Last month, I finished reading through the book of Isaiah (approximately) twenty times (I spent about a year in it).
Isaiah is a challenging book, for a number of reasons.
The first is length: at 66 chapters it takes a long time to get through one time (about two weeks), and you can forget the beginning by the time you get to the end.
Second, the book is mostly prophetic utterances - not a story or narrative, with clear boundaries (people did this, then they did that). This makes it hard to break up into smaller chunks to be processed.
The third challenge is related to the second - because it is prophetic language, it is often hard to grasp, or unclear in meaning or subject.
Nevertheless, there is a clear message which comes through - that of God's judgement on sin and His provision of salvation.
I took several style of notes as I was reading; in one, I wrote a word or two to summarize a chapter. You see: judgment; salvation; judgement and salvation.
This makes sense in context. Israel had disobeyed God for some time, and was about to go into the Babylonian captivity. We also see many strong messianic prophecies (God ultimate plan of salvation)
Showing posts with label Bible Study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible Study. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Impact of the Gospel
Following up on Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, I have repeatedly read through the second.
The topics are, unsurprisingly, very similar. Tradition holds that the church at Thessalonica was founded during Paul's second missionary journey. He clearly spent some time there personally teaching them (2 Thes 2:5, 3:7). The letters may have been written in 50 and 51 AD.
The first letter offers encouragement and hope in the face of persecution (including tantalizing information about Jesus' return for the Church).
For the second letter, it is clear that the persecution is still ongoing (chapter 1). On top of this, there seems to be some sort of false teaching going on (2:1-3a). Apparently, someone claiming inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and falsely claiming the support of Paul has told them that they are living in the last days (the Great Tribulation, although Paul does not use those words).
What is Paul's response? That the Great Tribulation is only metaphorical, that things will get progressively better as the Church renews the world?
No. He tells them that there will be a great rebellion (probably spiritual, but possibly physical or both), that a "man of perdition" (or destruction) will rise up, and that all the unsaved will be deceived.
Paul here tantalizes us again:
The King James has "he who now lets will let", which shows the importance of updating translations. "Let", to us, means "allow". But at the time of the KJV, it meant "deny" (or block). Thus, the Modern King James has fixed this to be "he is now holding back". The second "will let" was actually added - it is not in the Greek. But the idea is confirmed by the later "until he is taken out of the way (or midst)".
Dispensationalists hold that this is the Church being taken away, reducing the mediating effects of the Holy Spirit in the world. It makes a lot of sense, but it is not an open and close case from just this passage.
The topics are, unsurprisingly, very similar. Tradition holds that the church at Thessalonica was founded during Paul's second missionary journey. He clearly spent some time there personally teaching them (2 Thes 2:5, 3:7). The letters may have been written in 50 and 51 AD.
The first letter offers encouragement and hope in the face of persecution (including tantalizing information about Jesus' return for the Church).
For the second letter, it is clear that the persecution is still ongoing (chapter 1). On top of this, there seems to be some sort of false teaching going on (2:1-3a). Apparently, someone claiming inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and falsely claiming the support of Paul has told them that they are living in the last days (the Great Tribulation, although Paul does not use those words).
What is Paul's response? That the Great Tribulation is only metaphorical, that things will get progressively better as the Church renews the world?
No. He tells them that there will be a great rebellion (probably spiritual, but possibly physical or both), that a "man of perdition" (or destruction) will rise up, and that all the unsaved will be deceived.
Paul here tantalizes us again:
"Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you? And now you know what holds back, for him to be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only he is now holding back until it comes out of the midst. And then the lawless one will be revealed..." (2:5-8a)Um, no Paul I don't remember, I wasn't there!
The King James has "he who now lets will let", which shows the importance of updating translations. "Let", to us, means "allow". But at the time of the KJV, it meant "deny" (or block). Thus, the Modern King James has fixed this to be "he is now holding back". The second "will let" was actually added - it is not in the Greek. But the idea is confirmed by the later "until he is taken out of the way (or midst)".
Dispensationalists hold that this is the Church being taken away, reducing the mediating effects of the Holy Spirit in the world. It makes a lot of sense, but it is not an open and close case from just this passage.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Power of the Gospel
I finished repeated reading of the First letter to the Thessalonians.
This book is all about the impact of the Gospel in peoples lives:
This book is all about the impact of the Gospel in peoples lives:
- chapter 1 tells us how the Thessalonians came to believe, even in the face of persecution
- chapter 2 is on the conduct of Paul, regarding the nature of the Gospel and the preacher
- chapter 3 demonstrates the lasting power of conversion
- chapter 4 talks about the effects of the Gospel in people's lives, including our hope against death
- chapter 5 closes with encouragement to continue to the end
Sunday, February 7, 2010
One in Christ
I finished reading through the book of Ephesians last month, but I only got around to collecting my notes now...
There is a lot of rich theology here, it's hard for me to do justice to it in one post.
I started my outline:
There is a lot of rich theology here, it's hard for me to do justice to it in one post.
