Download the article “Slavery In the Scriptures” from our Resource Library.

This past Saturday, Professor Elliot Greene from Redeemer Presbyterian Seminary taught on “Christ, the Kingdom and History.” One of the quotes that I have been thinking on since then is:

“God has placed us where His love is most potent, in His Son.”

Paul often uses the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ (in Christ) or ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (in Christ Jesus) to refer to this reality of union with Christ. Though the phrase is used dozens of times, consider just a few of the more widely known passages that express this essential truth.

• Romans 8:1–2 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. ² For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
• 1 Corinthians 1:30–31 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, ³¹ so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
• 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
• Galatians 3:25–29 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, ²⁶ for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. ²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
• Ephesians 1:3–6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ⁴ even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love ⁵ he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
• Ephesians 2:1–10 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins ² in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— ³ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. ⁴ But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, ⁵ even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— ⁶ and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, ⁷ so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. ⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not a result of works, so that no one may boast. ¹⁰ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Righteousness, holiness, justification, and sanctification, God’s love, grace, and mercy, all pardon and hope and promise and boast wrapped up in Christ Jesus. In order to attain them, we must be in Him. Those who are in Him, that is who are united to Him through faith, and only those who are in Him, are beneficiaries of these attributes and aspects of redemption.

Union with Christ is the fountainhead from which flows the Christian’s every spiritual blessing—repentance and faith, pardon, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification. Chosen in Christ before the creation of the world, and in the divine mind united with Christ in his death and resurrection, the elect, in response to God’s effectual call, are through God’s gift of faith actually united to Christ. Their union with Christ is in no sense the effect of human causation. “The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband” (Larger Catechism, Question 66). By virtue of his actual union with Christ the Husband in his death and resurrection, the Christian, as Christ’s “bride,” is forgiven of his sin and liberated from the law—his previous “husband”—and made capable of doing that which he could never do before, namely, “bear holy fruit to God” (Rom. 7:4–5). To the degree that the Christian “reckons himself dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:11), that is to say, to the degree that the Christian takes seriously the reality of his Spirit–wrought union with Christ, to that degree he will find his definitive sanctification coming to actual expression in his experiential or progressive sanctification. The holiness of the Christian’s daily walk directly depends upon his union with the Savior.^[1]

Are you in Christ? Are you taking seriously the singular privilege of union with Him and deriving joy and peace from knowing that you are loved by God in Christ Jesus the Lord?

---

Reymond, R. L. (1998). A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (739). Nashville: T. Nelson.

Christ, Sanctification

In my sermon on July 4^th, I quoted D.A. Carson on the danger of spiritual drifting. This is the same quote that Matt has referenced a few times recently and so I wanted to provide that exact quote for those who would like to read it again.

One of the most striking evidences of sinful human nature lies in the universal propensity for downward drift. In other words, it takes thought, resolve, energy, and effort to bring about reform. In the grace of God, sometimes human beings display such virtues. But where such virtues are absent, the drift is invariably toward compromise, comfort, indiscipline, sliding disobedience, and decay that advances, sometimes at a crawl and sometimes at a gallop, across generations.

People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; we drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; we drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated.[1]

I am grateful for this word which beckons us to awaken from apathetic slumber and to pick up the oars and strain hard against the dangerous drift of complacency. As the text says, Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts…

---

[1] Carson, D. A. (1998). For the love of God : A daily companion for discovering the riches of God’s Word. Volume 2 (25). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Sanctification

How do we know that Scripture is the Word of God? How do we know that it is inspired and thus authentic and reliable and authoritative?

There are a number of ways to attempt to answer this question. They are not mutually exclusive answers to the question, but are all related to some degree.

1. We could look at historical evidences for the reliability of the Scriptures. I attempted to provide some helpful resources in this direction in a previous blog.

2. We could look at the Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures are said to be “self-authenticating” and thus evidence for themselves that they are the word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

A common objection to this argument is that it is circular reasoning to use the Bible to prove the Bible, but are not all claims to authority somewhat circular in nature? Why is logic one’s ultimate authority? Because it seems logical that logic be given primacy. Therefore, the question should not be whether or not an argument is circular, but whether or not the argument is true.

The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks to the “self-authentication” of the Scriptures in the following manner:

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.

Westminster Catechism: How does it appear that the Scriptures are the word of God?

“The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the word of God,

1. by their majesty
2. and purity;
3. by the consent of all the parts,
4. and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God;
5. by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation.
6. But the Spirit of God, bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very word of God.”

3. Though the testimony of Scripture itself and historical evidences are helpful, they ultimately will not persuade as to its validity. Westminster identified this inability by relegating ultimate substantiation to the work of the Holy Spirit.

