Name of the LORD
Why is God's proper name written as LORD in the OT? Is there anything wrong with saying the LORD's name, Yahweh (or Jehovah)?
From The Journey from Texts to Translations, by Paul Wegner:
"(YHWH was not written according to its true pronunciation) because the Jewish people did not want the name of their God to be taken lightly, as the third commandment states: 'You shall not miuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name' (Exod. 20:7).....The scribes reasoned that if they did not point the name Yahweh then it could never be treated lightly since his name would not really be known."
YHWH was never spoken by Jews, they said Adonai (lord) instead. This was expressed in the translation of the Septuagint.
I'm personally a fan of using a transliterated version of YHWH, even in English Bibles. The reasoning expressed in Wegner's explanation strikes me as almost superstitious, and completely missing the point of the third commandment. We say the name of Jesus, why shy away from also saying Yahweh? Most people have never noticed the difference between LORD and Lord in an English Bible, and as a result they lose something rather significant in reading the OT, and also probably miss many of the NT pointers to the divinity of Christ (Rom 10:13, Mark 1:2-3, for example). The word for God in Hebrew, Elohim, is similar to our word for God, that is, it's generic. It can mean God or god. The word Adonai (lord) is similarly ambiguous. YHWH, on the other hand, is a proper name.
There is the issue of pronunciation. No one can be sure how YHWH is supposed to be pronounced because the vowels were lost along the way. I think it's safe to say that the first vowel should be an /a/ as in Father, because we have many other words in the OT that use the first two letters of YHWH and always pronounce is "Ya". Hallelujah, for example, which means praise YHWH, "Hallelu-Yah." In any case, I don't think it's a huge deal whether we pronounce his name correctly. We don't worry about it with any of the other proper names in the OT.
For a people who have never heard of the Christian God, they will doubtless have their own word(s) for God/god, words that are probably as ambiguous as our word "god". I believe it is tremendously helpful and important for them to learn a specific name for the specific God who they are to worship as The God. The Chinese Bible uses Ye He Hua (transliterated form of YHWH) for YHWH and Shang Di or Shen (generic word for God/god) for God. This is the way that I'm inclined to go as well. When a Chinese person picks up the Bible and reads the name Ye He Hua they will say, "Who is this?" But as they keep reading they will learn who this God is and the name will take on definition naturally.
From The Journey from Texts to Translations, by Paul Wegner:
"(YHWH was not written according to its true pronunciation) because the Jewish people did not want the name of their God to be taken lightly, as the third commandment states: 'You shall not miuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name' (Exod. 20:7).....The scribes reasoned that if they did not point the name Yahweh then it could never be treated lightly since his name would not really be known."
YHWH was never spoken by Jews, they said Adonai (lord) instead. This was expressed in the translation of the Septuagint.
I'm personally a fan of using a transliterated version of YHWH, even in English Bibles. The reasoning expressed in Wegner's explanation strikes me as almost superstitious, and completely missing the point of the third commandment. We say the name of Jesus, why shy away from also saying Yahweh? Most people have never noticed the difference between LORD and Lord in an English Bible, and as a result they lose something rather significant in reading the OT, and also probably miss many of the NT pointers to the divinity of Christ (Rom 10:13, Mark 1:2-3, for example). The word for God in Hebrew, Elohim, is similar to our word for God, that is, it's generic. It can mean God or god. The word Adonai (lord) is similarly ambiguous. YHWH, on the other hand, is a proper name.
There is the issue of pronunciation. No one can be sure how YHWH is supposed to be pronounced because the vowels were lost along the way. I think it's safe to say that the first vowel should be an /a/ as in Father, because we have many other words in the OT that use the first two letters of YHWH and always pronounce is "Ya". Hallelujah, for example, which means praise YHWH, "Hallelu-Yah." In any case, I don't think it's a huge deal whether we pronounce his name correctly. We don't worry about it with any of the other proper names in the OT.
For a people who have never heard of the Christian God, they will doubtless have their own word(s) for God/god, words that are probably as ambiguous as our word "god". I believe it is tremendously helpful and important for them to learn a specific name for the specific God who they are to worship as The God. The Chinese Bible uses Ye He Hua (transliterated form of YHWH) for YHWH and Shang Di or Shen (generic word for God/god) for God. This is the way that I'm inclined to go as well. When a Chinese person picks up the Bible and reads the name Ye He Hua they will say, "Who is this?" But as they keep reading they will learn who this God is and the name will take on definition naturally.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Theodicy and the Day of the Lord
The blog has not fared well since Cohen was born - I think I'll shoot for one post a week and see how that goes. The new semester just started, and my mind is once again overloaded with all that I'm learning and thinking about in my classes. This is a wonderful thing! I'm blessed to absolutely love what I'm studying. I can't say the same was true for my undergrad.
Anyway, I'm taking a class on Joel and Amos. We take the Hebrew text verse by verse, discussing both textual and theological issues. We've only had two classes thus far, and so we've just been talking about introductory matters. I want to post some thoughts about theodicy that we briefly discussed on Thursday. My professor only barely began the discussion before class ended, but I think I know where he's going. I'll find out on Tuesday.
The Locust Plague - Chapter 1
Joel chapter one is about a locust plague that strikes Jerusalem. It is catastrophic, wiping out both crop and livestock. Joel goes into great poetic detail of the destruction and devastation that the locusts bring. It's hard for us to imagine such an event, and furthermore to imagine locusts being the cause of the demise of our very livelihood. The event was much more serious than most of us probably understand when we read the text.
The Invading Army - Chapter 2
In Chapter 2 Joel describes the invasion of Jerusalem by a foreign army, employing the language of the locust plague from chapter 1. This is likely a prophecy of the impending exile of Judah in 586 B.C. (depending on the dating of the book, which is a rather difficult task). This event is also catastrophic, bringing life as they knew it to an end.
The Last Judgment - Chapter 3
Finally, in chapter 3, Joel prophecies the last judgment, where the Lord enters into judgment with all the nations of the earth. This is the decisive and cataclysmic event of history. For those who have not bowed their knee to the God of Israel, all joy and goodness are forever lost.
Typology and the problem of evil
My professor made this point with regard to the connection between the three event and the term "the day of the Lord":
Each of these events is "the day of the Lord". The prophets employed a system of typology - using initial events to describe and point to future events. For example, David is a type of Christ, the exodus is a type of the salvation that is found through Christ, etc. For the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time of the locust plague, nothing in their minds could have been worse than what they experienced. The same goes for those who lived through the sack of Jerusalem and the exile to Syria. One points to the next, and each one can legitimately be called "the day of the Lord". There will be, however, a final and ultimate "day of the Lord" with each preceding event finally points to.