I started my outline:
- ch 1, v 3-6 predestined to be sons
- v 7-12 redemption, forgiveness, united, inheritance
- 13-14 the Gospel, the Holy Spirit is our guarantee
- 15-23 Paul's reaction - thanks and prayer
- 2:1-3 we were dead in sin (shown in Christ)
- 4-10 but God saved us by grace
- 11-19 Gentiles and Jews brought together in Christ
- 20-22 foundation of the apostles, we are built together in Christ
- 3:1-21 the mystery of the Gospel revealed for all through the apostles
- 4:1-32, 5:1-33, 6:1-9 our new life in Christ
Monday, January 25, 2010
Jesus: Word of God
I read the Gospel of John twenty times about this time last year. I either lost my notes, or failed to write them in a timely fashion. I had to go back through the book to collect my thoughts...
John's Gospel is very different from the other three. The language is much more abstract, and John doesn't spend much time on events (In 21 chapters, John advances to nearly the last week by chapter 11, possibly earlier). The arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection are compressed into the last four chapters.
If you want to know who Jesus is, and read just one book of the Bible, the Gospel of John is the book for you.
This book clearly spells out that Jesus is one with the Father, eternal, and the only way to salvation. Near the end, Thomas makes a clear proclamation that Jesus is God, and worthy of worship.
God is only as good as His Word, His promise. When it came time for Him to swear an oath, He swore on Himself. Jesus is that Word, and we can know the Father by knowing Jesus.
John's Gospel is very different from the other three. The language is much more abstract, and John doesn't spend much time on events (In 21 chapters, John advances to nearly the last week by chapter 11, possibly earlier). The arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection are compressed into the last four chapters.
If you want to know who Jesus is, and read just one book of the Bible, the Gospel of John is the book for you.
This book clearly spells out that Jesus is one with the Father, eternal, and the only way to salvation. Near the end, Thomas makes a clear proclamation that Jesus is God, and worthy of worship.
God is only as good as His Word, His promise. When it came time for Him to swear an oath, He swore on Himself. Jesus is that Word, and we can know the Father by knowing Jesus.
Monday, December 22, 2008
What Is Truth
I have been reading through the Gospel of John, and I am noticing heavy use of the word "truth".
The Greek word is αληθεια (aletheia), the noun for truth. The other Greek word sometimes translated "truth" is the adverb form (translated "of a truth" or "truly").
Aletheia is used once by Matthew, three times in Mark, and twice by Luke (the adverb forms are 1,0,3 respectively).
John uses it twenty-five times in twenty-two verses! (He uses the adverb form twice.)
It is clear this is a word John likes. In his short epistles:
The Greek word is αληθεια (aletheia), the noun for truth. The other Greek word sometimes translated "truth" is the adverb form (translated "of a truth" or "truly").
Aletheia is used once by Matthew, three times in Mark, and twice by Luke (the adverb forms are 1,0,3 respectively).
John uses it twenty-five times in twenty-two verses! (He uses the adverb form twice.)
It is clear this is a word John likes. In his short epistles:
- 2 John (13 verses total) - 5 times in 4 verses
- 3 John (14 verses total) - 6 times in 5 verses
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Paul's Gospel
If First John is my favorite book, then Romans would probably be the one book I would choose if I could only have one book to take with me. That is because it is a rich source of theology.
First of all, it contains a well-developed presentation of the Gospel:
First of all, it contains a well-developed presentation of the Gospel:
- Overview (chapter 1, verses 2-6)
- God's Judgment (chapter 2)
- How the Law cannot save us (end of chapter 2, and chapter 3)
- Salvation is by faith (end of chapter 3, and chapter 4)
- Some of the consequences of salvation (chapters 5 and 6)
- Paul develops this theology in chapters 7-13
- Chapter 14 gives vital insight for how Christians are to bear with one another
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."
Friday, April 11, 2008
On Free Will
This is a topic I have been meaning to cover for some time. It could also be called, "On Predestination", and was covered somewhat in "Arminianism vs. Calvinism".
Do we have free will? This is a difficult question to phrase:
Do we have free will? This is a difficult question to phrase:
- Are we free to do as we please? It certainly seems so.
- Does God hold us responsible for our actions? Definitely (Ezekiel 18:4, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die").
- Does God make us do evil? No (1 John 1:5 "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all").
- Does God choose those who are saved, and those who are not saved (without regard to their character)? Yes. Salvation (even the faith required for salvation) is a gift from God, apart from what we do -- our works (Ephesians 2:8-9)
- Further, does God harden some people to prevent them from believing in God? (Exodus 4:21, 9:34, etc. Deuteronomy 2:30, Romans 9:18. Also the explanation for why Jesus spoke in parables, Matthew 13:10-15: "lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted")
- Can we lose our salvation? No. John 10:29 "My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand."
- We are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel message (Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38).
- We are commanded to keep ourselves in the faith, to not fall away (Hebrews 3:12-13).
- We are commanded to pray to God, so that He will do what He has already decided to do.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
So That You May Know
If I had to pick a favorite book of the Bible, it would probably be 1 John. A book I have, on "Studying the Bible for Yourself" says to read 1 John every day for a week (you can read it in 15-20 minutes). If you are not certain you are saved at the end of that week, keep reading it! :)
This is stated outright in 1 John 2:21 "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth."