We see this idea alluded to in a few places in the Scriptures:

• 1 John 5:9-10 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. ¹⁰Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. ¹¹And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
• 1 John 4:6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
• John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

According to 1 John 5, there is a testimony greater than the testimony that the world can provide. All of our articulate arguments and apologetics only go so far in authenticating the Word. The greater testimony is internal. Those who believe in Christ and are born of Him (a theme of 1 John) have the testimony within themselves through the indwelling and abiding presence of the Spirit.

This internal testimony bears witness to the authenticity of the apostolic message according to 1 John 4. Those who are born of God have the ability to distinguish between truth and error. There are degrees of discernment, gifting, and maturity involved here so we should not think that this verse is teaching that all true believers are united on all points of doctrine, but the Spirit does bear witness in the regenerate to basic fundamentals of the faith (the context of 1 John is dealing with the rejection of foundational Christian truths such as the incarnation and atonement provided by Christ, the necessity of love in the life of a believer, and the obligation to mortify the flesh).

As Christ said, His sheep hear and discern His voice. Those who cannot hear His voice do not evidence that He is not speaking, but instead demonstrate that they themselves are deaf. Sin has so desensitized us that we willingly suppress the truth of God and then complain that He has not proven Himself to us.

There is an assurance that goes deeper than logic and rational explanations for authenticity. This is why I think Jesus said that it was to our advantage that He go away (John 16:7). Why? So that the helper, the Holy Spirit, would come and convict and indwell God’s sons and daughters.

This indwelling occurs in the moment of regeneration,  which is the act whereby God removes our blindness and deafness and opens our eyes and ears to the reality of the gospel (2 Corinthians 4:3-6, see also “How Does an Unbeliever Believe?”). The Spirit overcomes our rebellion and testifies to the validity of the Scriptures’ testimony to the Son. This testimony is the basis of our faith.

How do I know that the Scriptures are the word of God? How do you know that honey is sweet? By tasting it. If your taste buds are dead, then no argument will prove its sweetness to you. You can hear other people talking about its taste, you can hear scientists talking about its chemical makeup, but you will not be convinced unless you taste it for yourself. It is not the honey’s fault if you cannot taste it and it is not your friend’s fault if he cannot adequately convince you. Unless you have the ability to taste it, you cannot testify to its sweetness.

The same is true for the Scriptures. We could talk about the historical context of the Bible and the various rational evidences for its authenticity, but unless your spiritual taste buds are awakened by the Spirit, then you will not be convinced. No amount of debate can conclusively prove that the Scripture is authentic to those who have not eyes to see and ears to hear.

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

I cannot prove that the Scripture is authentic. But the Spirit can and does.

How do I know that the Scriptures are the word of God? Because the Spirit within testifies to their authenticity. I simply know that I know.

Application:

If you have not yet come to a place where you can testify to the authenticity of Scripture, admit or at least consider that your taste buds are broken, that your eyes are closed, that your mind is muddied by sin. Ask for help. Pray Psalm 119:18 Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Don’t just pray it once, but persevere in that prayer.

If you have tasted it, then you can testify with the Psalmist:

Psalm 19:7-11 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. ¹¹Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

The Spirit bears witness to the authenticity and authority of the Scriptures. Therefore, treasure them, read them, study them, speak them, sing them, memorize them, and apply them.

For help on reading and studying the Scriptures, check out the upcoming Saturday Seminar: How to Study the Bible.

Saturday, June 26
9 a.m. to 11: 30 a.m. (Doors open at 8:30 a.m.)
Flower Mound Worship Center

Holy Spirit, Scripture

Is there any reason to pray for something more than once?

The Bible states that indeed there is. Not because God forgets our requests or because we reach a magical limit, but rather because it forces us to humble ourselves before Him for an extended season in asking for the help which He delights to give His children. God could certainly (and sometimes does) answer our initial requests, but He also sometimes tarries to discipline or test us for our good.

Based upon the entirety of Scripture, we should conclude that God both requires persistent prayer and responds to persistent prayer.

God Requires Persistent Prayer:

• Romans 12:12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant[1] in prayer.
• Ephesians 6:18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints…

Many other passages commend constant prayer. While these passages do not explicitly teach that we should repeatedly pray for the same thing over and over, I would argue that the general theme of prayer in the Scriptures should lead us to conclude that God indeed has required persistent prayer in areas in which we feel as though He has not yet answered our prayer.

There are times in which I believe it is appropriate to discontinue praying for a particular request, as when Paul appears to have ceased praying regarding the thorn in his side (2 Corinthians 12:8-9). That said, I would be very careful lest I simply discontinued praying out of laziness, apathy, or unbelief, and not because I genuinely felt as though the Lord had clarified His will on the matter.