What does this have to do with the problem of evil? Before I make the connection let me give several alternative views to the question, "Why do evil things happen?" Take as an example the earthquake in Haiti - how is it that God, would we describe as good, would allow such a thing to happen? Here are some possibilities:
1) God is not good, but finds pleasure in doing harm to earth and its creatures. (rejection of God's goodness)
2) God and Satan are opposing powers, and God is unable to prevent Satan from all the evil that he desires to do. (rejection of God's omnipotence)
3) The world is fallen and as a result calamities and evil things happen. It's so much that God or anyone/anything else purposes them, they are simply a result of living in a fallen world. (this can sound tempting, but I would consider it radically unbiblical and a rejection of God's sovereignty as the Bible describes it)
4) There is no God, events are random and purposeless. If this is true, then the words "good" and "evil" have no objective meaning and the conversation isn't even worth having. Furthermore, we have no right to complain about any "evil' thing that anyone does to us, because it is simply their preference to do it.
Now for what I believe is the view of the Bible. Let me preface this by saying that I believe that God's design in suffering is much more complex than this one aspect I will present. I don't mean to attempt to explain the purpose of suffering and calamities. That being said, I do believe that this is a significant one and is very important for the Christian to understand.
In the book of Joel, each disastrous event points to the next, and ultimately to the final event, the last judgment. God's design in purposing disastrous events is that such events would point people to consider the last judgment, and to repent. God is completely and utterly sovereign over all things, including earthquakes, tsunamis, and genocides. His sovereignty does not remove the responsibility of humans where human volition is involved. But neither does human volition remove God's sovereignty.
Therefore, whether we ourselves are involved in some life-altering disaster, or whether we simply see one one the news, the proper response is mourning and repentance. For the Christian, this morning can be followed by joyful thanksgiving that at the last judgment we will stand covered with the blood of Christ and will be welcomed into eternity as sons and daughters of God.
Anyway, I'm taking a class on Joel and Amos. We take the Hebrew text verse by verse, discussing both textual and theological issues. We've only had two classes thus far, and so we've just been talking about introductory matters. I want to post some thoughts about theodicy that we briefly discussed on Thursday. My professor only barely began the discussion before class ended, but I think I know where he's going. I'll find out on Tuesday.
The Locust Plague - Chapter 1
Joel chapter one is about a locust plague that strikes Jerusalem. It is catastrophic, wiping out both crop and livestock. Joel goes into great poetic detail of the destruction and devastation that the locusts bring. It's hard for us to imagine such an event, and furthermore to imagine locusts being the cause of the demise of our very livelihood. The event was much more serious than most of us probably understand when we read the text.
The Invading Army - Chapter 2
In Chapter 2 Joel describes the invasion of Jerusalem by a foreign army, employing the language of the locust plague from chapter 1. This is likely a prophecy of the impending exile of Judah in 586 B.C. (depending on the dating of the book, which is a rather difficult task). This event is also catastrophic, bringing life as they knew it to an end.
The Last Judgment - Chapter 3
Finally, in chapter 3, Joel prophecies the last judgment, where the Lord enters into judgment with all the nations of the earth. This is the decisive and cataclysmic event of history. For those who have not bowed their knee to the God of Israel, all joy and goodness are forever lost.
Typology and the problem of evil
My professor made this point with regard to the connection between the three event and the term "the day of the Lord":
Each of these events is "the day of the Lord". The prophets employed a system of typology - using initial events to describe and point to future events. For example, David is a type of Christ, the exodus is a type of the salvation that is found through Christ, etc. For the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time of the locust plague, nothing in their minds could have been worse than what they experienced. The same goes for those who lived through the sack of Jerusalem and the exile to Syria. One points to the next, and each one can legitimately be called "the day of the Lord". There will be, however, a final and ultimate "day of the Lord" with each preceding event finally points to.
What does this have to do with the problem of evil? Before I make the connection let me give several alternative views to the question, "Why do evil things happen?" Take as an example the earthquake in Haiti - how is it that God, would we describe as good, would allow such a thing to happen? Here are some possibilities:
1) God is not good, but finds pleasure in doing harm to earth and its creatures. (rejection of God's goodness)
2) God and Satan are opposing powers, and God is unable to prevent Satan from all the evil that he desires to do. (rejection of God's omnipotence)
3) The world is fallen and as a result calamities and evil things happen. It's so much that God or anyone/anything else purposes them, they are simply a result of living in a fallen world. (this can sound tempting, but I would consider it radically unbiblical and a rejection of God's sovereignty as the Bible describes it)
4) There is no God, events are random and purposeless. If this is true, then the words "good" and "evil" have no objective meaning and the conversation isn't even worth having. Furthermore, we have no right to complain about any "evil' thing that anyone does to us, because it is simply their preference to do it.
Now for what I believe is the view of the Bible. Let me preface this by saying that I believe that God's design in suffering is much more complex than this one aspect I will present. I don't mean to attempt to explain the purpose of suffering and calamities. That being said, I do believe that this is a significant one and is very important for the Christian to understand.
In the book of Joel, each disastrous event points to the next, and ultimately to the final event, the last judgment. God's design in purposing disastrous events is that such events would point people to consider the last judgment, and to repent. God is completely and utterly sovereign over all things, including earthquakes, tsunamis, and genocides. His sovereignty does not remove the responsibility of humans where human volition is involved. But neither does human volition remove God's sovereignty.
Therefore, whether we ourselves are involved in some life-altering disaster, or whether we simply see one one the news, the proper response is mourning and repentance. For the Christian, this morning can be followed by joyful thanksgiving that at the last judgment we will stand covered with the blood of Christ and will be welcomed into eternity as sons and daughters of God.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Chinese church's statment on the Holy Spirit
I'm currently reading "Inside China's House Church Network" by Yalin Xin, in which he describes in detail the history and inner workings of the Word Of Life house church network, the largest in China. The following is a portion from a statement on the Holy Spirit that was drafted in 1998 by four of the largest house church networks, standing for somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40 million Chinese Christians:
A couple thoughts after reading this:
1. The use of negative statements ("we refute...", "we do not use...") seems very wise to me. In order to most accurately state what you believe you have to give both positive and negative information. This is especially true in our culture where words and definitions are becoming more and more flexible.
2. I wonder how many theologians and pastors have formulated their view on the gifts of the Holy Spirit (cessationism/continuationism) having had absolutely no contact or experience with such things. Theologically speaking, one may be able to point out to a Chinese Christian why certain gifts are not to be considered the regular pattern for this age. He would likely respond by saying something like, "I have seen the sick healed, the lame walk, and numerous other Acts-like miracles, and those on a regular basis throughout my Christian experience. How shall I possibly conclude that the Bible says such things do not happen?"
3. I've read of many amazing miracles happening in rural China, and I believe what I have read, because the stories are verifies by multiple sources ("The Heavenly Man", "Back to Jerusalem", interviews with various leaders in "Inside", cited above). However, I've never heard of such things happening in the western world. Either a) this is because of a lack of faith on the part of western Christians, or b) God's plan is for unique outpourings of his Spirit to be manifested in certain times and certain places. I lean heavily toward (b).
I definitely lean toward Piper's and (I think) Carson's position on spiritual gifts. The popular term seems to be "open but cautious". We'll see how that develops as I continue to study these things in the coming years.
