My Discipleship Journal

Reflections of a Seminary Newbie: Faith Moves Mountains

2012-01-19T07:38:00.001-05:00

It’s been almost six years since I knelt in prayer before God and submitted my life to Him. I remember that moment like it was yesterday. I was not in church or with a pastor. I was alone and struggling to overcome a battle that had ensnared me for as long as I could remember.

Leading up to that fateful day I had been reading a Bible I received from my late mother. For some reason I started reading the Book of Romans. Of course, I did not fully understand its implications at the time, but I did understand enough to know some essentials.

I understood that my problem was not connected with anyone else or with the drug of my choice. No, in reading Romans it became clear that my disease was being human; as Paul so eloquently says in Romans 3:10-12 “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

A few verses later Paul sums up these verses by adding “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

In the following verses and chapters Paul explains how sinners (that’s you and me) can overcome our sin problem. He explains that Jesus came to die on a cross, taking upon Himself the wrath of God that should have been poured out on all of humanity because of our innate opposition to God. Most importantly, Paul explains that the way we defeat our sinful ways is to have faith that Jesus died on that cross and was raised to life on the third day.

The Book of Romans goes much deeper than that, but when I read Romans six years ago I understood enough to know that I had a choice to make. I could go on living a life of sin fueled by drug abuse, or I could admit my guilt before God and accept His offer of salvation by a simple act of faith in Jesus Christ.

So on one fateful day I knelt before God in prayer and gave my life completely to Him. I told Him I believed that Jesus died on that cross and was raised to life on the third day. And then I said this, “God, I’m tired of living life my way. From now on I’ll live my life for you. Do with me as you please.”

I had no idea what I was signing up for at that moment. But I would not change a thing that has happened to me these last six years. God has radically transformed my life and it has been a fun ride so far.

Today I begin a new chapter in my life as I enter the rigors of seminary at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. For some reason, God saw fit to take my words seriously and lead me down a path of full-time vocational ministry.

I’ll be honest, seminary seems like a daunting task right now. I question at times whether I will be successful. But then I remember all that has transpired the previous six years, and how God has routinely taken the seemingly impossible and made them possible.And it has all sprung from an initial act of faith. Six years ago I never thought God could change my life, but He did, and in a radical way.

You see, it is true, faith does move mountains (Matthew 17:20).

My New Year’s Resolution: To Follow Christ Above All Else (Luke 9:51-62)

2011-12-31T12:51:00.001-05:00

It’s that time of year when people make New Year’s resolutions. Some resolve to lose weight, pay off debt, spend more time with their family and on and on the list goes. Anyone who has ever made a New Year’s resolution knows it is not easy to keep. Most of us will fail before January ends.

The harsh reality is that talk is cheap. I can say I want to change a certain behavior—but until I firmly resolve in my mind to do it, I will fail. Likewise, I can say I am a Christian. Anyone can say that, but to live it out is something else entirely.

Jesus knew talk is cheap, too.

The Scriptures tell us that when the time came for Jesus to complete His mission that He “set His face to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51 ESV). This expression literally means that Jesus resolved in His mind to accomplish what He set out to do. He came to save fallen man from sin by laying down His life as the perfect sacrifice to cover our sins. Jesus resolved in His mind to die a torturous death on a cross. Thankfully for us, He completed what He set out to do.

Not everyone believed in Jesus’ mission in His day. As a result, He and His disciples faced rejection and persecution. Luke tells us that at the time Jesus resolved to go to Jerusalem that He stopped to minister in Samaria along the way. The Samaritans rejected Christ because they did not want any part of that mission (v. 53).

Two of His disciples apparently had their feelings hurt at the rejection. Consequently they asked Jesus if they could call down fire from heaven and destroy the Samaritans (v. 54). Jesus rebuked the disciples for their attitude and decided to minster elsewhere (v. 55).

Rejection of Christ and His followers still happens today. Some would say our rejection is not on the same level as early Christians. But this is only true of Christians who live in Western society. International missionaries, Christians living in closed countries, third world countries and near or in Muslim countries face persecution and rejection beyond what most American Christians can fathom.

But even here in America Christians are often ridiculed for belief in Christ. Our faith is viewed by many as an ignorant and bigoted exclusivism that has no place in a modern civilized society that has so obviously evolved beyond such silliness (that’s sarcasm on my part, in case you missed it.). Like the first disciples, we face a society at large who want nothing to do with Jesus and His message.

These attitudes toward Christians sometimes make us feel like the first disciples. Likewise, it’s easy for us to lash out and proclaim everlasting judgment on those who reject us. It’s also easy for us to give up living on mission for Christ. The constant ridicule and rejection takes its toll.

Jesus does not want us to give up. He wants us to respond to rejection and persecution as He did: with grace and determination to minister until God removes us from this world. Our focus is to be on Him and His Kingdom.

Jesus illustrated this point in verses 57-62. Three times in these verses people affirmatively declared their willingness to follow Jesus, but in all three cases Jesus does not shy away from communicating to them the hardships they will encounter as a result of their commitment.

Just as importantly, He communicated that the work of the “Kingdom of God” (vv. 60, 62) takes precedent above all earthly priorities.

This is where the rubber meets the road. Lots of people claim to be followers of Christ, but we have to ask ourselves if we are putting His message and His Kingdom above our own message and our own kingdom. So ask yourself honestly: are you putting Christ above your own personal agenda? If you’re like me, you’ll probably say that you are not doing this as well as you would like.

Quite honestly, when I come to a text like this I get convicted. It’s not easy to humble ourselves and put God above our wants and desires. I personally fail at this on a daily basis. But this is what Christ wants from His followers.

My New Year’s resolution is to put Christ and His Kingdom above all else. Will you join me? If so, will you keep me accountable to see it through all the way to the end?

For some background to this post, see the previous two posts here and here.

A Resolution for Christ: Tunnel Vision for His Kingdom

2011-12-30T11:09:00.001-05:00

In the previous post (Luke 9:51-56) we discussed how rejection will likely follow us when we make a commitment to follow Christ. How we handle that rejection is an important aspect of discipleship.

When the disciples faced rejection in Samaria they wanted to call down fire from heaven and destroy the Samaritans. Jesus rebuked that attitude, and He simply moved on to another area where He continued His ministry. The point is that not everyone is going to accept the gospel, but carrying that message is more important than our feelings. That’s why Jesus moved on to another village. He resolved (v. 51) to carry that message no matter what.

Sharing the gospel requires focused commitment. You could say it takes tunnel vision. Jesus does not want anything or anyone to get between us and our mission; not our feelings, not our family relationships or any earthly obligations we might have. All of those things are subordinate to our commitment to Christ and His gospel.

Jesus drives that point home in Luke 9: 57-62, where He encounters three would-be followers. The first encounter begins with a confident young man who says, “I will follow you [Jesus] wherever you go” (v. 57). Jesus wanted the young man to consider what he was signing up to do, so He explained the hardships that inevitably come; foxes and birds have homes, but not Jesus (v. 58).

The young man needed to understand that Christ’s followers should regard themselves as aliens sojourning in a foreign land. This is not home for us (Phil. 3:20). Consequently, we have a mission to do while we are here. We will have plenty of time to rest our heads in eternity.

The second encounter is initiated by Jesus. He calls to another man along the road and says, “Follow me” (v. 59). The man wanted to follow, but first he had to bury his father. This was more than a reasonable request, since burying a family member was a priority in Judaism. But Jesus told him to let the dead bury their own dead. If he wanted to follow Jesus he needed to “proclaim the Kingdom of God” (vv. 59-60). His remarks are similar to other instances where Jesus talks about hating one’s mother and father (Matt. 10:34-39). The point is simple: preaching the gospel is more important than family relationships. If a choice is to be made between family and God, God must have first place.

The third encounter is similar to the last. Once again a man says he wants to follow Jesus, but first he wants to say goodbye to his family (v. 61). Jesus told him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of God” (v. 62). Again, His remarks might seem harsh but they are not without precedent. Lot’s wife, for example, preferred Sodom and looked back. The Israelites decided they liked Egypt better than their freedom. In both cases people preferred the past over God’s provision and miraculous deliverance. Jesus says if you want to follow Him you can’t long for the past. You need to be focused on the future and bring others into the Kingdom with you.

These verses focus on “following” (vv. 57, 59, 61) and the “Kingdom of God” (vv. 60, 62). What we learn is that following Jesus Christ is synonymous with a commitment to expanding the Kingdom of God. Jesus tells us that if we want to follow Him there will be a cost. We must put aside our feelings, our personal relationships and our old desires when we decide to follow Him. That does not mean we can’t have some of those things in our lives. Rather, we must have a proper perspective on what it means to live for Christ. In other words, our first duty is to God and expanding His Kingdom.

As always, the apostle Paul’s life serves as a good pattern for us to follow in this regard. Paul knew that life in this world meant devotion to Christ, and that the life to come was the ultimate prize (Phil. 1:21). But until that time came, Paul was going to do everything in his power to preach Christ.

Jesus is asking us to live the same way. Are you committed to living life this way? I know it’s difficult, even for someone like me who is planning to devote the rest of my life to full-time vocational ministry. It’s hard and it takes a firm commitment.

If you have been struggling with this for some time, don’t be discouraged. Make a commitment this New Year to have tunnel vision for Christ’s Kingdom and keep on plugging away!

We will conclude this study of Luke 9:51-62 with some final thoughts in a third post.

A Resolution for Christ: Overcoming Rejection.

2011-12-28T14:40:00.001-05:00

Let’s face it—making resolutions is easy, but keeping them is difficult.

Nowhere is this more evident than Christian discipleship. Following Jesus is a big commitment that requires sustained effort. I think that’s why Jesus spent much time preparing His disciples. He knew that living for Him would not be easy.

We see a glimpse of why it’s not easy from Luke 9:51-62. In these 12 verses we learn that following Christ means we will face rejection. Thus, if we want to live purposefully for Christ we must learn to handle rejection and remain focused on the urgency of our message.

This post will look at the proper way to respond to rejection.

In verse 51 Luke tells us that Jesus “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (ESV). This expression is an idiom that carries a connotation of resolve. In short, Luke is telling us that Jesus was determined to go to Jerusalem, where He would face the ultimate rejection. In other words, Jesus was committed to following God, no matter the cost. If we want to follow Christ, we too must share His resolve to follow God, even when it comes at a high cost to us.

As Jesus set out for Jerusalem, He sent His disciples ahead of Him to Samaria. Apparently Jesus wanted to share the good news of the Kingdom of God with the Samaritans. But they rejected Jesus specifically because He was on the path to rejection in Jerusalem (v. 53). They knew where Jesus’ ministry was taking Him, and they did not want anything to do with Him.

Likewise, many in our culture reject Jesus because they do not want to go where Jesus would have them go. It might be a certain lifestyle or a commitment to live for one’s self that people do not want to give up. Either way, many reject Jesus because they know the demands He will make of them.

What is the proper response to rejection? The disciples wanted to call fire down from heaven and destroy the Samaritans (v. 54). But this is clearly not the right attitude because Jesus rebuked the disciples for their attitude (vv. 55-56).

In a similar way rejection is all around us. The world sees our commitment to Jesus as a blind, arrogant and bigoted exclusivism. As a result, insults are often hurled at Christians. Like the first disciples, many are quick to condemn and wish for outright destruction of those who reject Christ.

This is not what Jesus expects of us. Like Jesus, when we resolve to follow God we should expect rejection, but we must know how to handle it in a God honoring way. Christians need to remember that judgment comes in the era to come, when Jesus returns. 2 Peter 3:9 reminds us that God’s delaying judgment is an expression of His love and patience. The opportunity for people to respond positively to the gospel remains open until death, we are not to speed up the process.

In the meantime, we should focus on continuing to minister to people by sharing the love of God through the gospel—the ultimate expression of His love for mankind (John 3:16). What they do with the gospel is up to them. If they reject us harshly, we can move on as Jesus did, or we can continue to show the love of God to them through various means. Either way, we are not to pronounce everlasting judgment upon them.

If you have resolved to be more intentional in living for Christ in the coming year I am glad you have done so. There is nothing more rewarding than losing one’s self in exchange for living for God. Jesus promised that, “Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 16:25). I have found this to be true, but not easy.

So as you live intentionally for Christ in the coming year, know that rejection will come. But also know that when you handle it the right way you will not give up on your resolution. Instead, you will come to understand that in living for Christ you will have lost yourself.

And when you find your identity in Christ alone, then you can joyfully face anything this life can throw at you (Philippians 4:10-13).

In the next post we will explore verses 57-62. There we will find that living for Christ requires focused commitment to the urgency of our message.

Thanks for the Christmas Memories, Mom.

2011-12-23T09:58:00.001-05:00

I have some fond memories of Christmas from my childhood, mostly before my parents divorced. Before they parted ways they always made Christmas special. I was reminded of that when my sister found an old newspaper article my mother wrote a few years before her death.

You can read the article here.

The article reminisces about how hard she worked to make Christmas special for us kids. As I read the article I was made aware that I never really appreciated all that my mother did for me, especially the little things like trying to make Christmas special, even when we had little money and when she was a single mom.

Knowing that her father was an atheist make her efforts seem more remarkable to me. Somehow she became a believer in Jesus Christ and even though she tried to model her faith in Christ for me to live by, it never caught my attention until after she passed away.

I regret that she did not live to see my life change for the better, but as we celebrate the birth of our Savior this Christmas I know that I have far more to be thankful for. Aside from the wonderful riches of knowing Jesus Christ and the beautiful family that I now have, I am most thankful for a mother who tried her best to show the truth of Jesus Christ to her son.

I’m thankful for a mother who prayed for me until her dying breath.

And I’m thankful that she instilled in me a love for Christmas. I hope I can pass that same love to my children.

Thanks, mom.

Movie Review: Courageous

2011-10-02T13:17:00.001-04:00

Courageous is the latest movie from Sherwood Pictures—a ministry of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia. You might not have heard of Sherwood, but you might have heard of one or two of their previous movies—Fireproof and Facing the Giants. If you have seen either one of the two previous movies you know that the quality of those movies do not rise above “B” movie status, and they might even rate as “C” movies.

This is not a knock on the church or its ministry. Both movies tell wonderful stories from a solid evangelical point of view, something that is sorely missing from the big screen. The popularity of those two movies is a credit to Sherwood for putting together great story lines that capture the hearts of movie goers—even if the audience had to look past some awkward acting and directing.

But with Courageous most, if not all, of the awkwardness is gone. I am unsure of what Sherwood has done differently, but Courageous is definitely a much better produced movie. I would say it merits the status of an “A” movie or maybe “A” minus. Either way, the better onscreen performance is a welcome change.