God Responds to Persistent Prayer:

We see God’s response to repeated requests in the ministry of Christ, particularly in His interaction with the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew 15:22-28) and in His own repeated requests in the garden (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46).

As for His teaching on the subject, we could consider “The Parable of the Persistent Widow” of Luke 18:1-8 (Luke 11:5-13 contains some helpful direction as well).

Contextually, the parable is dealing with the petition of God’s children for justice (18:7-8) within the sphere of the tribulation of the coming kingdom (17:20-37). Therefore, there is a primary application of the text within the context of persecution, but the purpose of the parable appears to be wider in application than simply suffering. As the text says it was told in order to commend constant prayer and to encourage failing hearts (18:1).

By the way, parables are pictures intended to express truths, but not every aspect of a parable should be forced back onto God or His kingdom. “Parables only partially overlap the realities they seek to reveal.”[2] In the context of this parable, though the Father and judge are alike in some ways (both respond to repeated requests), they are also unlike. Our Father delights in our prayers and is not “beaten down” by them as the judge appeared to be (18:5). The character of God within this passage is actually contrasted with that of the unjust judge as He displays mercy, patience, and eagerness to help those “who cry to Him day and night.”

---

[1] The word translated “constant” by the ESV is proskartereo which literally means “to attach oneself to, wait on, or persist at.”

[2] Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus.”

Prayer, Spiritual Disciplines

Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?’

Mark 15:34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which is translated, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?’ [1]

There has been much confusion and debate as to the meaning of Christ’s so-called “cry of dereliction” from the cross. The two most popular interpretations are:

1. He was experiencing and therefore expressing rejection from His Father.
2. He was merely quoting an Old Testament messianic psalm.

This blog post will attempt to wrestle through the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various position and craft some helpful boundaries in attempting to answer the question, “Did the Father reject the Son?”

Rejection of the Son
This position is often stated as the Father “turning His face away” or “turning His back to the Son” which both convey the same image of rejection. Though this imagery is not explicitly used in the Scriptures, theological reflection upon the transaction that actually took place upon the cross has led many to this conclusion.

A foundational truth that has been held consistently throughout the church age is that of the Trinity. The God of the Old and New Testaments has always existed as triune, but has now in these last days fully revealed Himself to be such. This is a precious doctrine that has been a litmus test for distinctly Christian thought for nearly 2000 years. According to the orthodox understanding of the nature of the godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally existed in absolute harmony and joy, united in nature and yet distinct in person and role.

According to some thinking on Matthew and Mark’s texts, this eternal delight and harmony between Father and Son was temporarily yet truly broken in light of Christ’s offering as a propitiatory sacrifice.[2] This interpretation understands His words to be a reflection of the deep and previously unknown discord experienced by the Son as He hung upon the cross. Also used in support of this view are passages such as:

• Habakkuk 1:13 [God’s] eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You cannot look on wickedness with favor…
• 2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
• Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us – for it is written – ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’

Since Christ became a curse and sin on our behalf, this view holds that the Father could no longer look upon Him. It rightly feels the theological tension of a holy and perfect God encountering that that is, by definition, contrary to His very nature. However, isn’t Christ just as holy and perfect as the Father? To say that the Father could not look upon sin and thus had to turn His face away merely deflects the tension from the Father to the Son that is hardly helpful. In addition, how does this view interpret the obvious parallel which exists between the Lord’s cry from the cross and David’s recorded anguish in Psalm 22?

Allusion to a Psalm
Psalm 22 is one of the most descriptive passages found within the Old Testament depicting the shadow of the eventual crucifixion of the messiah.[3] Its specific messianic tone and rightful application to Jesus is clearly expounded in Hebrews 2:13 leaving no doubt that as to a relationship between the prophecy within this particular psalm and the events which transpired upon Calvary. The psalm clearly and biblically points to the Christ Who eventually suffered and died in fulfillment of the text.

The passage in Psalm 22 begins “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” Was Jesus doing nothing more than pointing to the psalm to once again manifest Himself as prophesied messiah to the crowds that were gathered around Him? [4] Was He, by quoting the first line of the psalm,[5] pointing to the triumphant expectation of the proceeding context?[6] Was He merely quoting the psalm, as He quoted Deuteronomy at His desert temptation, in order to steady Himself upon the Scripture?[7] Was He simply identifying with the struggle of David in feeling deserted from His Father?

While noticing the obvious parallel between Matthew and Mark’s accounts and the Psalm, this view does not attempt to clarify the actual experience of sin-bearing upon the cross. Was the Son merely quoting the Psalm or was He actually experiencing and thus fulfilling that to which the Psalm pointed?