"We do not believe in the cessation of signs, miracles or the termination of the
gifts of the Holy Spirit after the apostolic period. We do not forbid
speaking in tongues nor deo we insist that everyone must speak in tongues.
We do not use a criterion of speaking in tongues as the evidence of being
saved. We refute the view that the Holy Spirit is not a person in the
Trinity, but only a kind of influence" (Xin, 146)
A couple thoughts after reading this:
1. The use of negative statements ("we refute...", "we do not use...") seems very wise to me. In order to most accurately state what you believe you have to give both positive and negative information. This is especially true in our culture where words and definitions are becoming more and more flexible.
2. I wonder how many theologians and pastors have formulated their view on the gifts of the Holy Spirit (cessationism/continuationism) having had absolutely no contact or experience with such things. Theologically speaking, one may be able to point out to a Chinese Christian why certain gifts are not to be considered the regular pattern for this age. He would likely respond by saying something like, "I have seen the sick healed, the lame walk, and numerous other Acts-like miracles, and those on a regular basis throughout my Christian experience. How shall I possibly conclude that the Bible says such things do not happen?"
3. I've read of many amazing miracles happening in rural China, and I believe what I have read, because the stories are verifies by multiple sources ("The Heavenly Man", "Back to Jerusalem", interviews with various leaders in "Inside", cited above). However, I've never heard of such things happening in the western world. Either a) this is because of a lack of faith on the part of western Christians, or b) God's plan is for unique outpourings of his Spirit to be manifested in certain times and certain places. I lean heavily toward (b).
I definitely lean toward Piper's and (I think) Carson's position on spiritual gifts. The popular term seems to be "open but cautious". We'll see how that develops as I continue to study these things in the coming years.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Grace in the wilderness
Jeremiah 31:2-6
2 Thus says the Lord: “The people who survived the sword
found grace in the wilderness;
O virgin Israel!
on the mountains of Samaria;
the planters shall plant
and shall enjoy the fruit.
6 For there shall be a day when watchmen will call
to the Lord our God.’ ”
I just love this passage and wanted to share it. Verse 2 has been mulling in my mind for a few weeks. I have escaped the sword of God's wrath through the cross of Christ, and found grace in the wilderness. I think the Christian life can be described as a continual receiving of grace in the wilderness for those who have survived the sword. The book of Jeremiah was written during the time of Judah's being driven into exile for their idolatry. In the midst of this, God speaks these words to his people - his filthy, undeserving, and rebellious people. The wilderness is the only possible place where a person can find grace, and God is the only one who can give it.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
God gives grace in many forms
This is one of my favorite pictures of Cohen sleeping. He gets pretty creative with the positions, especially in this side-sleeping positioner we've been using. We've tried quite a few different positions, soothing techniques, and other various tricks in order to try to get him to go to sleep easier. Sometimes we are successful, but more often than not it takes 45+ minutes of soothing him to get him to sleep. Needless to say, this is exhausting! (I realize that some experienced parents would laugh at my thinking 45 minutes is a long time to sooth a baby, haha, but I'm still adjusting!)
As we've been launched head first into the world of parenting we've learned just how different babies can be. Between talking with friends and reading parents' stories in books and online we've seen quite a spectrum - from the baby that sleeps through the night on night-one to the baby that screams night and day for 9 months. Through hearing these stories, and through our experiences over the past 4 weeks we've been reminded that God's grace is tailor made for each of his children. It's not neither helpful nor honoring to the Lord to wish for the grace that he has given to someone else instead of accepting that grace that he is so kindly offering to you.
For some parents, their grace comes in the form of a baby that sleeps very well. This is a gift from God, and should be treated as such. For parents with colicky babies, God's grace comes in the form of his sustaining presence and comfort from his Word, a friend who drops by to help out just at the right time, parents who come to stay for a few days to do the cooking and cleaning and to help the baby when he cries, and on it goes.
I've struggled in the past with thinking that my life has been too easy, and that that must mean that God knows I don't trust him enough to go through something really hard. Ridiculous, I know. But in that pattern of thinking, I make the fundamental mistake of thinking that anyone has the strength to endure difficulty on their own. God gives all grace and strength, for all good things come from his hand. And for this, He is worthy of our highest praise and adoration.
As we've been launched head first into the world of parenting we've learned just how different babies can be. Between talking with friends and reading parents' stories in books and online we've seen quite a spectrum - from the baby that sleeps through the night on night-one to the baby that screams night and day for 9 months. Through hearing these stories, and through our experiences over the past 4 weeks we've been reminded that God's grace is tailor made for each of his children. It's not neither helpful nor honoring to the Lord to wish for the grace that he has given to someone else instead of accepting that grace that he is so kindly offering to you.For some parents, their grace comes in the form of a baby that sleeps very well. This is a gift from God, and should be treated as such. For parents with colicky babies, God's grace comes in the form of his sustaining presence and comfort from his Word, a friend who drops by to help out just at the right time, parents who come to stay for a few days to do the cooking and cleaning and to help the baby when he cries, and on it goes.
I've struggled in the past with thinking that my life has been too easy, and that that must mean that God knows I don't trust him enough to go through something really hard. Ridiculous, I know. But in that pattern of thinking, I make the fundamental mistake of thinking that anyone has the strength to endure difficulty on their own. God gives all grace and strength, for all good things come from his hand. And for this, He is worthy of our highest praise and adoration.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Have you 'mastered' salvation by grace?
I've been recently lamenting the fact that I so struggle with legalism - that I struggle to really get the gospel of grace. Martin Luther is one of the most helpful theologians for this type of feeling.
Martin Luther:
“Particularly when you hear hear an immature and unripe saint trumpet that he knows very well that we must be saved by the grace of God, without our own works, and then pretend that this is a snap for him, well, then have no doubt that he has no idea of what he is talking about and probably will never find out. For this is not an art that can be completely learned or of which anyone could boast that he is a master. It is an art that will always have us as pupils while it remains the master. And all those who do understand and practice it do not boast that they can do everything. On the contrary, they sense it like a wonderful taste or odor that they greatly desire and pursue; and they are amazed that they cannot grasp it or comprehend it as they would like. They hunger, thirst, and yearn for it more and more; and they never tire of hearing about or dealing with it, just as St. Paul himself confessed that he has not yet obtained it (Phil. 3:12). And in Matt. 5:6 Christ calls those blessed who hunger and thirst after righteousness.”
Martin Luther:
“Particularly when you hear hear an immature and unripe saint trumpet that he knows very well that we must be saved by the grace of God, without our own works, and then pretend that this is a snap for him, well, then have no doubt that he has no idea of what he is talking about and probably will never find out. For this is not an art that can be completely learned or of which anyone could boast that he is a master. It is an art that will always have us as pupils while it remains the master. And all those who do understand and practice it do not boast that they can do everything. On the contrary, they sense it like a wonderful taste or odor that they greatly desire and pursue; and they are amazed that they cannot grasp it or comprehend it as they would like. They hunger, thirst, and yearn for it more and more; and they never tire of hearing about or dealing with it, just as St. Paul himself confessed that he has not yet obtained it (Phil. 3:12). And in Matt. 5:6 Christ calls those blessed who hunger and thirst after righteousness.”