John starts the letter with assurances that he is an eye witness to the life of Jesus Christ, which made clear that He was God's Word, made flesh (1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;").
John also gives the bad news of sin, and the good news of salvation (1 John 1:8-10, 1 John 2:1-2).
Now, we must careful not to confuse holding to the Ten Commandments with our salvation as Christians. When John talks of "keep[ing] the commandments" (1 John 2:3), he is not talking about the Law of Moses. This is spelled out in 1 John 3:23 "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."
I'll close with 1 John 5:13:
This is stated outright in 1 John 2:21 "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth."
John starts the letter with assurances that he is an eye witness to the life of Jesus Christ, which made clear that He was God's Word, made flesh (1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;").
John also gives the bad news of sin, and the good news of salvation (1 John 1:8-10, 1 John 2:1-2).
Now, we must careful not to confuse holding to the Ten Commandments with our salvation as Christians. When John talks of "keep[ing] the commandments" (1 John 2:3), he is not talking about the Law of Moses. This is spelled out in 1 John 3:23 "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."
I'll close with 1 John 5:13:
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
Monday, March 17, 2008
Jesus: Man of Action
I've been practicing a technique I first saw at the Evangelical Outpost. Later, I heard John MacArthur recommend it, and I recommend it too. It's reading the same book of the Bible over and over for a month (or more, you want to read all of it twenty times or so). It really gives you a feel for the subtle points of the book, where a single reading only gives the main thrusts.
Recently I've been reading the Gospel of Mark, a lot.
On about the third reading, you notice the word "straightaway", a lot. After ten readings, you're looking for it, and can begin to predict when you'll see it -- and take notice when it's not present, but seems like it could be.
Now, I don't believe in the mysterious "Q" gospel. I forget where I first heard of it, either Borg or Ehrman. It's possibly worth more investigation.
One of the big differences you see between the Gospels is in the vocabulary and writing style (which is partly the personality of the author, partly purpose in writing -- including target audience).
Mark was not one of the original apostles. He was the assistant to Peter (and possibly the "rich young ruler"). The Gospel of Mark was the first of the four Gospels, and was directed towards new, Gentile believers.
The word "straightway" is used forty-two times in the King James -- nineteen are in Mark (versus eight in Matthew, and four in Luke). The word "immediately" is used fifty-five times -- seventeen in Mark (six in Matthew, thirteen in Luke).
Of course, that is the counts in English. The Greek words behind them are "eutheos" (directly) and "parachrema" (instantly). My concordance has eutheous eighty times (although I have found bugs in it...). Sixty-seven are translated immediately or straightway. Of those, fifty are used in the synoptics. Thirty-four of the fifty are used in Mark (Matthew thirteen, Luke three).
Of course, Mark is also shorter than Matthew or Luke. This increased word density gives the Gospel of Mark a rapid flow of events in Jesus' life, although Jesus is always sure of His purpose and goals.
Recently I've been reading the Gospel of Mark, a lot.
On about the third reading, you notice the word "straightaway", a lot. After ten readings, you're looking for it, and can begin to predict when you'll see it -- and take notice when it's not present, but seems like it could be.
Now, I don't believe in the mysterious "Q" gospel. I forget where I first heard of it, either Borg or Ehrman. It's possibly worth more investigation.
One of the big differences you see between the Gospels is in the vocabulary and writing style (which is partly the personality of the author, partly purpose in writing -- including target audience).
Mark was not one of the original apostles. He was the assistant to Peter (and possibly the "rich young ruler"). The Gospel of Mark was the first of the four Gospels, and was directed towards new, Gentile believers.
The word "straightway" is used forty-two times in the King James -- nineteen are in Mark (versus eight in Matthew, and four in Luke). The word "immediately" is used fifty-five times -- seventeen in Mark (six in Matthew, thirteen in Luke).
Of course, that is the counts in English. The Greek words behind them are "eutheos" (directly) and "parachrema" (instantly). My concordance has eutheous eighty times (although I have found bugs in it...). Sixty-seven are translated immediately or straightway. Of those, fifty are used in the synoptics. Thirty-four of the fifty are used in Mark (Matthew thirteen, Luke three).
Of course, Mark is also shorter than Matthew or Luke. This increased word density gives the Gospel of Mark a rapid flow of events in Jesus' life, although Jesus is always sure of His purpose and goals.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
What is Love?
Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more... duh, duh, duh, deh, dih, duh
Sadly, English is a terrible language. We have one word for "love". Whether it is you love ice cream (mmm, ice cream), lolcats, God, your neighbor, or your wife. We even say "make love" and say its "lovely" (pretty).
Fortunately, the ancient Greeks had three words for "love" - eros, phileo, and agape.
"Eros" is the sexual attraction kind of love. I can't find it in my concordance (It's not used in the Bible). This is a message to all the Christian singers with the songs about how "Jesus is my boyfriend". It's not that type of love. The old time hymn writers had a much better understanding of this, and we play fast and loose with it today...