Reflections upon the Text
Given the obvious and exact correspondence to the language of the psalmist, I find it hard to discount that Jesus had in mind an allusion to the Scripture. In addition, as He proved countless times, it is not to be forgotten that He would have known that the lament that begins in agony ends in triumphant glory. No doubt He knew even as He cried, “why have You forsaken Me?” that this same God “has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from him; but when he cried to Him for help, He heard.”[8]

I certainly do not wish to underestimate the intense physical and emotional agony of the cross or the depth of mystery in the death of the divine. Jesus Christ truly did become a curse and sin on our behalf and it would be sloppy interpretation in not pointing out the logical difficulty which exists when God, even the God-man Jesus, bears sin contrary to His very nature and absorbs the wrath of His loving Father. Then again, any language which speaks of the Father rejecting the Son risks going too far in describing a separation within the eternal godhead, and I’m not comfortable doing so without more explicit evidence.

In my estimation, Scripture is not sufficiently clear[9] for us to make absolutely precise statements as to the exact nature and intention of Christ’s cries from Calvary. We do know that His language was unique in that it represents the only record of personal address in which the Son calls His Father “God” and not “Father,” but this hardly prefers one position over the other.[10] In addition, we should assert that in some way Jesus was alluding back to the messianic overtones of the 22^nd psalm. We should also be careful to not distance ourselves from the peculiar and distinct suffering and anguish which was experienced by the Son as He bore in His body the weight of wrath poured out against sin. In so recognizing, we are left to confess the ultimate and profound mystery of how it is that any sin could be tolerated, looked upon or borne in even the slightest degree by any member of the godhead.  The ultimate depths are surely a secret restricted to the divine; a mystery which should not terminate in confusion so much as awe and wonder that God has worked such a glorious salvation for sinful man.

Conclusion
Regardless of the degree to which we incorporate aspects of the two extreme positions, we must confidently assert that Christ’s final words contained not the slightest hint of separation or alienation between the Son and His Father. As both Matthew and Mark attest, after crying out the words corresponding to Psalm 22, he again uttered at least one other loud cry before yielding up His spirit.[11] While neither of the first two gospels give us an indication of the content of this final cry, both Luke and John make mention. John’s report ends on the triumphant note of victory as Jesus proclaims that His work has been accomplished[12] while Luke shows once again the familiarity of the eternal harmony of the godhead as Christ cries out “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.”[13] While most precisely reflecting the language of Psalm 31:5, it is certainly interesting to note the similarity to Psalm 22:8 “Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him; let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.”

Surely the Father delights in the Son and rescued and delivered the One Who committed Himself fully to Him. Whether Jesus experienced a sense or the reality of alienation or not, we must boldly confess that Father and Son are now and forevermore experiencing the fullness of delight in each other and the infinite perfections of the godhead.

For Additional Explanation or Assistance:

Allen, Clifton J., General Articles: Matthew-Mark, The Broadman Bible Commentary, Nashville, 1969.

Cole, R. Alan, Mark, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1997.

France, R.T., Matthew, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1985.

Garland, David, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary, Grand Rapids, 1996.

Lane, William L., The Gospel of Mark, NICNT, Grand Rapids, 1974.

MacArthur, John, Matthew: 24-28, The MacArthur NT Commentary, Chicago, 1989.

Mounce, Robert H., Matthew, New International Biblical Commentary, Peabody, MA 1991.

Oden, Thomas C. and Christopher A. Hall, Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on

Scripture, Downers Grove, 1998.

---

[1] [1] The distinction between “Eli” and “Eloi” as recorded in the two gospels is owing to Matthew’s use of the Hebrew “Eli” and Mark’s use of the Aramaic “Eloi”.  Though the wording is different, the same concept of a personal address to God is indicated.

[2] [2] Propitiation is the theological term for the satisfaction of God’s wrath. The term is used in the New Testament in Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2, 4:10.

[3] [3]Note that the servant was mocked (vss. 7-8), stretched (14), thirsty (15), pierced on hands and feet (16), without broken bones (17), looked upon (17), had his garments divided (18), etc. See also Isaiah 53 for a passage similarly loaded with such prophetic richness.

[4] [4]Note the frequency of Jesus’ use of Old Testament scripture to evidence His messianic ministry in such passages as Matthew 11:4-5, 13:14-15, 21:42, 22:42-45; Mark 14:49; Luke 4:17-21, 24:25-27; John 5:39, 7:38, 13:18, 17:12, et al.

[5] [5]The practice of quoting the first line to bring to mind the entire psalm was consistent with ancient Jewish custom.