Along with the better production comes yet another gem of a story from Sherwood. Courageous is quick to grab your attention and hold it all the way to the end. The script is well written and takes you through a myriad of emotions. From rolling laughter to tears of joy and sadness, Courageous is sure to tug at your heart as it takes you through the lives of 4 police officers and a friend.

Theologically the movie is mostly sound, although I did squirm at the idea that God answers the prayers of those who are diligent in their devotion to Him. Of course God does answer the prayers of His children, it’s just that in a certain spot in the movie it could be perceived by some that God will always answer our prayers the way we desire if we do certain things or live a certain way. That might not have been the intent, but that was what came across to me. Otherwise the movie was on target theologically; especially at one critical point where the Gospel was explained in such a way that anyone could understand it.

The message of the story is mainly directed at men and is meant to prick their conscience by encouraging them to reflect on their role as head of the family. To that end the movie hit its mark with me, and unless you’re superman it should hit you square between the eyes too. I walked away knowing that although I consider myself to be a “good” father, I know there is more that I can do to be the father and husband I am supposed to be. If you are a father, husband, or both, you should certainly go see the movie.

That’s not to say others should not see it. The movie calls on all of us—men, woman, and children alike—to reflect on how we relate to each other and how we relate to our Heavenly Father. It’s a movie that all should see. Indeed, any movie that can make you laugh out loud and bring you to tears a number of times should be considered a must see movie.

Courageous is just that.

Would Jesus Condone Same-Sex Marriage?

2011-09-13T10:01:00.001-04:00

Same-sex marriage is an ongoing debate in our society. The debate has now made it to the North Carolina Legislature, where the House approved a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage yesterday. The NC Senate will take up the issue today. If it passes the Senate, the proposal will go before NC voters in May 2012. If NC voters approve the amendment, the state will join 30 other states that have already approved similar constitutional amendments.

The picture above was taken at a rally in support of same-sex marriage at the NC Capitol yesterday evening. It’s a doll of Jesus holding a candle in support of same-sex marriage. It begs the question: where would Jesus really stand on this issue?

People on both sides often bring Jesus into the debate. Many gay marriage opponents claim that same-sex marriage is an abomination, and thus God would never approve. On the other side, same-sex marriage proponents will often cite the love of Jesus, and that he would love gays and lesbians the same as everyone else. After all, Jesus was a friend of sinners, they say.

True, Jesus is a friend of sinners. While He walked the earth in human flesh he infuriated the religious establishment by hanging out with people they believed were “sinners” and “unclean.” I have no doubt that gays and lesbians would be the modern day equivalent of such groups. Jesus, if he walked among us today, probably would be quick to dine with this group and show them His love and forgiveness as He did with similar groups 2,000 years ago. The modern church can probably learn a thing or two from the way the religious establishment treated Jesus when he associated with such people, and how Jesus condemned the religious leaders of His day for their hardness of heart.

But does that mean Jesus would condone same-sex marriage?

I don’t believe so. Hanging out and befriending people is not the same as condoning their lifestyle. The fact is Jesus calls on all of us to change our hearts. He knew that each and everyone one of us is born into sin and naturally opposed to God. Sometimes this is manifested in behaviors such as lying, stealing, cheating, murder, and on and on. Some of which the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were guilty of. Other times our sin and opposition to God is manifested in our sexual behavior. Whether that is homosexual sex, sex outside of marriage, addictions to pornography and so on.

All of us are born into sin—homosexuals and heterosexuals alike—and Jesus calls on all of us to accept His sacrificial death on the cross on our behalf for the forgiveness of our sins. Accepting that Jesus died for the forgiveness of our sins, and believing in His resurrection on the third day, is supposed to change us from the inside out. I was born a liar and a thief, but God expected me to change from those behaviors once I accepted Christ as my Savior. And I did.

But more importantly to this debate is the fact that Jesus clearly taught that marriage is to be between one man and one woman (Mark 10:6). It is this way, Jesus said, because this is the way God intended it to be from the beginning of time (Mark 10:6). So, if you are a supporter of same-sex marriage, and a Christian, I applaud your efforts to show the rest of us that Jesus does indeed love homosexuals as much as everyone else, but please don’t confuse that love with condoning the lifestyle.

The words of Jesus on marriage are clear and unmistakable. They cannot be twisted in any way that would suggest support for same-sex marriage. As believers in Christ, we have to accept His words as truth. He affirmed marriage between one man and one woman, and He said God ordained it to be so from the very beginning.

If God ordained it from the beginning, it will not change—ever.

Note: please do not construe these words as being anti-gay. I am not anti-gay. I have nothing against gays. This post is all about how I see Jesus in regards to the issue of same-sex marriage.

How Should We Pray for President Obama?

2011-09-03T09:48:00.001-04:00

The picture to the left is a bumper sticker quickly rising in popularity in certain circles. It seems innocent enough. After all, Scripture is clear that we are to pray for those in governmental authority (I Timothy 2: 1-2). Paul the Apostle lists several reasons why we should pray for them. He says we do it so we can live “peaceful and quiet” lives; that it will produce a “godly and dignified” life in us; and that it is “pleasing in the sight of God,” because God desires ALL people to come to the knowledge of the truth (vv 2-4).

Unfortunately, that is not what the bumper sticker is asking us to pray. The sticker mentions Psalm 109: 8, which says, “May his days be few; may another take his office!” (ESV). If you keep reading Psalm 109, you will notice that it goes on to say, “May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow! May his children wander about and beg, seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!” (vv 9-10). That is not a godly and dignified way to pray for anyone.

Not only that, but it also forgets a fundamental truth about God: He is sovereign. In fact, Paul tells us that God’s sovereignty extends into the political arena. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God” (Romans 13: 1-2). I know this is hard for some of my fellow Christians to accept, but President Obama holds office only because God has ordained that it be so. He will likewise decide if he stays or goes.

So what should we pray? For starters, we should pray that President Obama come to saving faith in Christ, if he has not already done so (I have no idea if he has or has not, and neither do you). Secondly, we should pray that he will be sensitive to the Will of God in his life and that of our nation as he leads. When we do this we will be setting the example that Paul wanted Christians to exude: quiet, peaceful lives that honors God and seeks to bring ALL men into the Kingdom of God through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A Question About Prayer

2011-09-02T14:07:00.001-04:00

I believe prayer should be an integral part in the life of the believer. Jesus believes it should be too.

In Luke 11 the disciples come to Jesus and ask him to teach them to pray (Luke 11: 1). And so he does.

So here’s my question: If Jesus took the time to teach us how to pray, and He urged us to pray with boldness, shouldn’t we make it a priority in our lives?

If so, what does that look like in the life of a believer?

Part IV: Four Aspects of Discipleship (Luke 17:1-10)

2011-07-22T07:41:00.002-04:00

The final portion of this unit is a short parable about the nature of service (vv.7-10). The parable discusses the life of a slave. No matter if the slave plows the field or tends the sheep, when he comes in from the fields he will still have to prepare dinner for his master before he can have his own meal (vv7-8). The slave does all of this without ever hearing a word of thanks from his master because he is simply doing what he is commanded to do (vv. 9-10). This pictures the type of service that Jesus requires of us as his servants. We should serve dutifully, recognizing that we do not serve to accumulate merit. Nor do we have the right to pick and choose what we will do. We obey whatever Jesus calls on us to do.

On the surface this passage might seem a little harsh. It could give the impression that there is no joy to be had in our role as servants of God. But we know that is not the case. In fact, our service to God should be prompted out of an overwhelming sense of joy for what he has accomplished for us. We serve joyfully because our names are “written in heaven” (Luke 10:20, ESV). In other words, one mark of a believer is a joyful spirit in all aspects of life, including times of dutiful service.

The main point here is that we should avoid using our service for God as a bargaining chip. We should never serve with the mentality that He will repay us for our service. This can only lead us down a road that will fail us. We must never say in our hearts, “God, look at all I have done for you. You owe me this and that and all the rest…” When we do that we are failing to trust in God. We are failing to accept whatever comes our way.

Conversely, when we serve from an attitude of joy and thanks, we will be prone to serve dutifully, without concern for being paid for our service. After all, payment has already been rendered to our account. Thus, we serve with a sense of both joy and duty. When these two attributes are combined we will be ready to faithfully serve God with all of our being. Only then will we be prepared to obey our Master’s commands, and thus bring proper glory and honor to Him.

Thus, the fourth aspect of discipleship that we learn from this text is that discipleship requires dutiful service. We dutifully serve God, not because He is a hard task master, but because He loves us and died for us. We serve God dutifully because of who He is and what He has accomplished for us. Finally, we serve Him dutifully because we love Him. When you love someone you will serve that person without thought of being paid for your service. You just do it because you love them.

Part III: Four Aspects of Discipleship (Luke 17:1-10)

2011-07-21T11:15:00.002-04:00

As we pick up in verse five, the disciples can’t seem to grasp the hard truth concerning forgiveness. They inform Jesus that they don’t have the faith to do what he is asking them to do, so they ask him to increase their faith (v. 5). How does Jesus respond? He says that if your faith is as small as a “mustard seed,” that you can command a deep rooted tree to uproot itself and plant itself into the sea, “and it will obey you” (v. 6).

Say what? Is Jesus serious? Well, the answer is yes and no. The image of uprooting the tree is figurative. We don’t have the power to uproot a tree with the command of our voice. It would be nice, but we don’t have that kind of power. The power that we have is the power to completely trust God. Trust is a synonym for faith. Too many people think that faith is walking around blindly believing that God will provide every step of the way. This view of faith can be a license to do foolish things.

It is true that the Bible tells us to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7, ESV). But that does not mean I should walk by faith into the middle of a busy highway and expect to cross to the other side unscathed. That rarely happens. Living life on natural instincts is not living by faith. Jesus wants us to think of faith and trust in much bigger, more practical terms. Trust, or faith, is a matter of believing what God has already accomplished through the redemptive work of His Son, and then being able to accept whatever comes our way in life.

This has many applications for us. In the immediate context it means trusting that God has repaired the heart of my brother who comes to me and asks for forgiveness. All of us have been asked to forgive someone who we think is beyond the reach of God, but Jesus says all you need to do is trust God that it is so. And by doing so, amazing things will happen.

This application reminds me of the conversion of Saul. Christians who witnessed Saul persecute the church were later asked to accept him into their fellowship on account of his repentance and turning toward faith in Christ. They ultimately had faith in God that Saul was fully redeemed, and they welcomed him into the church. He went on to accomplish amazing things for God. That is the kind of faith that results in amazing things. When we fail to reconcile a relationship with a penitent brother or sister, we are failing to trust in God and we are missing out on doing amazing things.

There are other applications too. Trusting in God requires me to acknowledge that a time of suffering will ultimately make me spiritually stronger. Trusting in God is recognizing that He will ultimately right the wrongs of this world, and it’s not up to me to try. Trusting in God is reading His Word and putting it into action regardless of the cost. Trusting in God is recognizing that He alone is sovereign over all things. When you understand this and apply it to your life it frees you to work for Him and His kingdom and for you to connect with Him in a way that you never before thought possible.

The disciples, like many of us, had a deficient view of faith. They thought they needed more faith when in reality they had none. Discipleship requires the presence of faith in our lives, not degrees of faith. It’s just that simple.

The fourth and final aspect of discipleship that we learn from this text is about service. We’ll look at that topic in the next post.

Part II: Four Aspects of Discipleship (Luke 17:1-10)

2011-07-21T06:59:00.002-04:00

We saw in the previous post the seriousness of sin and the call for believers to pursue doctrinal truth and moral values. Now the focus turns to forgiveness between believers.

Jesus informs us that we should rebuke sin when we see it in our midst, and if our brother or sister repents, we are to forgive them (v. 3b). In fact, if someone sins against us multiple times in the same day, and each time repents and asks for forgiveness, we are to extend forgiveness to them (v.4).

We’ve already seen the seriousness of sin via the graphic illustration that Jesus gives in verse two. It clearly shows why sin is a serious issue that needs to be rebuked when it becomes evident in the life of a believer (v. 3b). Sin has consequences. But Jesus gives us an important lesson here about the need for balance. Yes, sin is to be rebuked, but full restoration is to be made when one repents and asks for forgiveness, regardless of how many times the offending party commits the same offense.

Jesus wants us to take seriously matters of sin and forgiveness. An absence of restoration extended to one asking for forgiveness is just as poisonous to a community of believers as is unchecked sin. Think about that for just a minute. When we fail to extend fellowship to those who have asked for forgiveness we are hurting the body of Christ as much, if not more, than when we allow sin to go unchecked.

Thus, discipleship requires forgiveness. We mentioned in the first post how Christians rely on each other to help navigate the ups and downs of life. In other words, religion is not a private matter. It is a responsibility that is shared by a community of believers—a faith family. It should be a supportive environment that is dominated by love for one another. Loving each other this way means that we are not keeping a constant watch on each other for the purpose of finding wrong. We look over one another in care and in love, gently rebuking one another when sin is evident, and firmly restoring each other when forgiveness is sought.

This should cause each of us to reflect on why we are sometimes slow to truly forgive and to restore relationships with those who have sinned against us. This applies to both a community of believers and individuals. I’ve witnessed a community of believers that was good at restoring people to the community, but in the same community I witnessed individuals who refused to restore broken relationships with those who were seeking forgiveness. Jesus calls us to practice forgiveness and restoration, both corporately and individually, because you can’t have one without the other.

It is too easy sometimes for us to want to make the offending party fully repay for whatever harm they have done. But forgiveness always comes at a cost to the one granting the forgiveness, not the one asking for it. Our faith communities are built on the grace and mercy of God, who paid a steep price to forgive us so that we could be restored to a proper relationship with Him. He asks us to extend that same grace to others.

Does this seem like a hard thing to do? If it does, don’t worry. The original 12 disciples thought it was hard too. They thought they needed more faith in order to follow this teaching. We’ll look at how Jesus responded in the next post.

Part I: Four Aspects of Discipleship (Luke 17:1-10)

2011-07-20T09:15:00.001-04:00

By definition, a disciple is a follower of the doctrines of a particular teacher. When we become Christians we commit our lives to following the teachings of Jesus. We do this for several reasons. One such reason is so that we will continually be in the pursuit of becoming more like Christ. Obviously, Christ was perfect in every way and we will never achieve perfection in this life. But that does not mean that we should not live every day with a desire to be more like him. When we consistently live in that way, we are going through the process of discipleship—growing toward Christ likeness by following his teachings.

Luke 17:1-10 is a small unit of Scripture where Jesus takes a short break from his journey to Jerusalem— and from his ongoing battle with the religious leaders of the day— to give his disciples some one-on-one instruction. In this short section he is teaching them four fundamental truths about discipleship. Jesus says, in effect, “If you want to be more like me, put these things into practice.” In this post we will explore the first of those four truths.