"Phileo" is the type of love we are most familiar with. It is the sort of feeling for friends and people you like. It is a feeling of good will and "wanting the best". Happiness and warmth from thinking about them and being with them. It is not the kind of love God has for us. (God does not have our picture on His refrigerator).
"Agape" is God's love for us. It is a concept almost entirely foreign to us. It is a love of choice. To choose to love when the object of love does not (necessarily) deserve it. To give sacrificially ("give until it hurts") to the one loved.
How does God show us this love?
The greatest example of God's love is the life and death of Jesus. Without the life and death of Jesus, no one could be saved. It is through Jesus that we come to know the Father.
God also shows love to the unsaved (Matthew 5:45). Instead of striking them dead instantly, He allows them to live. He even allows them to thrive and prosper. This in no way indicates His pleasure with their behavior! It is an expression of His love for those who are not deserving.
What lesson can we learn from God's love?
Some people are in the difficult position where someone they love (be it phileo or agape) is hurtful. I've found the book "Love Must Be Tough" (James Dobson) to be very helpful in this matter.
The Biblical stance must be to leave that situation.
Maybe the person will see the error of their way, maybe not.
But their is a theology lesson here as well. Some day, God will "leave the situation" for every unsaved person.
Sadly, English is a terrible language. We have one word for "love". Whether it is you love ice cream (mmm, ice cream), lolcats, God, your neighbor, or your wife. We even say "make love" and say its "lovely" (pretty).
Fortunately, the ancient Greeks had three words for "love" - eros, phileo, and agape.
"Eros" is the sexual attraction kind of love. I can't find it in my concordance (It's not used in the Bible). This is a message to all the Christian singers with the songs about how "Jesus is my boyfriend". It's not that type of love. The old time hymn writers had a much better understanding of this, and we play fast and loose with it today...
"Phileo" is the type of love we are most familiar with. It is the sort of feeling for friends and people you like. It is a feeling of good will and "wanting the best". Happiness and warmth from thinking about them and being with them. It is not the kind of love God has for us. (God does not have our picture on His refrigerator).
"Agape" is God's love for us. It is a concept almost entirely foreign to us. It is a love of choice. To choose to love when the object of love does not (necessarily) deserve it. To give sacrificially ("give until it hurts") to the one loved.
How does God show us this love?
The greatest example of God's love is the life and death of Jesus. Without the life and death of Jesus, no one could be saved. It is through Jesus that we come to know the Father.
God also shows love to the unsaved (Matthew 5:45). Instead of striking them dead instantly, He allows them to live. He even allows them to thrive and prosper. This in no way indicates His pleasure with their behavior! It is an expression of His love for those who are not deserving.
What lesson can we learn from God's love?
Some people are in the difficult position where someone they love (be it phileo or agape) is hurtful. I've found the book "Love Must Be Tough" (James Dobson) to be very helpful in this matter.
The Biblical stance must be to leave that situation.
Maybe the person will see the error of their way, maybe not.
But their is a theology lesson here as well. Some day, God will "leave the situation" for every unsaved person.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Lost Scripture
John 7:38: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
What is the scripture passage Jesus is referring to? The exact phrase cannot be found in the Hebrew books we have, nor the Greek Septuagint.
So what happened?
The scriptural support for Jesus' quote is somewhat overwhelming. The references from Matthew Henry alone are: Isaiah 12:3, Exodus 17:6, John 4:14, Jeremiah 2:13, Proverbs 4:23, 1 John 5:10, Proverbs 10:11, Proverbs 5:15-16, Proverbs 1:23, Joel 2:28, Isaiah 44:3, Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 58:11, (Song of Solomon 4:15 compare John 4:15), Ezekiel 47:1, Zechariah 14:8.
Let's look at a couple. Isaiah 12:3 "Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation." That's pretty close, but the edit distance is probably too far for a mis-copy. Another close one is Ezekiel 47:1b "behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward". This is in a description of the new temple. Clearly a reference to how all Christians are now temples of God.
There is also Exodus 17:6b "thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink." The rock in this case is a shadow for Jesus Christ. The interesting thing here is that Jesus is telling us the river will be inside of us, shedding light on the coming of the Holy Spirit. (Compare Numbers 20:8, where we are told to "speak to the rock")
Given this brief overview, it would appear that Jesus was exegeting scripture for us. This is not entirely unheard of. There are cases where Jesus expanded on the meaning of scripture over what was commonly held at the time (passages on divorce, the resurrection, etc.).
What is the scripture passage Jesus is referring to? The exact phrase cannot be found in the Hebrew books we have, nor the Greek Septuagint.
So what happened?
- Jesus was summarizing several scriptural ideas
- That particular phrase has been lost or mis-copied to not match exactly
The scriptural support for Jesus' quote is somewhat overwhelming. The references from Matthew Henry alone are: Isaiah 12:3, Exodus 17:6, John 4:14, Jeremiah 2:13, Proverbs 4:23, 1 John 5:10, Proverbs 10:11, Proverbs 5:15-16, Proverbs 1:23, Joel 2:28, Isaiah 44:3, Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 58:11, (Song of Solomon 4:15 compare John 4:15), Ezekiel 47:1, Zechariah 14:8.