[6] [6]While the psalm begins with a lament of anguish, the context becomes increasingly positive eventually resulting in praise from the psalmist (pointing to the messiah) in verses 22 and 25 and, ultimately in God’s praise throughout the world in verses 27-31.

[7] [7]R. Alan Cole, Mark, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1997, pg. 320.

[8] [8]Psalm 22:24

[9] [9]This is neither a denial of the doctrines of sufficiency nor perspicuity, as neither affirms that Scripture is utterly and exhaustively clear in all areas, but rather that it is sufficiently clear in leading us to salvation and godly living.

[10] [10]R.T. France, Matthew, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1985, pg. 398.  J. MacArthur, Matthew: 24-28, The MacArthur NT Commentary, Chicago, 1989, pg. 270.  This fact in and of itself does not prove anything.  While the second interpretation would point out that this anomaly tends to favor that Jesus was merely quoting Scripture by not using His personal term of familiarity, the former position would state that such an exception indicates the very real alienation which forms their understanding.

[11] Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37.

[12] John 19:30

[13] Luke 23:46

Bible Texts, Christ, Miscellaneous

While the faithful remnant of the Old Testament worshiped YHWH[1], a great number of Israelites were compelled to serve Baal and other Ancient Near Eastern gods. As seen throughout the narrative of the Old Testament, idolatry (i.e. substitute worship) was the fundamental problem from the beginning of not only Israel, but of mankind in general.[2]

The reality of idolatry even within ancient Israel should lead us to conclude that not every member of the nation worshipped YHWH.[3] Not all Jews feared and revered the God of Abraham. This recognition becomes critical in a conversation on modern Judaism.

The New Testament unambiguously states that those who truly worshiped YHWH would have seen and responded to the gospel of Christ. This is why Jesus does not condemn His fellow Jews for believing in the God of Abraham and Moses, but rather for rejecting the very One to Whom Abraham and Moses pointed.

A couple of references make this point clear:

John 5:37-47 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

John 8:39-59 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

48The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

According to these texts, true belief in the God of Abraham and Moses responds to the Christ of Whom they spoke and in Whom they hoped. The fundamental problem with Judaism then and now is not the reverence of the God of the Old Testament, but instead the failure to faithfully fear the God revealed in the Old Testament.

YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David, has eternally existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The God of the Scriptures, Old and New, is triune. Whereas in the Old Testament, the trinity was implied in shadowed form, the New Testament revelation of Christ shines forth with greater brilliance and clarity. Simply put, one who worships a non-triune god is not worshipping the one God Who is triune. This is the point developed further in the blog, What if I Believe in ‘God,’ but not in Jesus?. To deny the Son is to deny the Father Who sent Him, which is to deny the God of the Scriptures, Old and New.

Christianity considers modern Judaism to be errant not because they worship the God of the Old Testament, but precisely because they do not do so. This realization is no justification for the evil of historic anti-Semitism, but rather is a compelling call for mission. Like Christ and His apostles, we should have a heart to see Jews reconciled – not to a new God, but to the God of their fathers.

Romans 10:1-3 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

_____________

[1] The theme of a faithful remnant is common throughout the Old Testament narrative (1 Kings 19:18; Jeremiah 23:3-4; Joel 2:32; Micah 2:12; Zephaniah 3:11-13; et al) and relates to the concept of the elect as used in the New (Mark 13:20, 27; Luke 18:7; Romans 8:33; 1 Peter 1:1, 2:9; et al).

[2] This is not to imply that mankind was created to be idolaters, but rather that idolatry entered into our nature in the very first generation through Adam and Eve’s disobedience. How long after their creation this occurred is not revealed in the Scriptures.

[3] The combination of these 4 letters (typically pronounced Yahweh) is referred to as the tetragrammaton (four letters) by scholars and is the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses particularly in Exodus 3:15. It appears in English texts as “the LORD” where LORD is in all capital letters to distinguish it from adonai (Hebrew for “lord”) and kyrios (Greek for “lord”).

Christ, Culture

What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

Jesus and Homosexuality

For those having more questions about the issue of homosexuality, you are encouraged to join us this Friday, May 21^st, as The Village Church will host a Culture and Theology event on this subject.

CULTURE + THEOLOGY: HOMOSEXUALITY

When and Where

Friday, May 21, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. (Doors open at 6:30 p.m.) | Flower Mound campus Worship Center

Registration is not required for general attendance.

Kid Keepers (childcare) is now full for this event. Please make other arrangements for childcare.