Monday, August 17, 2009
What's the difference between God's people in OT and NT?
How are God's people delineated in the Old Testament, under the Old Covenant?
How about under the New Covenant?
Are there any important parallels or distinctions to be drawn between the two?
Do these parallels or distinctions play out in any important ways practically or theologically?
I've been reading through Ezekiel for a little while now. It's one of the most difficult books in the Old Testament for me. There are some really mysterious scenes and some unique language. Plus, there are few (if any?) direct references to Ezekiel in the New Testament that shed any light on the book. However, there are a few sections in the book that are absolutely amazing - some of my favorite passages in the Old Testament. One is chapter 16, which is terrible and beautiful at the same time. Another amazing chapter is 34, where God says that he will send his servant to be the shepherd of his sheep.
God condemns the "shepherds of Israel" in verses 1-10, bringing against them charges of neglecting to provide and protect. He goes on to say that He himself will shepherd his people. In God's description of his own shepherding, we get an important glimpse into the Old C
ovenant definition of the people of God. In verses 15 and 16, God says,
The simply conclusion that can be drawn from this text is that under the Old Covenant, not all of God's people (sheep) were truly God's people (God's flock). How does this compare with the New Testament people of God?
In John 10, Jesus declares himself to be "the good shepherd", directly and purposefully pointing to himself as the fulfillment of Ezekiel 34:23. However, Jesus' description of his relationship with the sheep is different from God's relationship with the sheep in Ezekiel 34. Whereas God says that some of the sheep will be judged and others will be saved, Jesus says in John 10:27-28,
How about under the New Covenant?
Are there any important parallels or distinctions to be drawn between the two?
Do these parallels or distinctions play out in any important ways practically or theologically?
I've been reading through Ezekiel for a little while now. It's one of the most difficult books in the Old Testament for me. There are some really mysterious scenes and some unique language. Plus, there are few (if any?) direct references to Ezekiel in the New Testament that shed any light on the book. However, there are a few sections in the book that are absolutely amazing - some of my favorite passages in the Old Testament. One is chapter 16, which is terrible and beautiful at the same time. Another amazing chapter is 34, where God says that he will send his servant to be the shepherd of his sheep.
God condemns the "shepherds of Israel" in verses 1-10, bringing against them charges of neglecting to provide and protect. He goes on to say that He himself will shepherd his people. In God's description of his own shepherding, we get an important glimpse into the Old C
ovenant definition of the people of God. In verses 15 and 16, God says,"I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord God. I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, and the fast and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them i justice."First notice that God identifies all of the sheep of whom he is speaking as being His. The sheep belong to him. They are his people. In verse 31 he says again, "And you are my sheep, human sheep of my pasture." Then, notice that God declares that he will destroy some of his sheep! Verse 2o is even more explicit:
"Behold, I , I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep."As the passage continues, it's important to notice different ways that God begins to refer to his sheep. In verses 17, 19, and 21, God distinguishes between the sheep he will destroy and the one's whom he will save. Then all of a sudden in verse 22, he refers to "my flock" as the one's whom he will most certainly save. These are the one's over whom he will appoint his servant David as their shepherd. This, of course, is Jesus.
The simply conclusion that can be drawn from this text is that under the Old Covenant, not all of God's people (sheep) were truly God's people (God's flock). How does this compare with the New Testament people of God?
In John 10, Jesus declares himself to be "the good shepherd", directly and purposefully pointing to himself as the fulfillment of Ezekiel 34:23. However, Jesus' description of his relationship with the sheep is different from God's relationship with the sheep in Ezekiel 34. Whereas God says that some of the sheep will be judged and others will be saved, Jesus says in John 10:27-28,
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."All of these sheep will be saved. In Ezekiel 34 there were 3 categories.
- Sheep who will be saved (Jews and those self identified as part of the Jewish Community)
- Sheep who will not be saved ((Jews and those self identified as part of the Jewish Community)
- Non-sheep, who will not be saved (Gentiles)
- Sheep (Jews and Gentiles)
- Non-sheep (Jews and Gentiles)
- Since the beginning of time, no one has ever been saved by their nationality. No Jew was every saved for being a Jew. Jews (sheep) who loved God were saved, Jews who did not love God were not saved. The revolution which Jesus brought was not to change the mode of salvation from ethnicity to faith.
- With regard to baptism - In the Old Testament, all of the sheep received the sign of the covenant, circumcision. However, under that covenant, though all were circumcised, some sheep were saved and some were not. Under the New Covenant, all of the sheep receive the sign as well. And as we have seen, all of the sheep are also saved. Only regenerate believers are sheep, and only regenerate believers are to receive the sign of the covenant. The "rule", to put it crudely, which transcends the Testaments/Covenants would be this: All of the sheep (God's people) are to receive the sign of the covenant.
- With regard to the local church - in the Old Testament, Israel, the community of God's people was composed of both saved and unsaved people. Under the New Covenant, the community of God's people is composed only of saved individuals. So, where there certainly will be a mixture of save and unsaved on any sunday morning in a local church, there must also be some distinction made as to who are the community of believers and who are not. This distinction is accomplished with church membership and sustained with church discipline.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Different (Baptist) takes on when to baptize children
This week and last week we've been talking about baptism in our Sunday school class. One of the questions that has received a lot of attention is this"
The situation that the elders of our church and that many of us in the class want to avoid is the one displayed in this all-too-common testimony: "I was raised in a Christian home and professed belief at age 5. I was baptized at age 6 and continued going to church with my family. But I went through a long rebellious period in my teens where I turned from the Lord. Now I've come back to the faith, and I want to join a church. Have I been baptized? Or do I need to be baptized (again)?"
Confusion over one's state of salvation is epidemic in America, and poor baptizing methods have certainly added to the problem. Too many unsaved adults look back to their childhood baptism to give them comfort over the state of their souls. False hope and false comfort of salvation are barriers that keep people from sensing their need for Christ.
The elder who was teaching our Sunday school class summed up the attitude of another large and prominent Baptist church toward baptizing children in this way:
The whole issue is very interesting and definitely not easy. It's common practice in many European Baptist churches not to baptize any children, hands down. Even for Presbyterians, who would disregard the validity of the entire issue, there's still the question of when do you admit a child into membership? All of the same questions apply. This is something I hope to understand better as I have my own children, as I begin to see the life of a child on a day to day basis.
When is it ok to baptize a child who professes belief? When is it wise to hold off?
The situation that the elders of our church and that many of us in the class want to avoid is the one displayed in this all-too-common testimony: "I was raised in a Christian home and professed belief at age 5. I was baptized at age 6 and continued going to church with my family. But I went through a long rebellious period in my teens where I turned from the Lord. Now I've come back to the faith, and I want to join a church. Have I been baptized? Or do I need to be baptized (again)?"