The first aspect deals with sin. In the opening verses Luke records that Jesus turns to his disciples and begins teaching about the reality and seriousness of sin (v. 1). Specifically, Jesus pronounces a “woe” on the person who causes “these little ones to sin” (v. 2). He says that it would be better for that person to die than to face God’s judgment for his crime. He then says to his disciples, “So watch yourselves” (v. 3).

This is a serious warning to the disciples—and to us present day disciples— about the importance of not being the cause of sin within the body of Christ. This warning is primarily directed at teachers. The emphasis being that false teaching will lead to sin and the falling away from the faith. Likewise, the opposite is also true. Those who teach doctrinal truth will lead their community of believers to live healthy spiritual lives.

But there is also a burden to be shouldered by all Christians, not just those who teach and preach on the vocational level. As Christians, we rely on each other for practical advice on how to navigate this thing we call life. So, whether we are teachers or lay people, we have a duty to think through our spiritual advice. We have a duty to be sure that the advice we give leads others to maintain a strong walk with God. In other words, we need to be sure that the advice we give is sound and true and that it will keep our brothers and sisters from falling into sin.

On the practical level these warnings show how serious Jesus takes doctrinal truth and a commitment to the pursuit of moral values. In some churches today the teaching of doctrinal truth is woefully lacking. This is unfortunate because it puts the community at risk of falling into sin. It also warns us that we should not be indifferent to the presence of sin in our lives and in our faith communities. If we are living in habitual sin, we have a duty to confess that sin and purge it from our lives so that it does not infect those around us.

Discipleship, then, requires both truth and character. Being a disciple of Christ requires a commitment on our part to be true to what He taught. We have a duty to convey all aspects of that truth to others. What we say and teach has consequences, not just for those who hear us, but also for ourselves (v. 2). We also have a duty to pursue lives that are morally pure. This not only protects our individual spiritual lives, but it protects the faith community in which we live.

Review: Love Wins, by Rob Bell

2011-07-17T13:49:00.003-04:00

Note: in the previous post I thought this review might take more than one post. As it turns out, one post will suffice. For some background information on this review, please see the two previous posts under the same tags.

Love Wins is billed as a book that will answer the age old questions concerning “Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.” Again and again, Bell reminds his readers that what they have previously heard about these issues is either wrong, or has been misrepresented by those on the inside of Christianity. He sets himself up as one who will set the record straight regarding these questions. To that end the book is a failure.

He doesn’t answer those questions. His conclusion is that we don’t know the answers. We don’t know the fate of everyone. We don’t know if all will be saved or if some will perish forever (p.115). Instead, Bell argues we should focus on the better story, the story that shares God’s love. It’s the story of God wanting all men to come to salvation. It’s the story of how love triumphs because God so loves us that he will give us what we want. It’s the story of a God who will reconcile all things and all people to himself. It’s the story of a hell that is not eternal (p.91-92), but a place of temporary correction or pruning. It’s a story of a heaven that can start now if you do good deeds. It’s the story of God in human flesh living, dying, and coming back to life because that’s how the universe works: “You die and then you’re reborn. It’s like that” (p. 137).

It’s also the story of Jesus who is the only way to God. Bell affirms that Jesus is the only way to the Father. But there is a catch. He says Jesus never articulated how someone comes to God through him (p.154). People can come to him in many ways. Some might call on his name; others might not have a clue who Jesus is. According to Bell it’s a story that is both exclusive and inclusive at the same time. His theology is straight out of the mold of Clark Pinnock and others who have held strongly to the theological position of inclusivism.

Inclusivism is a middle ground between biblical exclusivism and religious pluralism. Inclusivists believe that no one can be saved apart from the redemptive work of Christ but that it is unnecessary for people to know or to believe in Jesus to be saved. The biblical merits for inclusivism are debatable. As Bell has shown, there are some passages of Scripture that, on the surface at least, support his view. But he has many flaws in his interpretations. He is often guilty of reading into Scripture something that is not there or excluding things that are.

Case in point is his assertion that Jesus never says how people come to God through him. Over and over again Jesus says the path to him is through an action called “belief”— particular belief in Jesus as the crucified and risen savior of the world. It is for this very reason that Jesus commands us to proclaim that message to the entire world. This is why all people groups will one day be represented in heaven. It’s for these reasons (and others) that I am a biblical exclusivist. I disagree with Bell on this point.

Another example is his assertion that hell is something less than eternal in duration. He goes so far as to say the biblical writers had no concept of eternity (p. 92). In his exposition of the phrase “eternal judgment” (Matt. 25:46), he claims that it does not mean eternal as we think of eternal. But he fails to inform his readers that in that very same verse we see the phrase “eternal life,” which describes where the “righteous” spend eternity. If Bell is right about hell, then heaven is also not eternal. But he is wrong. The word in question means eternal just as we think it does.

His claim that hell is not eternal has important consequences. Although he never says what happens to the people that go there, something must happen to them when hell ends. I can only think of two possible choices: those who go there will either one day be restored with the rest of creation; i.e. universalism, or they will simply be annihilated. Those are the two options that Bell has painted himself into by his claim that hell is not eternal.

Of course, he does not indicate either way. Bell is a smart guy and he undoubtedly knows the options. Regardless of what he believes, the repetitive theme that all things and all people will one day be renewed through Christ will no doubt leave some to conclude that one day all people will be saved. Whether he believes that or not is unclear. But again, he is clear that hell is not eternal, so there are only two options available for those who go there. Both options are biblically untenable in my opinion.

What are we to conclude about Love Wins? On the whole it is a book that fails to meet its stated goal of answering important questions about important topics. It raises more questions than it answers. Bell’s belief that we should focus on the love of God and that all people groups will be represented in heaven are valid points. It is true that God’s love is what drives us to repentance and belief (Rom. 2:4). But we cannot simply focus on one aspect of what has been revealed to us in the Scriptures because it is simply more palatable to our human way of thinking or more politically correct to do so.

The eternal abodes for those who accept Christ and for those who don’t are unambiguously proclaimed in the Bible. We can’t teach one and at the same time pretend the other does not exist. Loving someone entails sharing with them the hard truths of life and death. Love fails when we don’t present the whole truth of God’s Word.

Review: Love Wins, Part I

2011-07-14T10:22:00.004-04:00

A few weeks ago I wrote about an encounter with a friend of mine who told me he had been reading Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. You can see that post here: Doctrine Matters: A Rob Bell Anecdote

I recently returned to see my friend with the intent of giving him a book I wanted him to read. He agreed to read it so long as I agreed to read Love Wins. Sure, why not? It’s not like I have anything else to do. Besides, if that’s what it takes to get my friend to read my suggestion, then I’m happy to oblige. So, I will read the book and at the same time write my own review.

You might be wondering if there is a need to write a review of a book that has already been discussed ad nauseam. Is this just another evangelical attack on Rob Bell? Well, I hope not. I do not intend to approach the book in that light. The answer is that it is for my benefit. One thing I have learned about myself is that I learn best when I write. It forces me to really engage the issue at hand. But also, I have learned that if I publish it for the world to see, it will keep me accountable to be honest and fair. So that is the reason for writing the review on the blog. I welcome you to follow along if you wish. I would love to hear your feedback, especially if you think I am wrong about something.

I have already read the first two chapters of the book. It is a relatively short book, but I can already tell that it will not always be easy to follow Mr. Bell’s train of thought. So, I am unsure how I will proceed from here with regards to the review. I might go chapter by chapter (8 total), or maybe a couple chapters at a time. Time will tell on that. But in the meantime I plan to go back and read again what I have already read and then start writing. I’ll try to keep each post under a certain word count, but I have yet to decide on the number.

Let me reiterate the purpose for publishing the review. It is not to be divisive. It is not to stir up anymore discord. It is for me to learn firsthand the message Rob Bell is trying to communicate in Love Wins, and then to decide if I agree with his conclusion(s); nothing more and nothing less.

But Our Citizenship is in Heaven

2011-07-12T10:51:00.001-04:00

As I drove by this church the other day I could not help but notice “Old Glory” hanging near the main entrance. I wondered what message the church was trying to convey. Were they celebrating the religious freedom that we enjoy in this country? Were they trying to promote the Christian heritage of our nation? Was the church suggesting that God desires the United States to be a Christian nation? My guess is it might be a combination of all the above.

Regardless of their intent, such a display will be interpreted in some way by everyone who sees it. At first I thought about how non-Christians would react. Would it encourage non-Christians to come inside? But then as I drove away I began to think about the words of the apostle Paul who once wrote, “But our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20, NIV). It was then that I began to wonder how Paul would react if he happened to be in the car with me. Would he dismiss it as no big deal? Would he stop the car and locate the pastor to have a word with him? I could not say one way or the other.

In the grand scheme of things it’s probably not a big deal. I do not write this to be critical of that church. This is just my personal reflection of what I saw. They displayed the flag to elicit reactions, and this is mine.

I have to admit that it’s not for me. It’s not just the words of Paul that ring in my ears; but also the words of Christ, who commanded his disciples to take his message to “all nations” (Luke 24:47). In the eyes of God, there is not one earthly kingdom that is more important than any other. God wants his glory proclaimed in all the nations. Thus, the Church should always proclaim the glory of God, not the glory of something else—even “Old Glory.”

That might not have been the intended message, but that is what I took away from it. I can only imagine what others might have thought.

There is a famous passage in Scripture where the Jewish leadership thought they could trick Jesus by getting him to champion political allegiance to one country over another. His reply was short, “… give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Luke 20:25). His message was simple: government has the right to exist and people are to submit to its authority, but it does not supersede one’s allegiance to God (See also Rom. 13:1-7; 1Peter 2:13-17).

This passage makes clear that Jesus was not a political zealot. Nor was he a zealous nationalist. He was first and foremost zealous for God and His kingdom. We should follow his lead. To give to God what is God’s is to give Him our complete devotion and faithful service for the expansion of His kingdom among all the nations. Jesus does not call the Church to align with any particular nation or political ideology.

That’s not to say that individual Christians should not participate in the political process or be politically active. As good citizens we should be. But we should be ever mindful that the mandate of the Church transcends all national borders and political allegiances. Our true citizenship is in another place and our King has directed us to proclaim his glory to all people so that others might become citizens as well.

True Freedom: A Salute to Foreign Missionaries

2011-07-04T06:49:00.003-04:00

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:1-2 NIV

We talk a lot about freedom in this country. Freedom is the word I most often hear when people describe what makes the United States great. We certainly have a lot of freedom in this country. For instance, I can freely post on my blog things related to God and religion. American born missionaries serving overseas are not always afforded this same freedom. Some of them are serving in countries where the government is totally hostile to anything related to religion or Christianity. Although they are American by birth, they don’t enjoy the same types of freedom while serving overseas that we sometimes take for granted in the United States.

Thankfully, there is a source of freedom outside of the reach of any government. In fact, regardless of where we live, our freedom will always be limited in some way. Freedom endowed by the laws of men will never completely liberate us. There will always be some type of limit on the freedom granted by human institutions. But not so with the freedom that is granted to us by God through the person and works of Jesus Christ. The freedom that Christ offers is limitless. It is endless. It can never be constrained by the laws of man.

The freedom that Jesus grants to us is freedom “from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). He has liberated us from the weight of “condemnation” (Rom. 8:1). Those who are in Christ Jesus don’t have to plod through life with the ever present threat of death hanging over our heads. Instead, we are liberated from that threat through the promise of eternal life with Christ. This should change us to the point where we live each day with a sense of joy and contentment. In other words, it allows us to start living freely now no matter where we are or what we are going through because we have an unshakeable promise of eternal life. This promise is supposed to liberate us in the present so that we can live for God and for others. This produces what we are all longing for: true contentment and freedom.

I can’t think of anything more liberating than living in complete contentment; resting completely in the love and care of Jesus Christ. So, on this 4^th of July I salute the thousands of American missionaries serving overseas today who are doing just that. Many of them will not enjoy the same type of freedom that most Americans will celebrate today. Nevertheless, they have found true freedom by finding contentment in Christ. They are out there living freely for God and for others. Though they face many trials and tribulations, they nevertheless press on in the hope of liberating others from the bondage of sin and death.

I hope I can do the same on this day.

Conclusion to the Prodigal Son: The Essence of Biblical Forgiveness

2011-06-25T10:52:00.004-04:00

The study of the Prodigal Son has been edifying for me. It has reminded me of how fruitful a personal exegesis of Scripture can be. In a world full of bookstore Bible studies, nothing can really compare to doing the study yourself. It’s worth the time and effort.

The parable is first and foremost about the amazing grace of God. It details how God pardons the sin of sinners, no matter what they have done. The original audience certainly expected the father to kick the son out of the family for good. They expected to hear how the father would not let him return. But the father shows the truth about God: no matter what we do, he will always be willing to accept us when we turn to him with a contrite heart, believing that he is the only one who can save us.

Then there is the important sub-theme of the reaction of the older brother. The older brother represented the religious elite of the day—the Pharisees and Scribes. They were a group of religious people who read and studied the Scriptures daily, held to a strict moral code, and worshipped and prayed to God faithfully. As we turn the clock forward 2,000 years, this group can easily equate to modern churchgoers. The reaction of the older brother shows us that even though we are devoted to God and to doing activities for God, we nonetheless need to constantly check our motives.

The older brother worked diligently by his father’s side for years, never disobeying him. Yet, his devotion to his father was misguided. He had no desire to really love his father or to get to know him. He was using him as a means to an end. He wanted the father’s wealth, but not the father. The stark reality is that he was no better than his little brother. As Christians this is a healthy reminder that our devotion and our activity for God does not make us any better than anyone else. All of us are dependent upon the grace and mercy of God for salvation.

Finally, the parable is open-ended. We are left to ponder how we would respond if we were the older brother. The answer might seem easy at first. Of course, we should forgive the younger brother and accept him back, right? Yes, that is the right answer! But it is probably easier said than done. You see, in order to truly forgive his younger brother, the older brother had to give up something in return. Do you remember the beginning of the story, how the father gave the younger son his inheritance? As a restored member of the family, he was an heir once again. This meant the older brother was going to lose one-third of what was rightfully his.

The stakes were enormous. To truly forgive his brother he would have to give up the wealth he had worked for. But more than that, he would have to swallow his pride. Jesus is reminding us that forgiveness carries a cost for those who are giving it. Yes, it is freely received with no strings attached. But it always comes at a cost to the one granting the forgiveness. If you disagree with this, I urge you to look no further than the cost that God endured to forgive you.

He sacrificed His one and only son on that cross, so that all who believe in Him might not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). It cost God dearly to forgive you, to restore you to the proper relationship with Him. We are called— as God’s children— to give up our pride and forgive those who have rejected us and those who have hurt us.