Culture, Sexuality

Born of a virgin
Hailed as God and man
Surrounded by 12 Disciples
Performed miraculous deeds
Baptized
Sacrificed
Resurrected

Internet sites abound with alleged similarities between the events of the New Testament narrative,[1] in particular the person and work of Jesus Christ, and ancient mythological accounts of gods. Horus, Osiris, Dionysius, Mithra: all allegedly share in characteristics which Christians uniquely attribute to Christ. What are we to make of these parallels?

Superficial Claims
First and foremost, it is necessary to recognize the superficiality of such comparisons. Alleged similarities are typically a mile wide and an inch deep, intended to confuse and mislead in an area in which very few are personally informed. Internet claims are simply recited without actually being researched. Here are a couple of examples of such distortions of the actual evidence:

Virgin birth
It is certainly true that a few myths and religions spoke of something which has been described as a “virgin birth,” but examination of the source texts reveal that such terminology is misleading and irresponsible. Those accounts are decidedly sexual in nature with a male deity procreating with a female (virgin or not in some cases) in order to produce a son. In other words, a male god is engaging in physical sex with a female woman. If a man (deity or not) has sex with a female, then it is not a virgin birth because she is no longer a virgin. To call this a “virgin birth” is simply irresponsible and misunderstands the nature of Christ’s virgin birth.

For the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth, read in particular Luke 1:34-35. God did not sexually interact with Mary. The pagan pictures of “virgin birth” are extremely dissimilar to the biblical account of the conception of Christ in which the power of the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary.

The parallel is very weak and unconvincing at best.

Resurrection
What of the many other mythical accounts of dying and rising gods? Analysis reveals that this too is hardly analogous to the Christian doctrine of resurrection. Those “gods” rose again each year as part of the agricultural cycle not as a watershed moment in history. It is the historical account of resurrection that sets the Christian claim apart and it is the central question which must be answered. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15) and should be discarded as such. But if He did rise, this reality has profound implications for us and our lives.

The reality of the resurrection best accounts for the objective data that we have. We know for a fact that the early church professed the resurrection (i.e. it was not invented some years later). We know for a fact that the disciples were willing to lay down their lives for that message (i.e. this makes it extremely unlikely that they stole the body). No body of Christ ever surfaced. Why not? Did the Romans or Jews steal it? That is extremely illogical since it would have only intensified the claims of Christianity. Was it a random grave robber? We have absolutely no evidence for that. Though it might grate against man’s rational desire for natural explanations, the resurrection simply best explains what we know to be historically true. Denial of the resurrection demands great faith in speculative answers to the questions which are raised by the data of the 1st century.

[For an in-depth analysis of the absolute uniqueness of the biblical account of resurrection, set aside a large portion of time to begin to work through N.T. Wright’s mammoth “The Resurrection of the Son of God.” Wright looks at pagan accounts in particular and analyzes the claim that Christianity merely borrowed the concept of resurrection from surrounding cultures. Wright evidences that the Christian conception of resurrection was totally dissimilar to the expectations of the Ancient Near Eastern culture of that time or previous. There is a marked contrast between the hope of Christian resurrection and the pagan desire for life after death.]

The following summarizes the resurrection “parallels” quite nicely, “It is superficial and unfounded to say that the study of the history of religions has shown the dependence of the resurrection of Jesus on mythology. On the contrary, it is precisely the comparison with the history of religion that gives rise to the strongest objections to any kind of mythifying of the resurrection of Jesus.”[2]

When one examines the claims of pagan parallels, one finds the such comparisons are incredibly shallow. Ultimately, it is not the similarities that are incredible, it is the depth of dissimilarity. The uniqueness of the biblical portrait of Jesus is astounding.

The Existence of Parallels
Though many parallels are weak, the fact that there are some similarities still needs to be considered. We will limit our consideration to similarities pointed out within the text of the Old Testament for the sake of time as I have posted a few resources which deal more specifically with claims of parallels in the New.

First, I think it is important to consider that many parallels are intentional devices on the part of the authors of Scripture to show YHWH’s superiority over, not similarity to, pagan gods. Biblical studies have shown indeed that the language of the Scriptures often alludes to surrounding myths in taking a polemical posture against those religions and their idols. The Scriptures were not given from within a vacuum devoid of context. In speaking against Baalism in early Israel, it is only fitting that the authors of the Scriptures use language that parallels and supersedes that which was used by proponents of Canaanite paganism. The Bible is full of such intentional engagement with false teachings. For example, many believe that Psalm 29 is intentionally aimed at displaying the superiority of YHWH to Baal. YHWH’s voice is highlighted (7 times in the 11 verses) and is described as a thunderstorm to evidence His great power. This is particularly enlightening when one considers that Baal was considered the “storm-god” whose “voice” was heard in storms. In using the same language and imagery of the pagan god, David is here elevating the voice (7 being a number of completion or perfection in Hebrew culture) and power of YHWH over that of Baal. Rather than simply borrowing from ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) myths, the Scriptures are using similarities as inroads to consider the superiority of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the “gods” of the culture.