Confusion over one's state of salvation is epidemic in America, and poor baptizing methods have certainly added to the problem. Too many unsaved adults look back to their childhood baptism to give them comfort over the state of their souls. False hope and false comfort of salvation are barriers that keep people from sensing their need for Christ.
The elder who was teaching our Sunday school class summed up the attitude of another large and prominent Baptist church toward baptizing children in this way:
- Children are easily decieved.
- Children of Christian parents desperately want to please their parents in the things that their parents consider to be important.
- Therefore, it is easy for the child of Christian parents to be confused about whether or not he actually believes. For this reason, it is best to wait to baptize such a child until a time when they are out from the under the authority of their parents and have begun to experience the weight of the world. After this time, it will be more clear whether or not the child's (now an adult) faith is genuine.
- There would be possible exceptions in cases of children who attend the church but do not have Christian parents, or in the case of a child who begins to work outside the home at a relatively young age and interacts with the world, where the fruit of his or her faith is more visible.
- We should not be surprised when a child of Christian parents professes faith. God uses means to save people, particularly, the hearing of the gospel and the reading of the Word. When a child is raised in a context where she regularly hears the gospel and sees it lived out in her parents' lives, then we should not be surprised when she professes faith.
- The above position (of the other church) has the tendency to make a child think that he must prove his salvation by good works. The idea is that the church desires to see evidence of salvation before it is willing to baptize. If you say to a child, "we won't baptize you now, but once we see evidence of salvation in your life then we will," they will most certainly understand this to mean, "you may not be saved. Once you begin to do things to show that you are, then we will believe you." This may possible result is an anxious child who begins to try to 'earn' his salvation by good works.
The whole issue is very interesting and definitely not easy. It's common practice in many European Baptist churches not to baptize any children, hands down. Even for Presbyterians, who would disregard the validity of the entire issue, there's still the question of when do you admit a child into membership? All of the same questions apply. This is something I hope to understand better as I have my own children, as I begin to see the life of a child on a day to day basis.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Declaring the Gospel
I'm currently reading What St. Paul Really Said by N.T. Wright, which is great so far. I read this today in his discussion of what the word 'gospel' really means as used by Paul:
When a herald makes a royal proclamation, he says 'Nero (or whoever) has become emperor.' He does not say 'If you would like to have an experience of living under an emperor, you might care to try Nero.' The proclamation is an authoritative summons to obedience - in Paul's case, to what he calls the 'obedience of faith'.(45)The spiritual and intellectual climate in America can make it easy to preach the gospel like the lame 'invitation' to be ruled by Nero. Paul knew no such gospel proclamation. As Wright points out, Paul viewed himself as Herald of the King, and we should too.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Managing our attitudes toward pain
You'll have to excuse yet another post on pain and suffering. I don't intend to be morbid, I simply find again and again that the theology of pain and suffering is of the utmost importance in how we view ourselves and how we view God.
I recently stumbled across a blog post of John Piper's from July 2008. You can read the whole thing here, I remember reading it when he posted it and finding it extremely helpful, but had until recently forgotten. Here's the gist:
Over the past several years, Daniel 9 has been an encouraging passage for me with regard to managing pain. It presents a perfect example of God's general policy to direct the suffering to grand and magnificent hope and not on minute details. Here's the story: Apparently, Daniel had been reading Jeremiah, and had come across the prophecy where God proclaimed that Israel would be in captivity for 70 years. He began to pour out his heart toward God, asking for mercy for the Jewish people. Eventually, the angel Gabriel brings Daniel God's answer. The answer does not include small details of Israel's suffering, but rather points to God's magnificent and overarching plan. God's response declares a much greater return from exile than Daniel was even asking for. Namely, the coming of the Messiah, who would "put an end to sin, and atone for iniquity".
One of the hardest things to do when in pain is to pick your head up and look at the big picture. This is precisely what God calls us to do time and time again throughout Scripture. But he doesn't expect us to do it with our own power or with some self-manufactured hope. Only with the hope of the gospel - that Christ has come in the flesh and atoned for our sins and purchased our righteousness - only in this hope can we pick up our heads. Then we can even rejoice in our pain, knowing that it is working for us an eternal glory in Christ.
I recently stumbled across a blog post of John Piper's from July 2008. You can read the whole thing here, I remember reading it when he posted it and finding it extremely helpful, but had until recently forgotten. Here's the gist:
One of the reasons God rarely gives micro reasons for his painful providences, but regularly gives magnificent macro reasons, is that there are too many micro reasons for us to manage, namely, millions and millions and millions and millions and millions.Knowing the limitations of our finiteness, God doesn't reveal to us the micro reasons of our pain but directs us to faith. Pain is one of the best opportunities to grow in trusting God, especially when we are completely powerless to take the pain away. All of sudden, challenges raise in our minds to God's love, God's sovereignty, God's goodness. All of these questions are resolved, if dealt with, during an experience of pain. Either God is loving, sovereign, and good, and this pain is therefore for my ultimate good - despite the fact that I don't understand all of the micro reasons for my current suffering. Or, this pain is so terrible that God cannot possibly be loving, sovereign, and good. The former response is bolstering to one's faith. The latter is a rejection of faith. Suffering shows us who we are.
Over the past several years, Daniel 9 has been an encouraging passage for me with regard to managing pain. It presents a perfect example of God's general policy to direct the suffering to grand and magnificent hope and not on minute details. Here's the story: Apparently, Daniel had been reading Jeremiah, and had come across the prophecy where God proclaimed that Israel would be in captivity for 70 years. He began to pour out his heart toward God, asking for mercy for the Jewish people. Eventually, the angel Gabriel brings Daniel God's answer. The answer does not include small details of Israel's suffering, but rather points to God's magnificent and overarching plan. God's response declares a much greater return from exile than Daniel was even asking for. Namely, the coming of the Messiah, who would "put an end to sin, and atone for iniquity".
One of the hardest things to do when in pain is to pick your head up and look at the big picture. This is precisely what God calls us to do time and time again throughout Scripture. But he doesn't expect us to do it with our own power or with some self-manufactured hope. Only with the hope of the gospel - that Christ has come in the flesh and atoned for our sins and purchased our righteousness - only in this hope can we pick up our heads. Then we can even rejoice in our pain, knowing that it is working for us an eternal glory in Christ.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Return to Eden
I've recently noticed a few passages in the Bible on the theme of the New Creation being a return to Eden. I don't believe that the Bible says that this is true in every sense. For example, those who are a part of the new creation, that is those who are saved in Christ, can never fall away as Adam and Eve did. However, there are still some very clear allusions to Eden in the new creation language in Scripture. Here are two that I've seen recently.
Temple language
1. Genesis 2:10-14 describes a river that flowed out of Eden and split into 4 rivers that basically watered the entire earth.