Let's look at a couple. Isaiah 12:3 "Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation." That's pretty close, but the edit distance is probably too far for a mis-copy. Another close one is Ezekiel 47:1b "behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward". This is in a description of the new temple. Clearly a reference to how all Christians are now temples of God.
There is also Exodus 17:6b "thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink." The rock in this case is a shadow for Jesus Christ. The interesting thing here is that Jesus is telling us the river will be inside of us, shedding light on the coming of the Holy Spirit. (Compare Numbers 20:8, where we are told to "speak to the rock")
Given this brief overview, it would appear that Jesus was exegeting scripture for us. This is not entirely unheard of. There are cases where Jesus expanded on the meaning of scripture over what was commonly held at the time (passages on divorce, the resurrection, etc.).
Saturday, October 27, 2007
How Does Jesus' Death Save Us?
(Mmm, soteriology...)
I previously said:
God is just. Deuteronomy 32:4 is particularly beautiful: "[He is] the Rock, His work [is] perfect: for all His ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he".
God cannot simply forgive people, without punishment. Would a human judge be considered just if he let guilty people go if they said "Sorry"? We call it a "slap on the wrist", and we are outraged (and rightly so).
We cannot pay the punishment ourselves. This is "works righteousness". If we can pay the punishment ourselves, then we can "earn" our salvation. In a sense, God would "owe" us salvation. You don't thank your boss for your paycheck (well, you might say "Thank you" when he hands you the check). It's yours. If he doesn't give it to you, he is a thief. And you don't have gratitude. You worked hard for that check. In some sense, you are equal (in that you deal equitably). He barters for your work, and you barter for pay. That is not how we relate to the creator of the universe.
So God paid the price Himself. He poured out His wrath on His own Son. Jesus' death reveals the magnitude of our crimes against God. It reveals God's love, that He would do that for us. So God is just. And He is love. Merciful. Gracious.
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:20c-21: "be ye reconciled to God. For He hath made Him {Jesus} [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
This is the great exchange. Our sins were assigned to Jesus, and He paid the price for those sins: beaten, and removed from the sight of God (Matthew 27:46). At the same time, Jesus' righteous life is assigned to us (we'll ignore imputed versus infused righteousness for now).
I previously said:
"We are the defendants, and we are guilty.God hates sin (and sinners, you cannot easily separate the sin from the sinner). If you doubt this, read Leviticus 10. Sin can take many forms, but fundamentally it is disobeying God's commands.
There must be a price paid (more like our civil court than criminal). That price can only be paid by the blood of Jesus."
God is just. Deuteronomy 32:4 is particularly beautiful: "[He is] the Rock, His work [is] perfect: for all His ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he".
God cannot simply forgive people, without punishment. Would a human judge be considered just if he let guilty people go if they said "Sorry"? We call it a "slap on the wrist", and we are outraged (and rightly so).
We cannot pay the punishment ourselves. This is "works righteousness". If we can pay the punishment ourselves, then we can "earn" our salvation. In a sense, God would "owe" us salvation. You don't thank your boss for your paycheck (well, you might say "Thank you" when he hands you the check). It's yours. If he doesn't give it to you, he is a thief. And you don't have gratitude. You worked hard for that check. In some sense, you are equal (in that you deal equitably). He barters for your work, and you barter for pay. That is not how we relate to the creator of the universe.
So God paid the price Himself. He poured out His wrath on His own Son. Jesus' death reveals the magnitude of our crimes against God. It reveals God's love, that He would do that for us. So God is just. And He is love. Merciful. Gracious.
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:20c-21: "be ye reconciled to God. For He hath made Him {Jesus} [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
This is the great exchange. Our sins were assigned to Jesus, and He paid the price for those sins: beaten, and removed from the sight of God (Matthew 27:46). At the same time, Jesus' righteous life is assigned to us (we'll ignore imputed versus infused righteousness for now).
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Who is a Bishop?
(not "The Bishop" from Monty Python)
I had the pleasure of attending the ordaining of a new elder in my local church today. So, "Who is a bishop?"
The Bible uses three words for leaders of the local church. These words are presbyter (elder), episkopos (bishop or overseer), and deacon.
The word for deacon means an attendant or "one who waits upon another". This office can first be seen in Acts 6 (although the word deacon is not used). Deacons serve the needs of the church, with little authority.
Interestingly, the words presbyter and episkopos are used interchangeably. In Titus (a key description of the office), Paul starts by reminding Titus to appoint "elders in every city" (of Crete, Titus 1:5). In verse 6, Paul starts to describe the qualities of a candidate. As he continues into verse 7, he switches to the term "overseer" (bishop, episkopos). The words seem to refer to the different roles played by a person.
An "elder" (literally older) is not necessarily older in age, but "more mature in faith". The elders are often spoken of as a group or council, making decisions together for the local church.
A "bishop" (overseer) is literally "one who oversees". A bishop is a shepherd, looking out over the flock. The bishop is looking for threats (wolves), and also seeing to the needs of the local flock.