Second, I think that in many cases parallels actually strengthen the case for the biblical account. For instance, the vast distribution of pagan flood accounts in the ANE should not lead us to conclude that there was no flood, but rather that something actually happened. If one were investigating a murder and witness A claimed to hear an explosion late at night, witness B testified to fireworks sometime after 11:30, witness C argued for a backfiring car about 12:05, and witness D described a gunshot at 11:58, you would not conclude that they were all colluding or lying. Only a foolish detective would consider the contrasting accounts to be necessarily contradictory. They instead carry the common theme of a loud bang sometime around midnight. Even more foolish would be to assume that nothing actually happened. Further investigation of the evidence would highlight whether indeed there was a gunshot wound and approximate time of death.

What are we ultimately to make of the existence of some parallels? If the biblical account is true, then man and demons are rebellious resisters of the revelation of God. If so, is it not extremely likely that both would seek to corrupt the account by reinterpreting actual events? Pagan parallels do not disprove Christianity any more than a witness who swears that he heard a car backfire disproves a murder.

Recommended Resources for Further Study
Reinventing Jesus – Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace (in particular, read chapters 16-18 which deal with issues of alleged parallels)

Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology – Niehaus

Dethroning Jesus – Bock and Wallace

---

[1] In particular, I have received a number of e-mails about a video called Zeitgeist. For a brief overview of the many problems in this particular video, consider this interview.

[2] Walter Kunneth, as quoted in “Reinventing Jesus.”

Christ, Culture, History

Story:

Driving by DTS last week, I saw a little old lady fall on the sidewalk. Not seeing anyone around to help her, I pulled into the nearest parking lot around the corner and then ran back to see if there was anything I could do. I returned to find two men walking away from her, having obviously helped her to her feet. As I passed the men, I asked if she was okay and they replied, “she thinks she needs to go to the hospital” and then kept walking. I was confused as to why they were not calling an ambulance or helping her any further as I watched her shuffle along, head slumped down, left arm cradled by the right.

Transition:

This image got me thinking about community. Are we like the men who helped the lady to her feet and then left her to fend for herself? Without ultimate concern for her health, without sacrifice of self, there is instead concern merely to do one’s moral duty. We help our “communities” to their feet and then leave them to shuffle along with broken bones, left to fend for themselves.

Biblical Community is authentic.

Authentic means real, genuine, and valid. If there is “authentic” community, then there must be unauthentic pseudo-community, community which shares the name of community, but not the elements which truly highlight that form of fellowship which corresponds to the biblical imperative for community.  What elements distinguish biblical community from its worldly façade?

Though the distinctions are many, we want to focus in particular on vulnerability and accountability.

Vulnerability and Accountability

There is a strange paradox in humanity. Humanity is lonely and hates isolation. We are wired with a communal image from our triune God. Yet, paradoxically, while we hate to be alone, humanity longs to be hidden.

Was this not the first scheme of fallen man? Having tasted of the fruit and fallen from community, where does Adam go but to the bushes and trees? He wants to be hidden. He wants to be covered. But a few dried leaves can never cover guilt and shame.

People have not really moved beyond this proclivity – this tendency toward concealment. All these years later, the flesh loves figs and shrubs.

This inclination is exposed in John 3 where Jesus says that man loves the darkness and hates the light. The only cure for a fallen nature is a new nature that is the entire context of John 3 and Christ’s talk with Nicodemus. What God demands He provides – a heart that finds pleasure not behind plants, but in the cover of the cross.

The gospel calls us out of our fear and into faith. Out of the shadows and into the Light of the Son.

Fear of Confession:

When exposed, many of us still long to hide. We cram our skeletons into our closets and hope no one ever needs to go in there. So no one really knows us; because we have this huge closet full of secrets. Our houses become nicer and nicer on the outside, which only forces us to keep up the game. Those skeletons seem more and more out of place. We can neither give nor accept love. Those skeletons bind us. We can’t leave home for fear that someone will break in and see our past.

We know that honesty is the best policy. We intellectually know that. But fear shackles us. It deceives us. It paralyzes us with persuasive promises of shame and humiliation.

Confession without Repentance:

But that’s not all of us, for many of us, we are okay confessing, but our confession falls flat. So each week we confess the same sins to the same group who perhaps struggles with the exact same sins as well. Round and round we go on an unending merry-go-round of “confession.” We may open the door to our closets, but we don’t stop putting skeletons in there. You might even think we are proud of displaying them. But here’s the point—we are still collecting skeletons.