2. Beginning in Ezekiel 40, Ezekiel receives a vision from the Lord of the future city of God. In chapter 47 he sees the temple, and out of it flows a massive river which gives life to everything that it touches.
3. John 7:38, "Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water,'"
4. In the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 22, there is a river flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, giving life to everything in this city. This passage gives one of the clearest indication of a return to Eden. What was lost in the fall was humankind's glad acceptance of their complete dependency on God. In the new creation this rift is restored, demonstrated by centrality of the throne of God in the New Jerusalem and the live giving water which flows from it.
Thorns and Thistles
1. In Genesis 3, after the fall, God curses Adam saying, "cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread."
-Thus, man's work will no longer be a joyful and pleasant endeavor, but will be burdensome
and inefficient.
2. Isaiah 55:10-13. Verse 11 is rather well known:
Temple language
1. Genesis 2:10-14 describes a river that flowed out of Eden and split into 4 rivers that basically watered the entire earth.
2. Beginning in Ezekiel 40, Ezekiel receives a vision from the Lord of the future city of God. In chapter 47 he sees the temple, and out of it flows a massive river which gives life to everything that it touches.
3. John 7:38, "Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water,'"
4. In the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 22, there is a river flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, giving life to everything in this city. This passage gives one of the clearest indication of a return to Eden. What was lost in the fall was humankind's glad acceptance of their complete dependency on God. In the new creation this rift is restored, demonstrated by centrality of the throne of God in the New Jerusalem and the live giving water which flows from it.
Thorns and Thistles
1. In Genesis 3, after the fall, God curses Adam saying, "cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread."
-Thus, man's work will no longer be a joyful and pleasant endeavor, but will be burdensome
and inefficient.
2. Isaiah 55:10-13. Verse 11 is rather well known:
"(my word) shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose."Verse 13 shows the connection with the reversal of the fall and the curse with regard to the work of mankind:
"Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall make a name for the LORD, and everlasting sign that shall not be cut off."Then, connecting this with Hebrews 6:7-8,
"For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned."The point is this - where the curse brought resistance from the earth to the effort of mankind, the new creation, through Christ, brings forth abiding fruit both in and through new creatures - those who are alive in Christ. The work, of course, is God's. HE sends his word to accomplish its purpose. HE does the work in the hearts of the elect that yields fruit. Moreover, human work produces fruit which will not last, whereas God's work produces fruit that lasts eternally. The 'everlasting sign that shall not be cut off' is the people of God, the new creation. This new Eden, so to speak, will not fall into decay. It will abide forever. Furthermore, the 'new creation work' that we do, particularly sharing the gospel, does not suffer from the curse. It will go forth and accomplish that which God purposes. It is joyful and rewarding, as God intended physical work to be for Adam in the garden.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
...Use words only when necessary
(From Justin Taylor's Blog)
"Gospel" means "good news." If so, then *the saying "Preach the gospel at all times; use words if necessary" makes about as much sense as telling a reporter he should broadcast the news but that words are optional.
(*St. Francis of Assisi apparently didn't say this; not sure who said it first.)
------------------------------
The comments under the original post on JT's blog are worth reading also. Here's my personal opinion, having been involved in ministries that love to quote this saying: Speaking the gospel and living the gospel are inseparable. In America today, speaking the gospel is about the most unpopular thing you can do. Therefore, in ministries, especially relational ministries, I think that people need more encouragement to speak the gospel than they need encouragement to live it out (that is, in ways other than speaking it, which is certainly one way to live it out). For me personally, the result of hearing this saying over and over again was a massive under-emphasis on speaking the gospel.
"Gospel" means "good news." If so, then *the saying "Preach the gospel at all times; use words if necessary" makes about as much sense as telling a reporter he should broadcast the news but that words are optional.
(*St. Francis of Assisi apparently didn't say this; not sure who said it first.)
------------------------------
The comments under the original post on JT's blog are worth reading also. Here's my personal opinion, having been involved in ministries that love to quote this saying: Speaking the gospel and living the gospel are inseparable. In America today, speaking the gospel is about the most unpopular thing you can do. Therefore, in ministries, especially relational ministries, I think that people need more encouragement to speak the gospel than they need encouragement to live it out (that is, in ways other than speaking it, which is certainly one way to live it out). For me personally, the result of hearing this saying over and over again was a massive under-emphasis on speaking the gospel.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
On What Day Did Jesus Die?
In Matthew 28:40, Jesus says,
"For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
The common belief among Christians is that Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday. But as Jack Kelly points out, "There isn’t any way you can put three days and three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning."
I read Jack Kelly's article on this controversy two years ago, and conveniently, he posted it today on his website. It's rather brief, and I found it very helpful and convincing. In summary, he argues that Jesus was crucified on Thursday, which was Passover. The next day was a Sabbath, but not a typical Sabbath. It was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread, and that year, it was a Friday. In the Jewish system, a new day began at sundown, and Jesus was actually laid in the tomb before sundown on Passover day. Therefore, he was in the tomb on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday day, and Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night. He arose before sunrise on Sunday morning, and therefore was not in the tomb at all during Sunday day.
You can read the whole article here if you're interested. I'd definately reccomend it.
I'd be interested if anyone has heard this take before, and if anyone is aware of any problems in his logic or his argument. His is the only article I've read staking this claim, although I'm sure there are others.
"For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
The common belief among Christians is that Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday. But as Jack Kelly points out, "There isn’t any way you can put three days and three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning."
I read Jack Kelly's article on this controversy two years ago, and conveniently, he posted it today on his website. It's rather brief, and I found it very helpful and convincing. In summary, he argues that Jesus was crucified on Thursday, which was Passover. The next day was a Sabbath, but not a typical Sabbath. It was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread, and that year, it was a Friday. In the Jewish system, a new day began at sundown, and Jesus was actually laid in the tomb before sundown on Passover day. Therefore, he was in the tomb on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday day, and Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night. He arose before sunrise on Sunday morning, and therefore was not in the tomb at all during Sunday day.
You can read the whole article here if you're interested. I'd definately reccomend it.
I'd be interested if anyone has heard this take before, and if anyone is aware of any problems in his logic or his argument. His is the only article I've read staking this claim, although I'm sure there are others.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Christian Patience
Over the last few days I've been typing out the manuscript for the first sermon that I will ever preach. It's for my introductory preaching class. The text is James 5:7-11. Below is a paragraph from my conclusion. I'm not sure if this will make it in the final cut or not, but I thought I'd post it here. In 1 Timothy 4:16, Paul says, "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." God has truly ministered to me in the perparation of this sermon. A pastor who faithfully prepares and preaches sermons is uniquely ministered to by his very work. It's been a pleasure to experience this.