Finally, we are called to unconditionally accept those who come to God in faith. No matter what they have done, where they have been, or who they have hurt. If they have called on God for his forgiveness, then we are called to forgive them as well.

Psalm 13: Trusting in the Lord

2011-06-23T15:06:00.002-04:00

Psalm 13: 1-6 NASB
This morning I read from Psalm 13. As with many of the Psalms it was written by David during a time of great distress. In this case he was being pursued by someone (probably Saul) who wanted to kill him. His life was truly at risk as he wrote this Psalm.

The Psalm opens with David repeatedly crying out to God asking, “How long?” He wanted to know how long it would take for God to deliver him from his trouble (13:1-2). He pleads with God to “consider” him, or else he will face certain death (13:2-4). David is facing a true life-and-death situation. His life is literally at risk. He is crying out to God to save him from this threat.

When I read the Psalms I sometimes have trouble relating because they so often involve a situation where David is fleeing men who are relentlessly pursuing him in an effort to take his life. Thankfully, my problems are rather mundane by comparison. I mean, no one is trying to kill me (not that I’m aware of).

The Psalms make me realize that the problems I face in my cozy little corner of the world pale in comparison to what David was going through. It certainly helps me to see my problems from a proper perspective. Nevertheless, just because my problems are small does not mean that I don’t need to rely on God just as much as David did. We can learn a lot about how we should respond to God when we face all sorts of trials in this life—both big and small.

How does David face this adversity? He responds in complete trust by saying:
“But I have trusted in Your loving kindness; My heart shall rejoice in Your salvation. I will sing to the Lord, because He has dealt bountifully with me” (Psalm 13:5-6; emphasis mine).

Now I can relate to David. Like David, I have trusted in the love of the Lord and He has saved me. There is no doubt that he has dealt bountifully with me. He has provided for me in the past, and I can be sure that he will provide for me and my family in the future.

But here’s the catch: He might not provide for me the way that I think he should, or as swiftly as I think He should. But one thing is certain: no matter what I face in this life, I am assured of eternal life. I am assured of His salvation because I have trusted fully in Jesus Christ.

If that does not produce complete trust lived out through rejoicing and singing in my heart, then I don’t know what will.

Let us all be like David and sing songs of praise to the Lord, no matter how large or small our problems might be.

The Prodigal Son, Part IV: The Resentful Older Brother

2011-06-21T13:01:00.003-04:00

Luke 15:25-32 (NASB)

When we last saw the prodigal son he had returned to his father with a repentant and contrite heart. Even after the complete rejection of his father, and the shame of squandering his inheritance, his father was overjoyed at his return and immediately reinstated him into the family with full rights and privileges. To the father, it was as if nothing ever happened. His love for his son never wavered.

The younger son departs from the scene and the focus now turns to his older brother. Jesus tells us that the older brother comes home from working in the field and he hears the sounds of the celebration inside (15:25). Perplexed, he inquires about the commotion. He is told that his younger brother has returned home and his father has called for a celebration in his honor (15:26-27).

Unlike his father, the older brother does not rejoice. Instead, he became “angry” and refused to go inside and join the feast. The father comes outside and “pleads” with his older son to join the celebration (15:28). The son responds disrespectfully as he recounts his tireless devotion and complete obedience to his father all these years, adding that the father never threw a party for him (15:29). Finally, the older son shows his complete rejection of the father by describing his younger brother as “this son of yours” (15:30). Notice he did not say “my brother.” This shows that he no longer considers him family, and by implication his father is included since the father has already accepted the younger son back into the family.

The father responds to his son’s rejection in the same manner as he did with the younger son. He is not defensive. Rather, he is totally giving and compassionate as he reminds the older son that “all that is mine is yours” (15:31). The father reminds the rebellious son that they had to celebrate because “this brother of yours” is alive and well (15:32). The story ends right here with it being clear that the father considers the older son still part of the family, if he chooses to be. It is up to him to decide. The deciding factor will be if he chooses to come inside and join the feast. If he does, he too will be a member of the family with all the rights and privileges thereof. What does the son do? We don’t know. It’s a biblical cliffhanger.

The story abruptly ends in a dramatic twist. The once rebellious younger son— the one who worked with swine and slept with prostitutes— is now inside the father’s house. But the older brother— the one who has diligently obeyed his father all these years— is standing outside in a fit of rage. The parable is purposely open-ended. It calls on us to reflect on what we would do if we were the older brother.

We see that God—recall that he is the father in the story—wants us to love him for who he is. Both sons rejected the father because they were dissatisfied with him in some way. When you love someone for who they are, your love and devotion never wavers. No matter what they do you still love them. You love them without expecting anything in return. The brothers did not love the father for who he was. They were using him as a means to an end. They wanted his wealth without his presence in their life. When the father did not live up to their expectations, they completely rejected him. The younger son eventually repented—driven no doubt by the conscious reminder of his father’s love (Rom. 2:4). The father showed the same kind of love to the older son, but we are left to ponder how he responded.

There is an important lesson here for all who consider themselves Christ followers. The older son illustrates to us church-going-folks in the modern world that our mere activity for God does not necessarily equate with fully knowing Him. If the older brother really knew his father he would have loved his brother just as much as his father. All those years he worked for his father he neglected to really get to know him. He was just staying loyal to receive what was owed him once his father died. If we serve God with that intention, then we will inevitably get angry with God when things don’t go the way we believe they should.

On the other hand, when we live a life devoted to God because of who He is, then we will be able to enjoy the wonderful blessings of His grace and the joy that comes with a relationship with God. We’ll grow more like Him every day as we cultivate a relationship with Him. As we get to know Him better, then we will grow in such a way that we will understand that we are just like everyone else— in need of God’s grace and provision every day. That’s what the older brother did not understand and that is what we in the church sometimes fail to understand as well.

If we are worthy to be called God’s children, then we must be willing to get to know Him personally so that we can love others just as He loves us.

There is much more to be said about this parable. I’ll try to wrap up some loose ends with some concluding thoughts in the next post.

Doctrine Matters: A Rob Bell Anecdote

2011-06-17T16:21:00.006-04:00

“Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” I Timothy 4:16 (NASB)

“If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,” I Timothy 6:3 (NASB)

As someone who is planning to spend the rest of my life in full-time ministry, I am often reminded to watch my doctrine closely. In fact, a good friend of mine recently left me a warm reminder of I Tim. 4:16 on the inside cover of a book he gave me. He wrote, “Watch your life and your doctrine closely.” I appreciated his words and I knew full well what he meant by them. But sometimes you never really appreciate the full meaning of something until you see it lived out in front of your eyes. This morning I had the opportunity to witness the consequences of doctrine in action. Unfortunately, the doctrine I witnessed in action this morning is in direct contradiction to the words in bold above.

Let me start from the beginning. I went to see an old friend today. I have not seen this friend in over a year. He is fully aware of the path I am on in life. As we were talking (we were not talking religion) he asked me my opinion of Rob Bell’s book. I was a little taken back by the question at first. I was not sure where he was coming from, and I was not sure what book he was talking about, although I assumed it was Love Wins.

Indeed, that was the book he was asking about. I told him that I had not read the book, but I had read several reviews and I did not like what I saw. He told me that someone had given him the book and encouraged him to read it. So he did. He started telling me about how much sense the book made to him. He talked about how the church and religion is dead to our generation and how "it’s all about being spiritual." And then he said, “He’s right [Rob Bell], there has to be more than one way [to get to heaven].”

Of everything he said, that statement stood out to me the most. Let me be perfectly clear. I have not read Love Wins, and I don’t know if Rob Bell ever wrote those words exactly. That’s not the point. The point is that what he is saying in that book is leading a person to believe something that is contrary to the words of Jesus. That is never a good thing.

The apostle Paul instructed a young pastor named Timothy to closely watch his doctrine. Why did Paul think this to be so important? He gives us the answer in I Timothy 4:16, where he says—if you will allow me to paraphrase—“If you pay attention and teach what is right and true, then you will save yourself and those who listen to you.” If that is true, and I believe that it is, then the opposite is also true. That is, if you fall into the snare of teaching false doctrine, then you will bring destruction upon yourself and those who listen to you. What we say and teach has consequences.

Paul goes on to tell Timothy that one characteristic of sound doctrine is that it will be aligned with the words of Jesus (I Timothy 6:3). As my friend talked about how Rob Bell was right—that there must be more than one way to God—I could not help but think of the words of Jesus who said in no uncertain terms that He is the only way to God. Jesus said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6). Those words are clear. They are unmistakable, and if you call yourself a Christian teacher you have a duty to teach those words, and to refrain from muddying the waters with some other doctrine that is more palatable to your finite mind.

This is not an attack on Rob Bell. Rather this is just a simple reminder to me, and to those who teach the Bible, to closely watch the doctrine we teach. It is a reminder of how important it is to be unambiguous about matters of faith and doctrine. We have a duty to clearly teach the words of the Bible. This is also a reminder that what we say has an impact on people. People are listening when we speak and write. We have a duty to honor Christ by teaching his words. But we also have a duty to those who listen to what we teach.

After all, the fate of our listeners is in our hands (I Tim. 6:3). They deserve to hear nothing less than the truth.

The Prodigal Son, Part III: The Penitent Son and the Gracious Father.

2011-06-16T13:32:00.003-04:00

Luke 15: 14-24 (NASB)

When we last saw the younger son he had just squandered all of his belongings on loose living (15:13). He had spurned his family and took off for a foreign land with all of his belongings and then lost it all. As the story picks up we are told that once he had spent all he had, a “severe famine” struck the land and he became impoverished (15:14). Now that he has nothing he tries to work his way out of his poverty. He finds a job feeding swine (15:15), and yet despite his job, he still has nothing to eat. In fact, he would have gladly eaten the food meant for the swine, but no one would even give him that (15:16).

There is a significant contrast in the story here. The young man left a loving father who was willing to give him everything. He did not have to work for the wealth his father gave him. But now he is working in a cruel world and no one will even give him the food of pigs. His life has reached rock bottom—complete despair!

Have you ever noticed how people react when they reach a state of despair? Some get angry and fail to see the true reason behind their despair. Others, however, come to their senses and recognize that they have a need that they can't meet on their own. This is exactly what happens in the parable. Recognizing that he was dying, he “came to his senses” and decided return to his father, where he might be accepted back as a slave. In that case he would at least be able to eat bread (15:17).

So he resolved to return to his father—the one person he knows will provide for his most basic needs in life. Along the way he rehearses what he will say when he returns. He will confess his sin and ask to be made a slave (15: 18-19). The once proud and arrogant son who demanded to make his own way in life is now a humbled man. He turns around in life, and comes back to his father in complete humility, no longer making demands of his father, but asking desperately to receive mercy from him. This is a picture of repentance; recognizing our need for God and turning from our sin and toward God.

As he nears his father’s home, the father sees him coming from afar and feels compassion toward him. Notice what the father does next. He runs to meet him, throws his arms around him, and kisses him (15:20). The son confesses his sin, but without delay the father gives the young man his finest belongings, making it abundantly clear that the son was immediately restored to the family. No questions asked. He gets the best robe, a family ring, and his father’s sandals (15:21-22). Finally, the father throws an abundant feast in honor of his youngest son—a sinner that was once lost but has now been found (15: 23-24). Here we see the joy that God has when a sinner returns home (cf. 15:7, 10).

This is a portrait of the nature of salvation. The young son reached a point in life where he recognized that he was dying. Importantly, you will notice that his death was being brought on by his sin. But then he recognized there was only one person who could save him: his father. Jesus is illustrating to his audience some fundamental truths about salvation.

First, Jesus is showing us that we are in need of being saved (Rom. 3:20;23), just as the young son in the parable was in need (15:17). Our sin is killing us. Just like the younger son, we too are incapable of working our way out of death. We need a savior. We need someone we can turn to. That someone is God. Secondly, when we turn to God in faith and with a contrite and repentant heart, God will accept us with open arms. He does not meet us halfway. He does not make us come crawling back to him. Instead, with compassion and love, he meets us right where we are in life (15:20) and immediately makes us one of his children (15:22); restoring us to a wonderful relationship with Him.

What a glorious truth this is to ponder. It’s simply amazing that the Creator God of the universe is waiting for us to return to Him, despite our rejection of Him. When we return, He greets us with abundant grace and a restored relationship. Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now am found. Was blind, but now I see.

When we truly consider the amazing truth about God's grace it should make those of us who have trusted in Christ feel loved and secure. We are in the family of God now. It's a wonderful place to be and it should produce an overwhelming sense of love and devotion to Him who has forgiven us. It should give us a desire to cultivate our relationship with God.

In the next post we’ll take a look at the reaction of the older brother.He had been around his father his entire life, but he failed to really get to know him. We'll take a look at the consequences of that in the next post.

Reflections of Maine

2011-06-14T09:49:00.002-04:00

I recently had the opportunity to visit the wonderful state of Maine. I have always wanted a chance to see New England, so when I was offered the chance to visit, I eagerly accepted. Maine did not disappoint. It was all that I envisioned, and more.

To be sure the state is one of the most beautiful in all of the United States. Obviously, I did not see the entire state. In fact, I got to see just a small portion of the coast. But I liked what I saw. The first thing I noticed was the lack of “urban sprawl,” which is so common in many parts of the United States now days. Even in the bigger cities, Maine has managed to keep its quaintness and small town feel.

The people of Maine, at least those I met, were all very friendly. As a tourist I was made to feel welcome in an area that welcomes many tourists each year. Any question I asked was typically met with a warm response. This was a welcome surprise to me because I have lived most of my life in a resort area where the locals have not always been so welcoming to the hand that feeds—present company included.

Another observation about Mainers is that it seems like almost everyone owns a Subaru. Seriously, you can’t drive more than a minute without seeing a Subaru. I really don’t know the reason for this, but I assume the all-wheel drive Subaru is a nice alternative for those who don’t want to have a 4-wheel drive pick-up in that snowy climate.

One of the most striking features of Maine is the architecture. The landscape is dotted with beautiful old buildings, many of which are marvelous church buildings that were built in the Gothic Revival tradition. The photo above is one of those buildings. It is a picture of “The Chocolate Church,” located in the town of Bath. The building no longer functions as a place where Christians gather to worship. It is now a performing arts center.

And that is the other striking feature of Maine. It is a land with numerous old church buildings—many of which no longer house congregations. Most of the buildings I saw have been converted into something else. Some of them are now civic centers, some are performing arts centers, and others function as office space for secular companies. I do not know if what I saw is representative of all of Maine, but I suspect it closely reflects the state of the Church as a whole in Northern New England. It is an area that is rich in Christian tradition but sadly it is a place where the influence of the Church has significantly declined.