Besides Titus, there is another good bishop passage in 1 Timothy 3 ("A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...").
I had the pleasure of attending the ordaining of a new elder in my local church today. So, "Who is a bishop?"
The Bible uses three words for leaders of the local church. These words are presbyter (elder), episkopos (bishop or overseer), and deacon.
The word for deacon means an attendant or "one who waits upon another". This office can first be seen in Acts 6 (although the word deacon is not used). Deacons serve the needs of the church, with little authority.
Interestingly, the words presbyter and episkopos are used interchangeably. In Titus (a key description of the office), Paul starts by reminding Titus to appoint "elders in every city" (of Crete, Titus 1:5). In verse 6, Paul starts to describe the qualities of a candidate. As he continues into verse 7, he switches to the term "overseer" (bishop, episkopos). The words seem to refer to the different roles played by a person.
An "elder" (literally older) is not necessarily older in age, but "more mature in faith". The elders are often spoken of as a group or council, making decisions together for the local church.
A "bishop" (overseer) is literally "one who oversees". A bishop is a shepherd, looking out over the flock. The bishop is looking for threats (wolves), and also seeing to the needs of the local flock.
Besides Titus, there is another good bishop passage in 1 Timothy 3 ("A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...").
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Who Is a Priest?
Carl Olson's blog had an interesting article by Father Benedict Ashley. The question at hand is "Who is a priest?"
In the kingdom of Israel, priests were the sons of Aaron. They were assisted by the Levites (sons of Levi). The Israelites were blessed to have the physical presence of God in the tabernacle, and later in the temple (the Holy of Holies).
Sinners cannot be in the presence of God. Because of this, the high priest (eldest son of Aaron) was permitted access to the Holy of Holies only once per year (on Yom Kippur). During this time, the high priest would offer a sacrifice of atonement for his own sins, and the sins of the people.
This was a shadow (or type) for the true High Priest, Jesus Christ (see most of Hebrews, but particularly 2:17). Jesus (having no sins of His own) offers Himself, the perfect sacrifice, to God as the atonement for our sins (Hebrews 7:27, 9:7-12).
The other great symbol is the completion of work. The Israelite high priest remained standing, a sign of the need for continuing atonement. Jesus, however, after presenting His sacrifice, takes His seat at the right hand of God (Hebrews 10:11-12), signifying that His work is done.
Thus, there is no more need for ceremonial sacrifice. The bread and wine shared by Christians is not a sacrifice. It is a remembrance of what Jesus did for us.
All Christians are priests (Revelation 1:6,20:6; 1 Peter 2:5,9). We are called to follow Jesus, and make ourselves a sacrifice to God (Romans 12:1).
In Olson's article (by Fr. Ashley), Ashley covers similar topics, until the final paragraphs. There he says,
The Bible makes it clear how the faithful (sheep) are to discern a wolf from a shepherd. John 10:3 makes it clear that the sheep must know the voice of The Shepherd (Jesus, our pastors are just shadow shepherds).
How do we know God's voice? By studying His Word. By hearing it read and examined, and reading and meditating on it (for those who can read and have Bibles).
Experts in investigating counterfeiting will tell you, "you prepare yourselves to spot a phony by studying the genuine article." So too with the Bible.
In the kingdom of Israel, priests were the sons of Aaron. They were assisted by the Levites (sons of Levi). The Israelites were blessed to have the physical presence of God in the tabernacle, and later in the temple (the Holy of Holies).
Sinners cannot be in the presence of God. Because of this, the high priest (eldest son of Aaron) was permitted access to the Holy of Holies only once per year (on Yom Kippur). During this time, the high priest would offer a sacrifice of atonement for his own sins, and the sins of the people.
This was a shadow (or type) for the true High Priest, Jesus Christ (see most of Hebrews, but particularly 2:17). Jesus (having no sins of His own) offers Himself, the perfect sacrifice, to God as the atonement for our sins (Hebrews 7:27, 9:7-12).
The other great symbol is the completion of work. The Israelite high priest remained standing, a sign of the need for continuing atonement. Jesus, however, after presenting His sacrifice, takes His seat at the right hand of God (Hebrews 10:11-12), signifying that His work is done.
Thus, there is no more need for ceremonial sacrifice. The bread and wine shared by Christians is not a sacrifice. It is a remembrance of what Jesus did for us.
All Christians are priests (Revelation 1:6,20:6; 1 Peter 2:5,9). We are called to follow Jesus, and make ourselves a sacrifice to God (Romans 12:1).
In Olson's article (by Fr. Ashley), Ashley covers similar topics, until the final paragraphs. There he says,
"while the community can testify to the suitability of the candidate for priesthood ..., they cannot make the final decision as to his ordination, ... Only the bishops who have the fullness of the sacrament have the authority from Christ through their predecessors the apostles to confer this sacrament. This conferring of the same apostolic authority that Jesus conferred on the Twelve must be by some public act that makes it clear to the flock who their shepherds are. Otherwise the flock will be scattered by 'savage wolves' (Acts 20:29)."This logic is flawed. Acts makes it clear that wolves will appear from within the church ("shall grievous wolves enter in among you"), and will have "sheep's clothing" (the outfit of a shepherd or pastor, Matthew 7:15). History has shown that ordination by successors of the apostles is no protection from heresy and apostasy.