Christian patience is radical, and it is radically different from anything that the world would label as patience. What makes us different is our God. If God is sovereign over the time of Christ’s return and the end of history, then he also sovereignly allows all of the suffering which we endure until that day. The ability to be patient is directly related to one’s faith that there is a purpose to the time spent waiting. As pain increases, hope more easily decreases, and impatience easily takes over. To the unbelieving mind, time spent waiting is time wasted. Time spent suffering is certainly wasted, and is meaningless. Consider the logic behind those who support assisted suicide. We hear reasoning like this, “He was in so much pain. Life just wasn’t worth living.” The Christian perspective is incomprehensible to the unregenerate mind. Not only is the end worthwhile, but the present is as well. And we have the promise from God that our pain will never go unmatched by the grace which he provides. God is merciful, he is compassionate, he gives only good things to his children.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Beautiful statement on Perseverance
This statement is Article 23 in the First London Confession of Particular Baptist Churches, 1644. It's one of the most beautiful statements I've seen on the Perseverance of the Saints:
"Those that have this precious faith wrought in them by the Spirit, can never finally nor totally fall away; and though many storms and floods do arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon, but shall be kept by the power of God to salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being formerly engraven upon the palms of God's hands."
"Those that have this precious faith wrought in them by the Spirit, can never finally nor totally fall away; and though many storms and floods do arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon, but shall be kept by the power of God to salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being formerly engraven upon the palms of God's hands."
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wrestling with God
Over the last 2 years or so, I've met quite a few people who place a significant marker in their lives at the point where they began to understand and accept God's sovereignty in salvation. Did God choose me to believe in him completely apart from my own actions and decisions? Yes. It's offensive on every level, especially to an American. But there's something divinely powerful about a person's yielding to God over issues of predestination and irresistible grace. And it's always a wrestling match, like Jacob wrestling with God. I've yet to meet a person who has truly wrestled with these issues and not been blessed. Humbled like Jacob, but blessed. Humility is one of the greatest gifts that God can give to a man or woman, and one of the greatest joys for a person to receive and experience. What is more humbling than to realize that God chose me to be His before I did anything good or bad? Wasn't I wise enough to accept the offer of salvation when I heard it? Nope. That wisdom was not mine, it was a gift from God.
The difference that I've seen is in people who have truly wrestled with this truth. Many For many years I simply rejected it out of hand. I refused to interact with the Bible over the issue. Part of me thought it was just academic - a fun question for people to ask and speculate about. At the same time, part of me was offended at the idea that some people might be elect and some not. I thought that God would be unjust to elect some people and not others.
There are a lot of questions, mostly philosophical in nature, that can be raised in objection to the doctrine of predestination. I believe that these questions have answers, but that's not my point. My point is the fight. Becoming a Christian is not an easy process. But for many, like myself, for whom it seems as though it was easy, the fight simply comes later on down the road of faith. For me it looked like this, two years ago: on my hands and knees for many mornings in a row, asking God why I could not be joyful in my faith. Why, after asking for many mornings would God not grant this to me? Why can I do nothing to change this situation? How is this fair!? My faith, it seemed, was too small; but then how could I ask for more faith if my very prayers were faithless? After several weeks, God graciously opened my eyes to see that my situation was a drama for the process of salvation. And my conclusion had been correct: I stand completely and utterly at the mercy of God.
I would love to ask any Christian, if I had the opportunity, if they've wrestled with Scripture over God's sovereignty (The book of John is a good place to start). The issue is not periphery, it's at the heart of the gospel. How sinful do you think that you are? What did Jesus mean when he said, "No one is good but God alone." If believing in Christ is "good", then how can a bad person ever do such a good thing? In fact, the best thing!? God is Lord over all things which he created. It's in the very nature of who he is as God to rule over all that he has made, and he will not give this glory to another, certainly not to us.
The difference that I've seen is in people who have truly wrestled with this truth. Many For many years I simply rejected it out of hand. I refused to interact with the Bible over the issue. Part of me thought it was just academic - a fun question for people to ask and speculate about. At the same time, part of me was offended at the idea that some people might be elect and some not. I thought that God would be unjust to elect some people and not others.
There are a lot of questions, mostly philosophical in nature, that can be raised in objection to the doctrine of predestination. I believe that these questions have answers, but that's not my point. My point is the fight. Becoming a Christian is not an easy process. But for many, like myself, for whom it seems as though it was easy, the fight simply comes later on down the road of faith. For me it looked like this, two years ago: on my hands and knees for many mornings in a row, asking God why I could not be joyful in my faith. Why, after asking for many mornings would God not grant this to me? Why can I do nothing to change this situation? How is this fair!? My faith, it seemed, was too small; but then how could I ask for more faith if my very prayers were faithless? After several weeks, God graciously opened my eyes to see that my situation was a drama for the process of salvation. And my conclusion had been correct: I stand completely and utterly at the mercy of God.
I would love to ask any Christian, if I had the opportunity, if they've wrestled with Scripture over God's sovereignty (The book of John is a good place to start). The issue is not periphery, it's at the heart of the gospel. How sinful do you think that you are? What did Jesus mean when he said, "No one is good but God alone." If believing in Christ is "good", then how can a bad person ever do such a good thing? In fact, the best thing!? God is Lord over all things which he created. It's in the very nature of who he is as God to rule over all that he has made, and he will not give this glory to another, certainly not to us.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
He delivers the afflicted by their affliction
My head has been hurting quite a lot this week, and I've returned recently to meditating on what the Word teaches us about God's purposes in our pain and affliction. The more I meditate on these things, the more I see how central they are in day to day living, even apart from my headaches. The following thoughts are not new, but God has been driving them deeper into me, so maybe I can express them more clearly than I have before.
In some places in the Bible, suffering clearly refers to persecution. Jesus tells his disciples that they will be persecuted for his sake. James and Peter encourage the churches to remain steadfast in their suffering for the cause of Christ. This is a kind of suffering that all Christians should experience at some point in our lives, albeit probably not to the extent that the apostles did. 1 Timothy 3:16 says that "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted."
But this isn't the only kind of suffering that the Bible discusses. Many people, myself included in times past, are discouraged when they read passages about suffering because they think that the only suffering that the Bible has in mind is persecution. This is absolutely not true. The book of Job is one of the best places to go to begin to understand God's purpose in non-persecution-type pain, affliction, discomfort, etc.
In Job 36, Elihu gives a theology of suffering. I believe that Elihu, the final friend to speak to Job, should not be lumped together with the other 3. His speech is true to the rest of Scripture, and God does not rebuke him like He does the other 3 friends.
First, Elihu gives God's purpose in suffering, then he gives two possible responses. Finally, he gives us the reason why we should respond the one way and not the other.
Job 36:8-9
The purpose of affliction is to awaken us to our arrogance (which is continual), reveal to us our sin, and humble us before God. The design is so that we might turn to him and more fully live with respect to Him, obeying him from the heart as a manner of life.
The negative response is this, in verse 13:
Their pride wells up, causing them to respond in anger. They say to themselves, "I don't deserve this suffering!" Rather than having their eyes opened to the reality of their rebellion, they harden their hearts in pride and anger, and turn further from God. In effect, they deny both their own smallness and God's bigness.