But not all is lost. God is still working in Maine. While I was there I visited the saints at First Baptist Church in Bath. The worship was Spirit-filled and the work of God was evident there. It was reassuring to see a church that was still shining the light amid a land where there is a collection of churches whose lamp stands were removed long ago. Press on, First Baptist Church of Bath!

There is much more I could say about Maine, but these are the observations that stood out to me the most. I would love to go back and visit in the future. Maybe one day I can take the whole family up there for a vacation. And who knows, perhaps one day we will purchase a Subaru Outback, move to Maine, and light a new lamp.

The Prodigal Son, Part II: The Prodigal Son Leaves Home.

2011-05-31T11:33:00.003-04:00

Luke 15:11-13 (NASB)

¹¹And He said, "A man had two sons.
¹²"The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me ' So he divided his wealth between them.
¹³"And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.

As the parable begins, Jesus tells his audience about a man who had two sons (15:11). The younger son comes to his father and makes a demand of the father that would have shocked the original audience. He demands that his father give him his share of the estate (15:12). This was definitely an uncommon and very unreasonable request. Such a request would typically be met with resistance by the father. But he does not rebuke his son. He simply does as the son demands and divides his wealth between them (15:12).

This is a critical detail of the story. In the culture of the day, Jewish fathers were expected to divide their estate between their male heirs. Scripture dictated that the older son was to have a double portion (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). If a man only had two sons, the older son would receive two-thirds of the father’s estate, and the younger son would receive a one-third share. This would ordinarily occur upon the death of the father. To give the younger son his share now meant that the father had to sell a portion of his land prematurely. To do so was to risk the rest of his estate; for if the father fell upon hard times he might be forced to sell more land, and thus fall into the care of another. Not to mention he would risk losing the inheritance that rightfully belonged to the older son.

Despite the risk, the father grants the request of his son and gives him his share. Then, a few days later the son picked up everything he had and went far away into a foreign land, where he promptly engaged in “loose living” and “squandered everything he had” (15:13). The son had already disrespected his father by requesting his share of the estate prematurely, now he goes even further by taking his belongings and moving far away.

This is a picture of complete rejection. The son’s contempt for the father is now complete. Make no mistake; the original audience would expect the father to tell the son in no uncertain terms that his choice to leave was irreversible, that he was no longer a member of the family, and to never come back. But the father does no such thing. He does not argue with his son. He does not plead with his son. He does not get angry with his son. He does not tell him to never come back. Instead, the father freely gives his son his share of the estate and lets him make his own way in the world.

Right up front we learn a lot about the character of God. As a father myself, I can only imagine how hurt my pride would be at the complete rejection from one of my children. It would be devastating. At the very least I can imagine how the initial sting of rejection could produce an attitude of malevolence in me toward the child. Let’s face it, rejection hurts. When we are rejected by someone the human tendency is to lash out. This happens to us in all sorts of relationships in life. No doubt the rejection of others is always difficult to handle, but the complete rejection of a child is probably the most hurtful rejection we can experience. This is exactly the type of rejection God feels from us when we reject Him and choose to go our own way.

But notice how God handles our rejection of him. He does not lash out at us in a burst of anger as we might be inclined to do. We see that God is not a vengeful deity that is going to strike us down with lightning bolts when we step out of line. As individuals, we are free to make our own choices in this life. But no matter what choice we make, God will never say, “Don’t come back, I never want to see your face around here again.”

Notice also how the father freely gave to his son. He did not make any demands upon giving the son his inheritance early, or upon his departure. The father freely gave to his son, and he let the son go freely, thus he is free to give to his son again if the son chooses to return. Therefore, we see that God also does not say, “Don’t come back until you have done…”

This is a beautiful picture of God in these opening verses of the parable. God is not vengeful and spiteful to those who reject him. He lets us reject him and chart our own course in life if we so choose. Importantly, he makes no demands of us upon leaving Him. There are no hoops we must jump through to come back. As lovingly as he lets us go our own way, He will lovingly welcome us back into a relationship with Him.

Nonetheless, to come back to God we need to see our need for Him. Without recognizing that need, we most likely will never come back. In the next post we’ll see what it looks like to see that need, and how God responds to us when we turn around and come back to Him.

Freedom is Not Free

2011-05-28T10:55:00.001-04:00

I’m not the overly patriotic type. But I am thankful for the men and woman who have served our country over the years. I am especially thankful for those who have given their lives in defense of our nation. Those who have died have given up their lives so that we might live in peace. It is those men and woman, and their families, who truly understand that freedom is not free. Freedom comes with a price. The freedoms we enjoy in this country have been paid for with the blood of many. Keep that in mind this weekend as you enjoy time with your families, friends and neighbors, or however you spend your free time this holiday weekend. Just stop and pause for a minute and give thanks to those who sacrificed all they had for you and me.

But this weekend reminds me of another freedom that many of us enjoy. It is a freedom that was won through the blood of One, the blood of Jesus Christ. The sacrificial blood of Christ sets us free from the bondage of sin and of self-righteousness. It allows us to live in peace with God and to live freely for God and for others. But this freedom was also bought with a steep price. It was truly the ultimate sacrifice. You see, it is true, freedom is never free. It always comes with a cost. Understanding the nature of that cost is what really sets us free. So if you’re a Christian, take some time this weekend —and everyday for that matter—to think about the sacrifice of Christ and what it means to you. Stop and pause for a minute and give thanks to Him; for it is Christ who has truly set you free.

And if you’re not a Christian and you want to learn more about the freedom we have in Christ, feel free to contact me. I would love to tell you about it.

Introduction to The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)

2011-05-26T19:58:00.002-04:00

And He [Jesus] said, “A man had two sons” (Luke 15:11 NASB).

That is the way one of the most popular of all of Jesus’ parables begins. It is most commonly referred to as the story of “The Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-32). Perhaps you are familiar with it, or maybe not. Either way, the story that Jesus told on this particular occasion has much to offer no matter how acquainted you are with the story. As with all things in the Bible, it has many timeless truths and treasures, all of which cannot be extracted in just one brief study. Through this parable Jesus has much to say about mankind, God, and our relationships with each other. That is, how we interact in relationship to each other as humans, and how we as humans relate to God and how He relates to us. As we work through the text we will try to pull out what Jesus is trying to teach us about these important relationships.

But first we must understand the context from which Jesus spoke. On this particular occasion Jesus was speaking to an audience comprised of two distinct groups of people. One group was referred to as, “tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 15:1). The other group was the notorious group of “Pharisees and…scribes”— the self-righteous religious leaders of first century Israel. Luke records for us that the self-righteous religious leaders began to “grumble” because Jesus was associating with—you could say befriending—these tax collectors and sinners (15:2). The Pharisees and scribes were a moralistic bunch who thought it was inappropriate for Jesus to associate with these people. With these two groups as his audience, Jesus tells a series of three parables that his audience will immediately understand.

It is these two groups of people who take center stage in the parable of the Prodigal Son. The tax collectors and sinners will be represented by the younger son (Luke 15: 11-25). In modern times we can equate this group with the non-churched, the de-churched, and the irreligious people of our day. On the flip side, the Pharisees and scribes will be represented by the elder son (Luke 15:25-32). Make no mistake, in the transference of 2,000 years this group easily equates to the average churchgoer of the modern Christian church—especially those who are quick to condemn both the moral decay of our society and those who live contrary to the way of life prescribed in the Bible.

In a way, the two brothers can easily be seen as representing all of humanity. All of us can probably relate to either the younger or older brother in one way or another. In fact, if you’re like me you can easily relate to both. I was once the prodigal son. But in some ways I have become like the older brother.

Where is God in all of this? As already mentioned he is represented by the father in the parable. He is a man who has two sons; both of whom treat their father with contempt. Nevertheless, the father treats both sons with equal love and compassion—calling them both into a joyful, celebratory feast. It is a wonderful portrait of the love of God and the forgiveness that He offers to each of us. As we shall see, it is a perfect love that graciously calls us into a relationship with Him regardless of who we are, where we have been, what we have done, or where we are presently headed.

To each of us God says—as he said to the older son at the end of the parable— be my son, be my child, “all that is mine is yours” (Luke 15:31).

In the next post we will pick up the story from the beginning and we will begin to ask, “Who is God?”

Is Jesus Coming Back on May 21, 2011?

2011-04-27T11:27:00.001-04:00

Have you heard about the latest group claiming to know the exact date of the return of Christ? Perhaps you have already heard about this group. Or maybe you have not heard. If so, let me give you a brief overview.

The group (their web site can be found here: www.wecanknow.com ) claims to know that Jesus Christ will return to gather his people on May 21^st, 2011. That’s right—they believe Christ is coming in just a little over three weeks from today. They also believe that God will then destroy the Earth on October 21^st, 2011. Pretty bold claims, don’t you think? I mean, these people are claiming to know the exact time of Christ’s return and of the final judgment of the world. Can we really know the times and dates of such events? After all, Jesus did not even know the time and date of his return (Mark 13:32).

So, is there any chance that we can really know? Well, this group seems to think so. And they say it is as easy as reading your Bible. It’s just that simple, you see. They claim that if you read the Bible the right way (that’s a nice way of saying, “if you read and interpret the Bible our way.”) then you will clearly see that we can know the exact date and time. It appears that they are basing this claim on the fact that God has given advance notice for similar events in the past (i.e. Noah’s Flood) and thus it is reasonable to assume that he has given us advance notice for the second coming of Christ.

From that basic premise, the group has an interesting interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6, which says,

“¹ Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, ² for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. ³ While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. ⁴ But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. ⁵ You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. ⁶ So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober.

In short, they interpret this passage— and other similar passages that warn believers to “watch” for the Lord’s return— to imply that as the end of time draws near, it is only the true believers who will be watching because the rest of the church will have fallen away, or asleep, and thus will be unprepared for the coming of the Lord. But, they believe that the true believers will be watching and will be given advance notice of the day and time of the second coming of Christ.

The methodology is actually that of a man named Harold Camping. Along with the above interpretations he also has some sort of mathematical scheme that has resulted in the predicted date. He is the one who has actually come up with the date of May 21, 2011 as the time of Christ’s return. Who is this man? Well, I don’t know much about him, but I do know that he once predicted that Christ would return on September 6^th, 1994. He also predicted at that same time that if 1994 did not pan out, that 2011 would be the date. Obviously 1994 did not pan out, so here we sit today, a little more than three weeks away from Harold Camping’s second prediction of the second coming of Christ.

In all honesty I hope that Harold Camping is right. Not because I believe he, or anyone else for that matter, knows the time that Christ will return. But I hope he is right because I— as Paul wrote in that passage in 1 Thessalonians— am a child of light. I no longer live in darkness. I have given my life fully to Jesus Christ— the Light of the World— and therefore I look forward to the day that he will come and take me home to the place we call heaven. I am no longer living in darkness, thus I will not be overtaken on the Day of the Lord. No, only those who have never committed their life to Christ will be surprised on that day.

But the fact is we simply do not know when Christ will return. And I believe that Scripture is very clear that we cannot know such a time. Why is that, you might ask? Well, first of all because as already stated above, Jesus said that he did not know the time and date of his return (Mark 13:32). If Jesus did not know in his human flesh, then what makes anyone else think they can know? Think about the implication of that for just a minute. This man is claiming to possess knowledge that Jesus Christ admitted that he did not even have. What are the implications of claiming to know something that God in the flesh did not know? I think you can figure that out on your own.

The clincher, however, can be found in the first chapter of Acts. Here the disciples asked Christ if he was going to restore the kingdom of Israel at that time. How did Jesus respond to that question? He said this: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority” (Acts 1:7).

The words of Jesus are forceful and still applicable to His disciples today. The gist of what Christ was saying is that no one knows except God the Father. Not only that, but his words carried with it the connotation that believers are not to be excessively concerned about it. Quite simply, we as believers are to be ready for that day, whenever it may come. In the meantime, we are to be focused on reaching the world for Christ.

It really is just that simple. No one knows when Christ will return. All we know is that one day He will return in the same manner in which he ascended into Heaven after his resurrection. I am ready for that day. If it happens in my lifetime I will not be caught off guard as though I am being robbed by a thief in the middle of the night. Not me. I fully expect that it can happen at any time. If I am fortunate enough to be taken out of this fallen world then that would be an added bonus to already being a child of God. I am ready, and that means I will not be surprised if it happens in my lifetime.

Justification and the Book of Romans

2010-12-17T10:28:00.005-05:00

Introduction
Martin Luther once said, as it has been repeated many times, that justification is the “doctrine on which the church stands or falls.”[1]This is certainly true and we should never underestimate the importance of this doctrine because it is the doctrine that answers the most fundamental of all religious questions: “How can a man or woman become right with God?”[2]Be that as it may, it is not the purpose of this paper to give a full exposition of the doctrine of justification. Rather, the sole purpose of this paper is to reveal what the apostle Paul taught about justification in his epistle to the Christians in Rome.

Definition of terms
There are two terms that must be defined at the outset of this study: justification and righteousness. It is not always easy to mark out the difference between these two words because they share the same root word in both Greek (dikaios) and in Hebrew (tsedaqah).[3] So the two words are closely related in their biblical usage. Thus, a proper understanding of justification must begin with a proper understanding of the biblical relationship between these two words. And since Paul draws so much from the Old Testament in the book of Romans, a proper understanding of these two terms must be grounded in their Old Testament meanings.

Righteousness has two basic meanings in the Old Testament. In some instances it is used in the sense of conforming to a particular norm.[4] Tamar, for example, was said to be more righteous than Judah, because Judah failed to fulfill his obligations as her father-in-law (Gen. 38:26). Likewise, David was said to be righteous when he refused to kill Saul (1 Sam. 24:17; 26:23). In this sense David was living up to the standards of the monarch-subject relationship whereas Judah had failed to conform to the norms of family relationships.[5] In this sense righteousness denotes being in a right standing with regards to a particular relationship.