I think that many of us only confess our sin because we don’t really expect our community to ask us to do anything about it. Truth be told, we cherish our little pet sins. We confess, not to get rid of the sin, but to get rid of the shame. We are not terribly concerned that we have offended God, we are rather bothered by our conscience and simply want to feel better.

Confession of this kind is like going to a doctor and telling him all of your symptoms and before he even has a chance to speak, you get up off the butcher paper lounge chair thingy and say, “there, I feel much better” and just walk out.

This is where accountability comes in. Confession is meant to move us to repentance, not simply ease our conviction. Community does not consist of priests who merely hear confessions, it is instead a group of people who are passionate to shepherd someone toward the light. The goal of confession is repentance. Confession for the sake of confession is worthless. Confession that leads to true repentance results in holiness.

Our communities must not function not merely as confessionals? What good is it to listen to the little old lady ask for an ambulance if you are not going to call for one? What good is it to help her up from the ground only to let her shuffle a few feet and fall again? This time with a broken arm effectively eliminative any opportunity to soften the blow. If she falls, there is nothing to protect her.

Biblical community is a radical commitment to both confession and repentance. Not either/or. Neither is sufficient in and of itself. It doesn’t simply hear the lady say, “I think I need an ambulance” it calls the ambulance and waits with her and talks to her and prays for her. Then it gets in the ambulance or meets her in the hospital. It confronts her when she is tempted to rip out the IV and leave the hospital against the doctor’s orders. It sits in the waiting room and at her side and brings her meals, and reads the Scriptures over her and encourages her with talk of Christ. It stays by her side through rehab and beyond.

Community is not simply a place to share your sin, it is a place to struggle against your sin. It is a battlefield.

The Danger of Drifting[1]

Hebrews 2:1 Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.

What happens if you are driving and take your hands off the wheel? You start to drift. If your alignment is good, you can go quite some ways before the drift is noticeable. For some of you, you are scared to change the radio because your car will end up immediately swerving into a ditch the moment you take your hands off the wheels. Our lives are just like that. There is a very real danger of drifting.

The sermon referenced in the footnote below makes this observation, that our lives are not lakes, but rather rivers. And the rivers are flowing, but the surge of the world is rushing away from God. Ocean tides ebb and flow, but the currents of the flesh always carry us away from Christ. If we simply lounge and allow ourselves to float on the lazy rivers of complacency, we will not drift toward life, joy, fullness, and satisfaction, but rather toward destruction. Drifting is exceedingly dangerous.

Conformity to Christ Accomplished in Community

Hebrews 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

Chapter 3 contains the same idea as in chapter 2 in regards to the danger of drifting or falling away, but with a twist on the application.

3:13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

Straining at the oars to keep from drifting is no individual struggle. The author clarifies that this is a communal effort. We are to exhort “one another” so that “none of you” may be hardened and fall away. This means that we have a responsibility in the sanctification and perseverance of others. I am accountable to you and you to me. The more our lives overlap, the more responsibility we have to each other to exhort, encourage, warn, correct, discipline, teach, rebuke, counsel, caution, and persuade. Love demands that we not allow our loved ones to drift.

If this is going to happen there must be authenticity. There must be vulnerability. You need to be vulnerable with your community and they need to pay attention so that they can see signs of drifting.

When they see you drift, they can ease you back onto the path. You need to agree to give them that kind of responsibility and they need to agree to guide you slowly and carefully. We’ve all known the guy who sees that he is drifting to one side of the road and so overcorrects by yanking the wheel 45 degrees further than necessary. I have a few friends that I love and appreciate because I am forced to pray and consider my own mortality every time I ride with them.

This extreme overcorrection is not how biblical community should ideally confront sin. It is gentle and yet firm. And here is the great thing—it learns this over time. It matures into course correction. When I first learned to drive I was about eight, sitting in my grandfather’s lap on a deserted road near our lake house. He told me that I could not just keep the wheel in one place, but had to move it from side to side. I nearly caused us to flip right then. It took me a while to learn how to gently and yet firmly stay in my lane and correct my drift. Twenty-three years later, I don’t drive like I did at eight. Community matures and grows into its responsibility toward vulnerability and accountability.

When we say that community is authentic, we mean that it takes seriously the call to consider and clothe ourselves with Christ and crucify the flesh. We really do mean that The Village is a safe place to wrestle and struggle. “It is okay to not be okay, but it’s not okay to stay there.”

---

[1] Listen to or read this very powerful sermon on the danger of drifting.

Community, Sanctification