The positive response, verses 11, 15
We don't understand what life truly is. We think that life is about being comfortable, successful, and full. Even we Christians act this way, and we prove it by the way that we respond to pain and affliction.
Romans 8 gives a New Testament cap to this discussion. Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." For those who are in Christ - that is, those who have believed with their hearts that Christ's death counts on their behalf, as evidenced by patterns of joyful obedience - for these people, nothing in life should be considered 'condemnation'. 8:31 says, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" The implied answer is 'nothing and no one." For the one who has trusted Christ, no difficulty, affliction, failure, pain, or loss is the result of God's punishment or condemnation. Christ has absorbed all of the punishment that we deserve.
Then, if affliction is not God's punishment or condemnation towards me, what is the point? Paul gives the answer in 8:28, one of the most glorious verses in the Bible, "And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."
Pain and affliction are God's gifts to his children, who see dimly and hear faintly. I long for God to teach this truth more fully to my heart at a young age. All of life on this earth is affliction. As I age my comfort will not increase.
In some places in the Bible, suffering clearly refers to persecution. Jesus tells his disciples that they will be persecuted for his sake. James and Peter encourage the churches to remain steadfast in their suffering for the cause of Christ. This is a kind of suffering that all Christians should experience at some point in our lives, albeit probably not to the extent that the apostles did. 1 Timothy 3:16 says that "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted."
But this isn't the only kind of suffering that the Bible discusses. Many people, myself included in times past, are discouraged when they read passages about suffering because they think that the only suffering that the Bible has in mind is persecution. This is absolutely not true. The book of Job is one of the best places to go to begin to understand God's purpose in non-persecution-type pain, affliction, discomfort, etc.
In Job 36, Elihu gives a theology of suffering. I believe that Elihu, the final friend to speak to Job, should not be lumped together with the other 3. His speech is true to the rest of Scripture, and God does not rebuke him like He does the other 3 friends.
First, Elihu gives God's purpose in suffering, then he gives two possible responses. Finally, he gives us the reason why we should respond the one way and not the other.
Job 36:8-9
"And if they are bound in chains
and caught in the cords of
affliction,
then he declares to them their
work
and their transgressions, that
they are behaving
arrogantly.
He opens their ears to instruction
and commands that they return from iniquity."
and caught in the cords of
affliction,
then he declares to them their
work
and their transgressions, that
they are behaving
arrogantly.
He opens their ears to instruction
and commands that they return from iniquity."
The purpose of affliction is to awaken us to our arrogance (which is continual), reveal to us our sin, and humble us before God. The design is so that we might turn to him and more fully live with respect to Him, obeying him from the heart as a manner of life.
The negative response is this, in verse 13:
"The godless in heart cherish
anger;
they do not cry for help when he binds them."
anger;
they do not cry for help when he binds them."
Their pride wells up, causing them to respond in anger. They say to themselves, "I don't deserve this suffering!" Rather than having their eyes opened to the reality of their rebellion, they harden their hearts in pride and anger, and turn further from God. In effect, they deny both their own smallness and God's bigness.
The positive response, verses 11, 15
"If they listen and serve him,
they complete their days in prosperity,
and their years in pleasantness."
"He delivers the afflicted by their affliction
and opens their ear by adversity."
We might expect this verse to say, "He delivers the afflicted from their affliction." But it doesn't say that. What then, are they afflicted being delivered from? Verse 16 gives the answer - he delivers them from closed ears. That is, he delivers them from not perceiving themselves and God according to what is true. He reveals to them their sinfulness and finitude, but God's greatness and majesty and perfection. This is the amazing mercy of God in afflicting his children.they complete their days in prosperity,
and their years in pleasantness."
"He delivers the afflicted by their affliction
and opens their ear by adversity."
We don't understand what life truly is. We think that life is about being comfortable, successful, and full. Even we Christians act this way, and we prove it by the way that we respond to pain and affliction.
Romans 8 gives a New Testament cap to this discussion. Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." For those who are in Christ - that is, those who have believed with their hearts that Christ's death counts on their behalf, as evidenced by patterns of joyful obedience - for these people, nothing in life should be considered 'condemnation'. 8:31 says, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" The implied answer is 'nothing and no one." For the one who has trusted Christ, no difficulty, affliction, failure, pain, or loss is the result of God's punishment or condemnation. Christ has absorbed all of the punishment that we deserve.
Then, if affliction is not God's punishment or condemnation towards me, what is the point? Paul gives the answer in 8:28, one of the most glorious verses in the Bible, "And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."
Pain and affliction are God's gifts to his children, who see dimly and hear faintly. I long for God to teach this truth more fully to my heart at a young age. All of life on this earth is affliction. As I age my comfort will not increase.
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." - Rom 8:18
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Biblical Imagery of Conversion
There's a lot of powerful imagery in the Bible that God uses to get across his point. Metaphors and similes are usually only used to make a single point of emphasis, often highlighting either human sin or God's grace. For example, the common OT metaphor of Israel as a prostitute is meant to vividly portray their idolatry in turning from God to worship man-made things. Some of the most powerful metaphors are used to reveal the nature of conversion. As a rule, these metaphors should not be pushed to have multiple and complex meanings. The surface-level meanings are profound enough.
What I see in each of the following passages is that conversion is solely God's work and is completely dependent on his will alone. God uses means to accomplish his purposes, and these means are also his designs. Consider these passages
New Birth: John 3:1-15
"Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Creation: 2 Corinthians 4:6, 5:17
"For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
What I see in each of the following passages is that conversion is solely God's work and is completely dependent on his will alone. God uses means to accomplish his purposes, and these means are also his designs. Consider these passages
New Birth: John 3:1-15
"Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Creation: 2 Corinthians 4:6, 5:17
"For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come."
Abandoned Newborn: Ezekiel 16:4-6 and following
"And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. 5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born.
6 “And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’"
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Granted to believe and to suffer
I've been memorizing Philippians chapter 1 - verse 29 is astonishing:
1. It has been granted to us to believe. Belief in God is not simply an act of my own will, rather, it is a gift of God.
2. In the same way that it has been granted us to believe, it has also been granted to us to suffer! This is the part that blows me away. What should I understand about suffering from this verse?
a. Suffering comes from the hand of God.
b. The gift of suffering goes hand in hand with belief. And it is a gift! It is good for me!
3. Both my belief and my suffering are for the sake of Christ. Paul is so adamant about this that he says it twice in this short verse. My faith is for Christ's sake. My suffering is for Christ's sake.
For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake
1. It has been granted to us to believe. Belief in God is not simply an act of my own will, rather, it is a gift of God.
2. In the same way that it has been granted us to believe, it has also been granted to us to suffer! This is the part that blows me away. What should I understand about suffering from this verse?
a. Suffering comes from the hand of God.
b. The gift of suffering goes hand in hand with belief. And it is a gift! It is good for me!
3. Both my belief and my suffering are for the sake of Christ. Paul is so adamant about this that he says it twice in this short verse. My faith is for Christ's sake. My suffering is for Christ's sake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