However, the dominant image behind the word “righteousness” in the Old Testament is judicial or forensic in nature. As N.T. Wright points out, righteousness (tsedaqah), and its cognates, “have particular functions in relation to the setting of the lawcourt.”[6] When used in this sense it means “to declare righteous or to justify.”[7] Here it refers to the status that someone has when a court has found in his favor. Deuteronomy 25:1, for example, says, “When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting [justifying] the innocent and condemning the guilty” (NIV).[8]

The judge in this case does not make a judgment on the moral character of the person that is acquitted (justified). Rather, the judge simply declares that the person is not guilty of the accusation that has been made and is therefore deemed in right standing before the law. Of course, the law that is most often in view in the Old Testament is the Mosaic Law. Thus, the relationship between these two words can best be summed up this way: Justification, in the Old Testament, involved determining that an individual is innocent of the charges brought against them and then declaring what is true: that person is righteous, meaning they have fulfilled the law.[9]

Paul has the same forensic view of justification in the book of Romans. He uses the Greek word dikaioo fifteen times in Romans.[10] This Greek word means to declare righteous, or to vindicate, and essentially has a forensic connotation that denotes a sentence of acquittal.[11] But the key difference between the Old Testament and the book of Romans is that no one is righteous, meaning no one can fulfill the law (Rom. 3:10; 20) and Paul speaks of a righteousness that is available apart from the law (Rom 3:21). “This righteousness comes from God through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Rom. 3:22). And so when Paul says that a “man is justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28) we learn that, according to the book of Romans, justification can be defined as a judicial act of God whereby, on the basis of the atoning work of Christ, God declares the sinner absolved from sin, free of its penalty, and restored as righteous; that is, the sinner is put in a right relationship with God.[12]

The Need for Justification
Paul builds his case for the need of justification in the first three chapters of Romans. His thesis is simple: everyone is inherently opposed to God. Therefore no one has the ability to meet his righteous demands (Rom. 1:18-3:20). It does not matter if a person is Jewish or Gentile by birth, “there is no one righteous, not even one…” (Rom. 3:10). And so Paul builds a masterful case for the depravity of all mankind in the opening chapters of Romans. But he does more than that. Keeping in mind that justification is a judicial term; Paul builds his case much like a prosecuting attorney by showing that all men are guilty and without excuse.

He does this in three ways. First, he shows that all men have been given universal light. Those who have never had access to the Mosaic Law or to the gospel have nevertheless seen the light of God through creation and they have the law written on their hearts (Rom. 1:20; 2:15). Likewise, the rest of mankind has the additional light of special revelation, the Word of God (Rom. 2:12-29).[13] Secondly, as all men have been given universal light, so then all men are universally accountable. All men have been given a conscience; that is “an inbuilt recognition of good and evil and sense that God is just when he punished wrong doing” (Rom. 1:32; 2:14-15).[14]

Finally, all men are guilty. All have knowledge of God; all have the ability to decide between right and wrong; but all have failed to live up to what they know about God. All men are under sin, all have turned away from God, none are righteous, and no one seeks God (Rom. 3:9-18). “Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his sight…” (Rom. 3:20). The case that Paul builds against mankind can best be summed up this way: the actions of fallen man “render him guilty and liable for punishment.”[15] All men are guilty before a Holy God and are in need of acquittal, for all men face the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18; 2:5).

Basis for Justification
Paul now moves on to show the basis by which justification has been made possible for fallen man. He says that men “are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Rom. 3:24-25). The basis by which fallen man can be justified rests on the redemptive and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. But also notice that the basis for justification originates with the grace of God, “justified freely by his grace” (3:24). Men cannot find any basis of their own by which they can be justified, rather its foundation is grounded in the grace of God. For it is by his own merciful grace that he presented Christ as a “sacrifice of atonement” (hilasterion).

“Sacrifice of atonement” (hilasterion) can also be translated to mean “propitiation,” which can be defined as “the turning away of wrath by an offering.”[16]Since Paul had just proved that all men are under the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18; 2:5,8) it is only natural that Paul has in mind the wrath of God here. The problem, however, is that hilasterion is used in the Septuagint twenty-one out of twenty-seven times in reference to the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the sacrificial blood was poured on the Day of Atonement for the sins of national Israel.[17] In addition, the only other New Testament use of this word is also in reference to the mercy seat (Heb. 9:5).[18] Therefore, some scholars object to the notion of propitiation in this verse on the basis that, properly speaking, in the Old Testament practice of atonement God is never propitiated or appeased, rather it simply means “the removal of sin,” or expiation, as some translations suggest.[19]

But the very words of Paul and the context of the letter up to this point suggest that both propitiation and the removal, or forgiveness, of sins is indicated in these verses. Paul is saying that the Old Testament sacrifices really did not bring forgiveness.[20] They were never the basis for a right standing with God. They could not satisfy the wrath of God. Rather, God “patiently bore with the sins” that were committed under the Mosaic Law (Rom. 3: 25b). The Old Testament sacrifices simply foreshadowed the forgiveness of sins and the placating of the wrath of God that would come through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.[21] It is this sacrifice that is the basis by which men can become justified before God.

The Means of Justification
In the preceding section Paul has made his case for the basis of justification through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. In his death God has made justification possible. But what is the means by which fallen man can become justified? Paul has already hinted at the answer to that question in various places. He opened the letter by stating that “faith” is the operating standard of the gospel (Rom 1:17) and that his mission is to “bring about the obedience that comes from faith” (1:5). In chapter three he established that the faith he speaks of means specifically faith in “Christ as the propitiatory offering for sin” (Rom. 3:21-26).[22] Now he concludes “that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (Rom. 3:28). Thus, the means of justification is quite simply faith, and more directly faith in the atoning work of Christ.

Paul moves to illustrate his point with a powerful Old Testament example in chapter four. The critical verse in this section is 4:3, where Paul quotes directly from Genesis 15:6; “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Paul actually quotes from this verse three times in chapter four and repeats the word “credited” eleven times, which leads some to conclude rightly that Romans four is an “extended exposition of Genesis 15:6.”[23] Paul uses this text because it focuses on the special relationship between God and Abraham, the great ancestor of Israel and the man whom many Jews regarded as “uniquely righteous.”[24] Indeed, if any man had reason to boast in his works it was Abraham (4:1-2). But men are not justified by their works, but by faith because Abraham, as “uniquely righteous” as he might have been, was not counted as righteous because of his works. Instead God counted Abraham as righteous because he “believed God” (4:3).

The task of Paul here is to deny any possibility that good works can play a part in becoming right with God. The word “counted” (Greek logizomai) that Paul quotes so many times in chapter four is uniquely suited to accomplish this goal. It is an accounting metaphor that is translated variously as “counted,” “reckoned,” or “credited.” Paul shows that the method of accounting that God uses is not the same as human contracts (4:4-5).[25] When men work for a wage their employer is obligated to pay, or “reward that work.” [26]But the method of accounting that God uses is different. For if God accepted any kind of work as a way to attain right standing with him then he would be obligated to pay whatever is earned, thus nullifying grace.

But Paul has already shown that the grace of God is at the very foundation of justification. God cannot be obligated to pay any man under any circumstance. That is why justification can only be by faith, because faith simply involves the humble acceptance of what God offers to give.[27]And what God offers is truly an amazing gift. He offers to credit to our account righteousness. “The words ‘it was credited to him’ were written not for him [Abraham] alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness- for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom. 4:24). The idea behind the term “credit” is that something is reckoned to a person that does not inherently belong to him. In this case it is the righteousness of God, something that is totally foreign to human beings, which is “counted” or granted to us by the merciful grace of God.[28]

For Paul then, justification is made available by faith. When sinners respond to God by faith, then a transaction occurs whereby God credits the sinner with being in right standing with him. This righteousness has been made available to the entire world and it is effective for anyone who believes.

Benefits of Justification
Through the first four chapters of the book of Romans Paul has been arguing his case for the gospel that he preaches. He has argued that all people are guilty before God and are in need of salvation. He has also argued that the atoning death of Jesus Christ is the basis by which God has made available this much needed salvation. Finally, he has argued that it is by faith alone that man can lay hold of the atoning death of Christ and become justified. Having concluded his argument on justification Paul now changes tones as the book turns to chapter five, where Paul opens with three wonderful benefits that believers now have as a result of their justification. They have: “peace with God” (v.1); “access into the Grace” of God in which believers presently stand (v.2); and “the hope of the glory of God” (v.2).

The first benefit is “peace with God.” The moment a believer is justified they are no longer enemies with God. Before justification the sinner faces the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18; 2:5), but those who believe in Jesus Christ are justified and are no longer enemies with God. By contrast, justification brings reconciliation to God through the death of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:9-10). Although justification is a judicial act, the result is nevertheless relational. Through Christ, God pardons believers of the sins they have committed and at the same time he also enters into an intimate relationship with them.[29]The result is that believers now enjoy the benefits of having a wonderful relationship with God.

The second benefit is that believers enjoy “access into this grace in which we stand” (5:2). Believers enter into this new relationship with God by his sovereign grace, not through any merit of their own. Paul paints a scene whereby Jesus Christ has achieved for the believer permanent access into the throne of God. The justified are ushered into the throne of God where they enjoy a permanent state of grace and security.[30] That is, believers have unending access to grace and will continue to stand in that grace until the final judgment.[31] Since believers stand in the grace of God they cannot fail to remain standing to the end.

The third benefit outlined at the beginning of chapter 5 is that believers can “rejoice in the hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:2). In an amazing transition, justification assures a future share in the glory of God to those who once scorned the glory of God (Rom. 1:21-23), and routinely fall short of it (Rom. 3:23).[32]The future aspect of this should not go unnoticed. The parallels of this passage in Romans 8 (verses 17, 18, 21, 30) reveal that the glory that is promised for the believer is a future reality and not a present possession.[33] Believers are at peace with God and have permanent access to the grace of God that will allow them to stand to the end. But the full promises of salvation are not consummated in this age. We await the wonderful future glorification in heaven, whereby we will finally be restored to the moral perfection and glory that Adam lost.[34]

Finally, we should note that when Paul speaks of the hope of future glorification, he means a sure confidence.[35] It does not mean that we hope for it in the sense that we hope it will come to pass. Those who have been justified are certain of this future restoration to the glory that Adam lost. Not only that, Paul tells us that believers will have a glory that surpasses that of Adam for we will be conformed to the likeness of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29).[36]

The Timing of Justification
Harking back to the accounting theme of Romans four, we should consider the declarative act of justification as a one-time transaction. Paul almost exclusively speaks of justification as a present reality stemming from a past action: “…a man is justified by faith…” (3:28); “…since we have been justified through faith…” (5:1); “…we have now been justified by his blood…” (5:9); “…it is with your heart that you believe and are justified” (10:10).

Not only does Paul speak of justification in the past tense, but he almost always speaks of it in relation to faith and belief. For Paul, faith results in right standing with God.[37] So then, justification happens the moment the sinner believes. This does not exclude the notion of a future declaration when we all stand before God in final judgment (Rom. 3:30; 14:10). But the future declaration will not change what has already been declared. Those who have put their faith in Christ have already been justified and they already know the verdict that will be pronounced on that day.

The Permanence of Justification
It is worth repeating that justification is a one-time transaction. As such, it will never be rescinded. When believers put their faith in Jesus Christ the condemnation that was due them is removed and they are placed into a new relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This new standing with God gives the believer an assurance of ultimate vindication. Paul has already described one of the benefits of justification to be the “the hope of the glory of God” (Rom.5:2). The hope that Paul speaks of is a sure confidence, “it will not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love for us” (Rom 5:5). He demonstrated his love for us in that; “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (5:8). Since God has sacrificed his own Son for us and we have been justified by his blood, “how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” (5:9). But we have also been reconciled to God through the death of Christ, so “how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through this life!” (Rom 5:10).

In Romans 5: 9-10, Paul confirms that our present spiritual status is justified and reconciled to God and that our current spiritual status is the guarantee of eternal life.[38] Paul is looking back on the enormity of the situation. God, through justification, has already accomplished the most difficult task. He has reconciled believers, those who were once enemies to God, to himself through the gracious gift of the sacrificial death of his son Jesus Christ. Since God has done all of that, he will most certainly vindicate those he has justified.

Furthermore, while speaking about the infinite chain of events spanning from eternity past to the eternal future, Paul says, “those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).[39] Some find it odd that Paul would speak of glorification in the past tense. But we should not be confused. As already noted, the glorification that Paul speaks of here does not begin in this life. Instead, he is referring to the certainty of the eschatological completion of the work that God began on behalf of believers in eternity past. What God has begun will be finished. No one will fall away. In other words, Paul could not speak of glorification in the past tense “if there were a possibility of the believer becoming unjustified.”[40] Justification is a permanent status that guarantees believers in Christ a glorious future with our glorious God.

Conclusion
As previously noted, the doctrine of justification is critical to the life of the church. That it was critical to the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans should also be clear. By and large the first four chapters of the letter focus on that most fundamental of religious questions: How can a man get right with God? Paul has shown that the only way fallen man can become right with God is by putting his complete faith and trust in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is done by faith alone, not by works and not through the Law of Moses. When the sinner puts his faith in Jesus Christ, God then considers the sinner righteous; that is, he is no longer an enemy with God but instead he is placed in right standing with God. The benefits of this transformation are enormous. Those who have been justified enjoy their new relationship with God which gives them the assurance of future glorification, when we will become transformed into the very likeness of Christ (Rom. 8:29).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akin, Daniel L., ed. A Theology For The Church. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007.
Allen, Kenneth W. "Justification by faith." Bibliotheca sacra 135, no. 538 (April 1, 1978): 109-116. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2010).
Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1986
Carson, Donald A. "Why Trust a Cross? Reflections on Romans 3:21-26." Evangelical Review of Theology 28, no. 4 (October 2004): 345-362. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2010).
Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2ded. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001.
Guthrie, D., and Motyer, J.A., eds. The New Bible Commentary: Revised. Grand Rapids :Eerdmans, 1970.
Hughes, R. Kent, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2004).
Moo, Douglas J. Encountering the Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
Tenney, Merrill C., and J.D. Douglas, eds. New International Bible Dictionary, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.
Vickers, Brian. Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006.
Wright, N.T. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2009.

[1] Daniel L. Akin, ed., A Theology For The Church (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2007), 745.
[2] James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1986), 416.
[3] N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2009), 88.

[4] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 968.
[5] Ibid.

[6] Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2009), 90.
[7] Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 968.
[8] Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1986), 418. Boice adds the parenthetical translation “justifying.” Erickson says basically the same thing without adding the translation. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 969.

[9] Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 968.
[10] James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 341.
[11] Akin, ed., A Theology For The Church (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2007), 751.

[12] Merril C. Tenney and J.D. Douglas, eds., New International Bible Dictionary. Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 559.
[13] Kenneth W. Allen.1978. "Justification by faith." Bibliotheca sacra 135, no. 538: 109-116. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2010), 110.
[14] Douglas J. Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002),62.
[15] Allen.1978. "Justification by faith." Bibliotheca sacra 135, no. 538: 109-116. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2010), 110.

[16] Allen.1978. "Justification by faith." Bibliotheca sacra 135, no. 538: 109-116. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2010), 111.
[17] Donald A. Carson 2004. "Why Trust a Cross? Reflections on Romans 3:21-26." Evangelical Review of Theology 28, no. 4: 345-362. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2010). 354.