The Bible makes it clear how the faithful (sheep) are to discern a wolf from a shepherd. John 10:3 makes it clear that the sheep must know the voice of The Shepherd (Jesus, our pastors are just shadow shepherds).
How do we know God's voice? By studying His Word. By hearing it read and examined, and reading and meditating on it (for those who can read and have Bibles).
Experts in investigating counterfeiting will tell you, "you prepare yourselves to spot a phony by studying the genuine article." So too with the Bible.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
On Baptism
Having just been baptized, I have been studying baptism as presented in the Bible. The root Greek word is "bapto", and the derived words are "baptizo", "baptisma", "baptismos", "baptistes".
"Bapto" means to wash fully, to immerse (as in water), or overwhelm. It can also imply "throughout" or "thoroughly". There are several baptisms described in the Bible.
John the Baptist preached baptism for the repentance of sins. This is apparently different than baptism in the name of Jesus (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) (see Acts 19:2-5, where people baptized by John needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus to receive the Holy Spirit). It appears to have been transitory, for Old Testament saints at the time of Jesus (the apostles, etc. up to and including Jesus).
There is a mention of "baptism for the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:29). This appears to refer to a pagan ceremony (it seems Paul is saying "they do it", rather than "we do it").
Jesus also refers to a cup and a baptism of suffering that He must endure. This is obviously a reference to the crucifixion.
There is also reference to being baptized into the body of Christ through the Holy Spirit. This is a reference to the moment of salvation. When we are sealed with the Holy Spirit.
So who should be baptized? and why? What does our soteriology say? Is baptism necessary for salvation?
Any soteriology must account for the thief on the cross (next to Jesus). This thief was certainly a criminal, and he may have started off mocking Jesus (Matthew 27:44 KJV uses "thieves", although my Greek skillz are non-existant...). But in the end, Jesus told him "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise". No works, no ceremonies, no Purgatory.
Baptism also does not guarantee salvation. Judas was almost certainly baptized, and he is almost certainly in Hell (Jesus said it would of been better had he not been born, Acts 1:25 says he went to "his own place"). Simon the Sorcerer was baptized, but received some serious rebuking (Acts 8:18-24). And today there are plenty of stories of baptized people becoming atheists.
The pattern in the Bible is (relatively) clear. Repent, believe, and be baptized.
I was baptized as an infant. (My local church is very loving and understanding, they would accept that baptism - if my conscience required it. But they teach that baptism should follow belief. And encourage anyone baptized as an infant to study the issue.)
But a baby cannot repent and believe. It took me some thirty years to reach that point. And so I was recently baptized.
"Bapto" means to wash fully, to immerse (as in water), or overwhelm. It can also imply "throughout" or "thoroughly". There are several baptisms described in the Bible.
John the Baptist preached baptism for the repentance of sins. This is apparently different than baptism in the name of Jesus (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) (see Acts 19:2-5, where people baptized by John needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus to receive the Holy Spirit). It appears to have been transitory, for Old Testament saints at the time of Jesus (the apostles, etc. up to and including Jesus).
There is a mention of "baptism for the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:29). This appears to refer to a pagan ceremony (it seems Paul is saying "they do it", rather than "we do it").
Jesus also refers to a cup and a baptism of suffering that He must endure. This is obviously a reference to the crucifixion.
There is also reference to being baptized into the body of Christ through the Holy Spirit. This is a reference to the moment of salvation. When we are sealed with the Holy Spirit.
So who should be baptized? and why? What does our soteriology say? Is baptism necessary for salvation?
Any soteriology must account for the thief on the cross (next to Jesus). This thief was certainly a criminal, and he may have started off mocking Jesus (Matthew 27:44 KJV uses "thieves", although my Greek skillz are non-existant...). But in the end, Jesus told him "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise". No works, no ceremonies, no Purgatory.
Baptism also does not guarantee salvation. Judas was almost certainly baptized, and he is almost certainly in Hell (Jesus said it would of been better had he not been born, Acts 1:25 says he went to "his own place"). Simon the Sorcerer was baptized, but received some serious rebuking (Acts 8:18-24). And today there are plenty of stories of baptized people becoming atheists.
The pattern in the Bible is (relatively) clear. Repent, believe, and be baptized.
I was baptized as an infant. (My local church is very loving and understanding, they would accept that baptism - if my conscience required it. But they teach that baptism should follow belief. And encourage anyone baptized as an infant to study the issue.)
But a baby cannot repent and believe. It took me some thirty years to reach that point. And so I was recently baptized.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
What is Faith (Part 2)?
For some people, "faith" means unreasonable belief (or at least belief apart from logic, for example, the book I just read).
The word "faith" is used twice ("faithful" or "faithfully" are also used a lot) in the Old Testament (KJV). The Hebrew word is "emuwn" (ay-moon) or "emuwnah". It implies "established", "trustworthiness", "security", "fidelity", or "firmness".