[18] Ibid.
[19] Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 214.
[20] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 195.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Brian Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 91.
[23] R. Kent Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2004), 225.
[24] D. Guthrie and J.A.Motyer, eds. The New Bible Commentary: Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) p.1023.
[25] Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 377.
[26] Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002),91

[27] Ibid., 92.
[28] Schreiner, Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 254.

[29] Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002),103.
[30] Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary: Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) p.1024.
[31] Schreiner, Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 254.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid., 255.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid., 560.
[38] Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002),103.
[39] Allen.1978. "Justification by faith." Bibliotheca sacra 135, no. 538: 109-116. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2010), 114.

[40] Allen.1978. "Justification by faith." Bibliotheca sacra 135, no. 538: 109-116. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2010), 114.

When Was Daniel Written?

2010-10-17T14:51:00.005-04:00

Note: there was not enough space, for a paper of this length (5 pages), in which every detail of this topic could be covered. I tried to hit the main points.

Introduction
There are two principal views among scholars concerning the date of composition of the book of Daniel: the traditional view and the Maccabean thesis. Each view has important consequences with regards to the interpretation of the book as a whole, and in some respects with regards to how one perceives the legitimacy of divine revelation. This paper will give a brief overview of each position, and will explore the relative strengths, weaknesses, and theological consequences of both. The author will then argue in support of the traditional view.

The Maccabean Thesis
The Maccabean thesis originated with the third century A.D. neo-Platonist Porphyry, who believed the book of Daniel was a second century B.C. forgery.[1] Porphyry believed the book was composed by an unknown individual living in Judea during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.) as a means to encourage his fellow Jews during a time of great persecution. He claimed the author of Daniel did not foretell the future, but instead was relating what had already transpired.[2] The work of Porphyry lay virtually dormant until the rise of higher criticism in the seventeenth century.[3]The theory was revived and advanced by many scholars during that period and has maintained popular support since that time.

The chief argument of the Maccabean thesis hinges on concerns over the detailed prophecies of Daniel 11.[4] These prophecies contain very detailed and highly accurate descriptions from the time of Daniel up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Some scholars argue that these detailed prophecies are not the nature of biblical prophecy.[5] This position has its merits. A few conservative scholars agree that the intricate details some four hundred years prior are a legitimate concern.[6] This argument appears to be the strongest and thus the basis from which other objections to the traditional view flow.

Those who reject the prophecies of Daniel are correct in pointing out that the book was not placed among the prophetic division of the Hebrew canon. This is viewed as problematic for the traditional view because the prophetic division of the canon is considered to have been closed between 300-200 B.C., if not sooner.[7] Thus, Maccabean scholars surmise, and perhaps rightly so, that if the book of Daniel was indeed a sixth century B.C. work that it should have been included in the prophetic division of the Hebrew canon.

Maccabean theorists have also pointed out apparent sixth century B.C. historical inaccuracies in the book that they believe only a much later and ill informed author would have made. Critics have also pointed to vocabulary in the book that seems inconsistent with a sixth century B.C. composition. But many of these objections appear weak in light of modern archeological discoveries, which traditional scholars believe offer good explanations of these objections.[8]Still other critics argue that certain theological views in the book, such as angels, the Messiah, and the resurrection, are too highly developed to have been written in the sixth century B.C. However, these doctrines are in fact taught in other Old Testament Scriptures.[9]

In sum, the Maccabean thesis was originally built on the premise that prophecy, as foretelling the future, is impossible.[10] It cannot be denied that this presupposition carried over to many, though not all, who have advanced the theory since the rise of higher criticism.[11] The theological consequences of this position are important. Such a position generally rejects theism and denies the doctrine of supernatural revelation. The author concedes that not all Maccabean scholars conform exactly to this view; however it is clear that many do. These presuppositions exert a negative influence in regards to how people view God, and how they view the authority of his Word.

The Traditional View
The traditional view is that a historical figure named Daniel wrote the book largely as it exists today.[12]This view also holds that its prophecies are historically accurate and that its predictions are of supernatural origins. Scholars who adhere to this view believe the book was composed shortly after the last recorded events in the book, which occurred around 536 B.C.

Proponents of the traditional view often point out the testimony of Jesus and other biblical evidence in defense of their position. Jesus clearly affirmed that He believed Daniel was a historical figure who was an agent of divine revelation (Matt.24:14, Mark 13:14). Scholars also claim that Jesus affirmed a sixth century B.C composition.[13] In addition, proponents argue that Daniel accurately predicted the future far beyond the Maccabean period. For instance, Daniel 9:24-27 is a prophecy which traditional scholars believe was fulfilled at the time of Christ.[14] Nevertheless, biblical evidence alone is not sufficient to change the minds of scholars who adhere to the Maccabean thesis. In general, these scholars are skeptical of the historicity of the Scriptures as a whole.

Therefore, the author believes the strongest point of the traditional view rests in the discovery of portions of the book found with the Dead Sea manuscripts. These manuscripts have shown that Daniel was well known and revered during the Maccabean period. One particular document of the book is dated to the late second century B.C., which, according to the Maccabean thesis, is less than fifty years after its composition.[15] The significance of this document is that it is only a copy, which implies an earlier date of composition of the original.

Scholars rightly point out that if Daniel was a second-century forgery, there would not have been enough time for “Maccabean compositions to be circulated, venerated, and accepted as canonical Scripture by a Maccabean sect.”[16] It should also be noted that other Old Testament documents previously thought to have been written in the second century B.C. have been assigned earlier dates of composition, i.e. third century B.C. or earlier, as a result of their discovery in the Dead Sea scrolls.[17] Some argue that it would be disingenuous of Maccabean scholars not to afford Daniel the same revision.

In sum, the traditional view affirms the belief that the supernatural foretelling of the future is possible. The theological consequences to this view are positive in that it presupposes the existence of a transcendent personal God who is active in His Creation. But this view is not just based on blind faith. The traditional view is undergirded by the documents of the Dead Sea scrolls and other modern archaeological discoveries.

Conclusion
The author believes the evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls is the decisive point in this debate. For the Maccabean thesis to be correct, the book of Daniel must have a date of composition of the second century B.C. If Daniel was composed any earlier, then that would add a great deal of certainty to the doctrine of supernatural and divine revelation, given the detailed prophecies in the book concerning certain events and people of the second century B.C.

To that end, the Dead Sea discoveries have led some of the foremost scholars of our time to conclude that Daniel was written earlier than the second century B.C. Old Testament scholar R.K. Harrison argues that the Dead Sea manuscripts “absolutely precludes a date of composition in the Maccabean period.”[18]Stephen R. Miller is less dogmatic, but he concedes that a second century date for Daniel is difficult to maintain.[19]Given the evidence, it seems likely that Daniel was written before the Maccabean period.

A couple of points are in order with respects to the Hebrew prophetic canon. As mentioned earlier, critics are right when they point out that Daniel was placed with the Writings, instead of the Prophets, in the Hebrew canon. They believe this suggests a late date of composition for the book. However, it should be pointed out that some of the documents of the Writings are of “great antiquity,” such as many of the Psalms and Proverbs, and the book of Job.[20]Thus, position in the Writings section of the Hebrew canon should not be considered sufficient proof of a late date of composition.

In sum, the author believes the onus is on the Maccabean scholars to refute the evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls. As already mentioned, this evidence is highly suggestive of a date of composition prior to the second century B.C. This evidence, combined with the testimony of Jesus and the spectacular fulfillment of the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy, lead the author to conclude that the book of Daniel was written by the historical figure Daniel, sometime shortly after 536 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Boice, James Montgomery. Daniel. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999.
________. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.
Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.
Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. vol. 18, The New American Commentary. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1994.
Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.

[1] John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 16.
[2] Ibid. Walvoord quotes directly from Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel

[3]Ibid., 17.
[4] James Montgomery Boice, Daniel (Grand Rapids:Baker Books, 1989), 111. Boice says of chapter 11,“ this is the chief reason the liberal school wants to put the writing of Daniel in the time of the Maccabees.”

[5]Stephen R. Miller, Daniel vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1994), 33.

[6] Ibid. Miller quotes, and apparently agrees with, D.R.G. Beattie, “What would be the point of revealing to someone in 6^th-century Babylon a detailed account of the history of 2^nd century Palestine?”

[7] Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 19. Walvoord actually quotes from a Maccabean proponent here.

[8] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 179-180. Space does not permit a full discussion of these issues. Geisler and the other authors listed in this paper have detailed and convincing rebuttals of these issues.

[9] Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 284.

[10] Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 21. Walvoord (and others for that matter ) says this was the original premise of Porphyry.
[11] R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 1111. Harrison argues that this presupposition greatly influenced many Maccabean scholars.
[12] Miller, Daniel vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1994), 23. Miller notes that traditional scholars accept that there have been some updates to the text as it was copied through the centuries, mostly to update some language.

[13] Ibid., 35. Miller says that the only view during the time of Christ was the 6^th cen. date, therefore Christ affirmed the date.

[14] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 179

[15] Ibid., 38.

[16] Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 1127

[17] Miller, Daniel vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1994), 38. Miller notes revisions of date of composition for parts of the Psalter and Ecclesiastes.

[18] Miller, Daniel vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1994), 39. Miller quotes Harrison.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 424.

The Millennial Reign of Christ.

2010-09-18T17:34:00.004-04:00

Author’s note: This paper is strictly about the three millennial views. Thus, there is no discussion of other topics, such as the rapture and the tribulation. These are sub issues and we were strictly forbidden from discussing those issues in this paper.

Few issues throughout church history have been as divisive as the debate over the nature of the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ. The debate is mostly centered on the interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6. Specifically, the debate among theologians is whether Revelation 20 should be interpreted literally or symbolically, and how it relates to other Scriptures that speak about the earthly kingdom of Jesus Christ. There have been three distinct views among theologians throughout the whole of church history: amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism. The purpose of this paper is to explore the strengths, the weaknesses, and the history of each position and to argue that premillennialism is the position that fits best with the whole of the Bible.

AMILLENNIALISM

Amillennialism is the belief that there will be no literal millennial reign of Christ on earth. Theologians see two principal views among amillennialists. First, some amillennialists believe that the Old Testament promise of the kingdom of the Messiah is currently being fulfilled in heaven where Christ rules alongside the disembodied saints. Secondly, others believe the kingdom is currently being fulfilled on earth through the church.[1]Overall, this view is based primarily on a symbolic interpretation of any passage of Scripture relating to the kingdom.

In addition, amillennialists view Revelation 20 as a summary of the church age from the resurrection of Christ to the end of the age. They believe that at the end of the church age Christ will return and impose the great final judgment upon the righteous and the wicked.[2] Those who adhere to this view believe that Satan was bound at the death and resurrection of Christ, and that his power to deceive the world is restricted as the church carries out the fulfillment of the Great Commission.[3] Thus, for amillennialists, the reign of the saints with Christ “for a thousand years” (Rev. 20:4 NIV) is not a literal one thousand years, but rather is occurring now through the church on earth, or through the disembodied souls of the saints in heaven.

History and Development of Amillennialism

The historical development of this position is difficult to trace. This is partly because it is difficult at times to differentiate between amillennialism and postmillennialism. Indeed, both positions share many common features, the exception being that postmillennialists believe in an earthly reign of Christ, although they do not believe it will be a physical reign.

It is widely held that Augustine was one of the first main contributors to amillennialism. He was one of the first to suggest that the one thousand years of Revelation 20 should be interpreted symbolically rather than literally.[4] Nevertheless, postmillennialism and amillennialism were simply not differentiated much for the first nineteen centuries of the church. It was not until the twentieth century, when postmillennialism began to fade, that amillennialism gained in popularity.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Amillennialism

The greatest strength of this position is its simplicity. Amillennialists interpret most, if not all, of Revelation symbolically. In fact, they often point out that the most ardent premillennialist does not interpret everything in the Revelation literally. By simple extension of this methodology then, amillennialists believe Revelation 20 is most likely not literal either. In defense of this position they normally point to the fact that the millennium is mentioned nowhere else in Scripture.[5] The strength of this method is that amillennialists are at the very least consistent in their symbolic interpretation of the book of Revelation.

But the simplicity of this approach leads to its biggest weakness. Trying to interpret everything symbolically creates some major exegetical problems for amillennialists. The most glaring of these problems occurs in Revelation 20:4-5. These two verses repeat the same Greek phrase, translated “came to life”(v.4) and “come to life” (v.5), twice. The term in verse 4 describes the resurrection of the saints, who come to life to reign with “Christ for a thousand years.” In verse 5, the term describes the resurrection of the “rest of the dead,” who do not come to life until the end of the thousand years.

Because they view the one thousand years symbolically, amillennialists force the interpretation of this identical phrase in these two verses to mean two different types of resurrection for the saints: one spiritual (v.4) and one bodily (v.5). In other words, they see the first resurrection as either new spiritual life after conversion (thus the saints are ruling with Christ on earth now) or the intermediate state of believers in heaven after death (thus the disembodied saints are currently ruling with Christ in heaven).

This interpretation is possible but it seems highly unlikely. The phrase in question most often refers to physical or bodily resurrection, which is clearly intended in 20:5-6.[6] In addition, there is no hint in the context that the phrase is being used in two different senses.[7] Thus, the amillennialist interpretation of two resurrections for the saints is weak, at best.

This seems even more so when viewed against their understanding of the reign of the saints. The Scriptures never describe the reign of the saints as the activity of disembodied souls from heaven. Rather, the Scriptures associate the rule of the saints as “sons of God,” with the resurrection of their bodies (Romans 8:18-23).[8] Moreover, Jesus clearly says in the Revelation that the saints will rule over the nations with an “iron scepter,” and they [the saints] “will dash them [the nations] to pieces like pottery” (Rev. 2:26-27). This does not sound like the rule of disembodied souls from heaven, but rather it describes the literal, physical rule of the saints.

Another weakness of amillennialism is its belief that Satan has already been bound and sealed in the abyss so that he cannot deceive the nations (Rev. 20:2-3). This belief just simply cannot be reconciled against the backdrop of the current age in which we live. Nor can this view be reconciled with the Scriptures, which remind us that Satan is very much alive and at work in this present age (2 Cor. 4:3-4, 1 Pet. 5:8, 1 John 5:19).

POSTMILLENNIALISM

Postmillennialism is the position that believes the Great Commission will ultimately be fulfilled with the conversion of the entire world. The conversion of the entire world will then usher in a period of peace and harmony as Jesus rules over the nations. According to this view, the rule of Christ on earth is not physical, but rather spiritual: as the whole world is converted, Christ will reign through the human heart.[9] Postmillennialism is an optimistic view of the end times. It expects conditions to become better prior to the return of Christ. Once the gospel has taken full effect, then Christ will return.