The word in the New Testament is "pistis" (and is used more times than I care to count, over 200 - although it is sometimes "little faith"). Pistis implies "reliance", "constancy", "assurance", "conviction", or "trust".
Ok, so there is me and God involved in this faith. Which one of us is "trustworthy", "reliable" or "constant"?
Not me.
So, our faith is in the trustworthiness, constancy, and fidelity of God.
If our faith is lacking, there are elements of us accusing God of lacking these attributes. So either we are blaspheming God (demeaning His nature) or we are creating an idol (a god without the true attributes of God).
Now we are engaged in an internal conflict with sin (Galatians 5:17). So, it is not unusual that we will sometimes stumble (1 John 1:8). But if we are continuing in sin, we are not saved (1 John 1:6).
The word "faith" is used twice ("faithful" or "faithfully" are also used a lot) in the Old Testament (KJV). The Hebrew word is "emuwn" (ay-moon) or "emuwnah". It implies "established", "trustworthiness", "security", "fidelity", or "firmness".
The word in the New Testament is "pistis" (and is used more times than I care to count, over 200 - although it is sometimes "little faith"). Pistis implies "reliance", "constancy", "assurance", "conviction", or "trust".
Ok, so there is me and God involved in this faith. Which one of us is "trustworthy", "reliable" or "constant"?
Not me.
So, our faith is in the trustworthiness, constancy, and fidelity of God.
If our faith is lacking, there are elements of us accusing God of lacking these attributes. So either we are blaspheming God (demeaning His nature) or we are creating an idol (a god without the true attributes of God).
Now we are engaged in an internal conflict with sin (Galatians 5:17). So, it is not unusual that we will sometimes stumble (1 John 1:8). But if we are continuing in sin, we are not saved (1 John 1:6).
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Hell is a Place on Earth
Part of being a cultural (read "Laodicean") Christian is having no hermeneutic (or even knowing what it means). That means you get to pick and choose what you like from the Bible. If the notion of Hell makes you uncomfortable, you can say that it's reserved for "really bad people". Or that it's a metaphor for suffering on earth.
Once you have a real hermeneutic, you actually have to deal with what the Bible says.
According to my concordance, Hell is used in the King James version 54 times (OT: 31 times, always Sheol; NT: 23 times, 10 Hades, 12 Gehenna, 1 Tartarus). Gehenna is always translated Hell (or hellfire). Hades is translated once as 'the grave' (1 Corinthians 15:55). The NKJV translates this Sheol.
In this post, I will focus on the New Testament references. The OT refs are more numerous and harder to separate from "the grave" which is the other main translation.
Is Hell a real place (separate from the common notion of it)? Jesus certainly speaks of it as if it were a real place. The story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:23) is in a style unlike the parables (which are clearly metaphors).
Hades appears to be a holding place for the unsaved (as opposed to "the bosom of Abraham", which is reserved for those declared righteous). Luke 16:23 makes it clear it is an unpleasant place. Other references speak of "wailing and gnashing of teeth". Revelation 20:13 says Hades will give up its dead for judgment. So, Hades is not a final judgment. Those judged are thrown into a lake of fire (Gehenna), along with Hades itself.
Gehenna is the lake of fire reserved for final judgment for the unsaved. It does not sound very pleasant. It is described as eternal burning, and worms. Jesus says it is better to cut off your hands or feet, or pluck out your eye than to go to this place. So, not somewhere you want to be. And given a previous stay in Hades, it is again true, that bad can always get worse.
That said, is Hell worse than anything on earth? Are the horrors of earth mere niceties compared to the eternal machinations of suffering in Hell?
Once you have a real hermeneutic, you actually have to deal with what the Bible says.
According to my concordance, Hell is used in the King James version 54 times (OT: 31 times, always Sheol; NT: 23 times, 10 Hades, 12 Gehenna, 1 Tartarus). Gehenna is always translated Hell (or hellfire). Hades is translated once as 'the grave' (1 Corinthians 15:55). The NKJV translates this Sheol.
In this post, I will focus on the New Testament references. The OT refs are more numerous and harder to separate from "the grave" which is the other main translation.
Is Hell a real place (separate from the common notion of it)? Jesus certainly speaks of it as if it were a real place. The story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:23) is in a style unlike the parables (which are clearly metaphors).
Hades appears to be a holding place for the unsaved (as opposed to "the bosom of Abraham", which is reserved for those declared righteous). Luke 16:23 makes it clear it is an unpleasant place. Other references speak of "wailing and gnashing of teeth". Revelation 20:13 says Hades will give up its dead for judgment. So, Hades is not a final judgment. Those judged are thrown into a lake of fire (Gehenna), along with Hades itself.
Gehenna is the lake of fire reserved for final judgment for the unsaved. It does not sound very pleasant. It is described as eternal burning, and worms. Jesus says it is better to cut off your hands or feet, or pluck out your eye than to go to this place. So, not somewhere you want to be. And given a previous stay in Hades, it is again true, that bad can always get worse.
That said, is Hell worse than anything on earth? Are the horrors of earth mere niceties compared to the eternal machinations of suffering in Hell?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)