According to this view the millennium is not necessarily a literal thousand years; instead it will be an extended period of time. This view is not based so much on Revelation 20. But rather, postmillennialists focus their interpretation of the millennial reign of Christ on the kingdom parables of Matthew 13 and other Scriptures. Postmillennialists see the kingdom spreading like leaven: slowly but gradually through the whole. Its growth will be so slow that the beginning of the millennium might be barely noticeable to some.[10] Thus, the gradual nature of the building kingdom does not require a literal thousand years. After this period of global peace, Satan will be released and he will then lead one final rebellion, which will be quickly put down (Rev. 20:7-10), and the eternal state will be ushered in.

History and Development of Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism was the dominate view from the time of Constantine through the end of the nineteenth century. During the beginning of this period Christianity saw the demise of its biggest opponent, the Roman Empire. As a result, it was genuinely believed that the gospel would continue to prosper throughout the world, and that the completion of the millennium would occur by the year one thousand.[11]

Of course, this position was revised after the first one thousand years of church history. Thereafter, the millennium was no longer viewed as a literal thousand years, but as a whole of church history.[12] Postmillennialism reached its peak in popularity during the late nineteenth century as world missions and progress in social conditions led many to believe that the millennial reign of Christ was at hand. However, this view saw a considerable decline during the twentieth century as the world was plunged into two world wars and the atomic age.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Postmillennialism

The major strength of postmillennialism rests in several Old and New Testament Scriptures that underpin the main tenet of this belief: the successful spread of the gospel. Proponents of this view cite Psalms 47, 72 and 100; Isaiah 45:22-25; and Hosea 2:23 as proof that all nations will come to know God.[13] They also cite the words of Jesus, “And this gospel… will be preached…to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt. 24:14).

But the idea that the kingdom will be ushered in gradually does not fit with the whole of Scripture. Overall, the kingdom is depicted as overcoming the kingdoms of the earth in one cataclysmic event in conjunction with the second coming of Christ (Rev. 19: 11-21; Dan. 2:44; Matt. 13:38-43).[14] In addition, the Scriptures do not indicate that conditions on earth will improve before the second coming of Christ. And as already mentioned, the Scriptures do not indicate that Satan has already been bound, but rather he is still alive and well deceiving the nations at every opportunity.

PREMILLENNIALISM

Premillennialism is the belief that Jesus Christ will return to earth personally and bodily to initiate a literal one thousand year reign with his resurrected disciples over the entire world. The historic premillennial position has held that Jesus will resurrect those who have trusted in him at the onset of his second coming, thus initiating their promised rule with him.[15] The armies fighting against the returning Christ at the Battle of Armageddon will be destroyed and Satan will be bound for the next thousand years (Rev. 20:1-4). The unconverted humans who survive the last battle will have no choice but to submit to the rule of Christ and his disciples. These earthly survivors will continue to “live, marry, and repopulate the earth.”[16] Thus, the curse of Genesis 3 will not totally be reversed until the end of the thousand year reign.

Premillennialists believe that during the millennial kingdom of Christ the nations will no longer wage war against one another, but rather Jesus Christ and his saints will rule in peace. In accordance with Revelation 20, at the end of the thousand years Satan will be released for a short time and he will lead a rebellion with the remaining human subjects against the kingdom of Christ. This rebellion will result in the final defeat of Satan and will culminate with the final judgment of the wicked.

History and Development of Premillennialism

It is believed that premillennialism was the dominant millennial view during the earliest stage of church history.[17] The early church endured severe persecution and many believers during this time anticipated a quick and triumphal return of Jesus Christ over their oppressors. Noted church fathers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and other early theologians held to this view.[18] However, it began to fade from popularity rather quickly, primarily because of the millennial view of Augustine and the fact that Christ had not returned quickly. As a result, postmillennial and amillennial views were primarily the dominant views until the mid-nineteenth century. Thereafter, premillennialism began to grow in popularity among conservative evangelicals.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Premillennialism

The strengths of premillennialism are many. First, this view fits best with a good and natural exegesis of Revelation 20. As discussed above, this is especially true with regards to the first and second resurrections (Rev. 20:4-5). The author believes the best interpretation of these two verses is that of two bodily resurrections: one for the saints at the beginning of the millennium and one at the end for the unrighteous.

Additionally, premillennialism makes the most sense in conjunction with the future hope given to future martyrs throughout the Revelation. This hope is a promise to those who overcome that they will be raised from the dead and will rule over the nations (Rev. 2:26; 3:21; 12:5).[19] Lastly, this view also fits best with the Old Testament Scriptures which foresee an earthly messianic rule during a time when there is still death, sin, and enemies of the Messiah.[20] Overall, the strength of the premillennial position is that it seems to fit best with the whole of Scripture.

One of the apparent difficulties for the premillennial position is the rebellion at the end of the millennial reign (Rev. 20:7-10). Specifically, the problem surrounds the identity of the people in rebellion. Some contend that Jesus taught that at the end of the current age people will no longer be able to marry or be given in marriage (Luke 20: 34-39). Thus, the implication is that during the millennial reign, as premillennialists interpret it being at the end of this age, there should be no more people in natural bodies and therefore there should not be a rebellion at the end of the reign of Christ. Those who cite this problem usually charge that premillennialists are inconsistent in their approach to the literal interpretation of Scripture.

CONCLUSION

Determining which view of the millennial reign of Christ is correct is not an easy task. The author concedes that, as with most issues relating to theology, it is not easy to choose one view that is supported by all the data. Nevertheless, the author believes the overwhelming biblical evidence favors a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20. The reasons for this position are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Of the three views, the postmillennial view is the most untenable. The optimism that this view has of the end times is not only out of touch with our society today, but it is also out of sync with the Scriptures. There is no hint that the entire world is nearing conversion to Christianity. The percentage of practicing Christians in some parts of the world are very small and missionary success is on the decline.[21]Nor is there any hint that the overall conditions of the world are improving. Finally, every indication of Scripture is that Christ will be physically present during the millennial reign.

Likewise, the amillennial view is lacking cohesion with the current state of world affairs and with the Scriptures. As we recall, this view believes that the binding of Satan occurred at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ. Given the state of world affairs, it is difficult to see how Satan is no longer deceiving the world. This position also lacks coherence with the multiple passages of Scripture that talk about an earthly, physical reign of the Messiah. And as already mentioned, this view strains the normal hermeneutics in relation to its explanation of two different types of resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:4-5.

Therefore, the premillennial view of Revelation 20 must be viewed as the strongest of the three positions. The biggest strength of the premillennial view is its interpretation of a physical, earthly reign of Jesus Christ. Some critics contend that this position is based solely on Revelation 20. But this is simply not the case. The physical return of Jesus Christ occupies a large portion of both the New and Old Testaments. Most of the prophecies in the Old Testament pertaining to the coming of the Messiah do not deal with his first coming, but instead focus on his second coming in which he is seen ruling as a king over all the earth.[22] Moreover, the Bible also clearly associates the resurrected saints of all ages as reigning alongside Christ (Isa. 55:3-4; Jer. 30:9; 33:15-17; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11).[23] The premillennial interpretation of an earthly, physical reign of Jesus Christ with the saints is consistent with the whole of Scripture.

Likewise, the belief that the binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1-3) is a future event is equally strong. That he is still active in this present age should be plain for everyone to see. But this is also the plain teaching of the New Testament. Paul clearly talks about the active works of Satan when he writes, “The god [Satan] of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Cor. 4:4). Peter describes the current work of Satan as a prowling lion “looking for someone to devour,” and believers are told to “resist him” (1 Pet. 5:8-9). There should be no doubt that Satan is not yet chained. The present condition of the world and the plain teaching of the New Testament support this view.

In sum, the author believes that it has been clearly demonstrated why the premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 is best. It has been shown that this view uses the best exegesis and normal hermeneutical approach in interpreting the Scriptures. It has also been demonstrated that this view is clearly not predicated on one small section of Scripture. Rather, the premillennial view is decidedly coherent with the plethora of Old and New Testament Scriptures that foretell of a literal, future, and bodily return of Jesus Christ in which he will rule over the nations alongside the resurrected saints of all ages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akin, Daniel L., ed. A Theology For The Church. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007.
Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1986
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2ded. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001.
Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Towns, Elmer L. Theology For Today. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2002.
Walvoord, John F. Jesus Christ Our Lord. Chicago:Moody Publishers, 1969.

[1] Elmer L. Towns, Theology For Today (Belmont: Wadsworth, 2002), 800.

[2] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 1218.

[3] Daniel L. Akin, ed., A Theology For The Church (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2007), 908.
[4] Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 1219.
[5] Ibid, 1220.

[6] Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 707.
[7] Akin, ed., A Theology For The Church (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2007), 908.
[8] Ibid., 909.
[9] Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 1213.

[10] Ibid., 1215.
[11] Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 1213.
[12] Ibid., 1214.

[13] Ibid., 1214.

[14] Akin, ed., A Theology For The Church (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2007), 910.
[15] Ibid., 911.
[16] Ibid.
[17]Erickson , Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 1215.
[18] Ibid., 1216.
[19] Akin, ed., A Theology For The Church (Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2007), 911.

[20] Ibid.
[21] Erickson , Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 1222.
[22] James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1986), 705.

[23] John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ our Lord (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1969), 283.

The 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14

2010-09-10T10:57:00.003-04:00

The identity of the 144,000 people mentioned in chapters 7 and 14 of Revelation is not an easy matter to resolve. In fact, it is difficult to find two scholars with the exact same interpretation regarding the identity of the 144,000 mentioned in both chapters. Nevertheless, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the numerous interpretations in an attempt to decipher the best explanation regarding the identity of the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7 and 14.

Some scholars view the 144,000 in chapter 7 in direct correlation to the martyrs of Revelation 6:11; “…until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also” (NASB). Those who adhere to this view stress the completeness of the number 12x12x1000. They see the 144,000 as the completed number of martyrs during this period.[1] But this view is problematic at best. It does not adequately explain the list of the 12 tribes in Revelation7:5-8. Also, the completion mentioned in 6:11 most likely refers to the great multitude mentioned in 7:9. That these are the same seems likely given the fact that both groups are wearing “white robes” (compare 6:11 with 7:9).[2] Thus, the author views this explanation as unlikely.

Other scholars see the 144,000 as the “new sons of god.” This view sees John contrasting the 144,000 with the “sons of God” of Genesis 6:1-4. This view hinges on the interpretation of the phrase, “…who have not been defiled with women…” (Rev. 14:4 NASB). Some scholars believe this verse to be a direct parallel with the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1-36). [3]This interpretation sees John hinting at angelic status for the redeemed.[4] This view also seems untenable in view of the fact that Scripture never indicates that the redeemed will ever become angels.

The principal debate among scholars is whether the 144,000 refers to the nation of Israel or the church.[5] The plain reading of our English translations seems to indicate that the 144,000 of chapter 7 are Jews from “every tribe of the sons of Israel” (Rev. 7:4, NASB). The fact that John lists the twelve tribes of Israel in verses 5-8 adds credence to the belief that the 144,000 are in fact Jews. Moreover, it should be noted that ‘Israel’ always refers to the Jewish people in the Bible and the use of ‘every tribe’ is difficult to spiritualize into something other than the nation of Israel.[6] It seems best to conclude that the use of the terms ‘Israel’ and ‘every tribe’ means that John intended for the reader to make a literal interpretation.

Those who disagree with this view argue that the overall emphasis of Revelation is the overcoming of the church during this period of persecution. They point out that the New Testament as a whole refers to the church as the new or true Israel. Supporters of this view cite certain New Testament passages as Matthew 19:28, Galatians 6:16, Galatians 3:29, and Romans 2:29 to support this view.[7] However, it should be noted that such an interpretation from these texts are circumstantial at best. Moreover, in no way do these texts prevent a literal interpretation of Revelation 7:4.

In sum, the author believes the literal interpretation of Revelation 7:4 is the best interpretation. This seems even more likely when we consider Revelation chapter 12. The ‘woman’ and ‘her offspring’ in chapter 12 is a clear reference to Israel and the converted Jews during the time of tribulation.[8] In addition, the author believes the 144,000 mentioned in chapter 14 are also the same group of people. Both groups are clearly identified with the nation of Israel. In chapter 7 they are identified with the 12 tribes of Israel (7: 4-8), and in chapter 14 they are identified with Mount Zion (14:1).[9] Therefore, the author believes the best interpretation is to view the 144,000 in Revelation 7 and 14 to be the same group of Jews who will convert to Christianity during the time of Tribulation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hindson, Edward. The Book of Revelation: Unlocking the Future.Twenty-first Century Biblical Commentary Series, Gen. eds Mal Couch and Ed Hindson. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2002.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. Revelation. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed. Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1997.
Olson, Daniel C. "`Those who have not defiled themselves with women': Revelation 14:4 and the book of Enoch." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59, no. 3 (July 1997): 492. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 8, 2010).
Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

[1] Grant R. Osborne. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 310-311.
[2] J. Ramsey Michaels. Revelation. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed. Grant R. Osborne. (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 115.
[3] Osborne, Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 529.
[4] Daniel C. Olson 1997. "`Those who have not defiled themselves with women': Revelation 14:4 and the book of Enoch." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59, no. 3: 492. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 8, 2010).

[5] Osborne, Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 311.
[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 312.

[8] Edward Hindson. The Book of Revelation: Unlocking the Future.Twenty-first Century Biblical Commentary Series, Gen. eds Mal Couch and Ed Hindson.(Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2002), 89.
[9] Ibid., 154.

Challenges Facing Modern Christianity in India

2010-08-19T11:05:00.001-04:00

The growth of contemporary Christianity in India has been a remarkable event in the history of Christianity. Consider the following statistics. It is estimated that the Christian population in India exceeds that of every western European Country except Germany.[1] According to the World Christian Database, the Christian population of India as of 2005 was just over 68 million, which makes India the seventh largest Christian population in the world today.[2] These are remarkable statistics indeed. However, Christianity is still a significant minority in India and there are considerable threats to the continued growth of contemporary Christianity. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the continued growth of contemporary Christianity in India faces several diverse challenges, including complex social issues, a host of varying Christian influences, and political intolerance.

Perhaps the most formidable obstacle facing modern Christianity in India is the social stigma attached to new converts. This shame is very much real and has important consequences. There are two longstanding social paradigms that must be overcome. First, is the view that loyalty to family and the caste community in which one lives is of supreme importance.[3] Secondly, is the longstanding pervasive belief that Christianity is not an Indian religion, but rather is a construct of western colonial powers that has been forced on India.

Such beliefs make it difficult for Indian Christians to fully devote themselves to Christ. Those who do fully convert to Christianity are often viewed as turning their back on thousands of years of religious and cultural heritage. Most importantly, they are seen as rejecting the role that family plays in both the present and in the future life, and rejecting the all important caste system which is central to the way of life in India.[4] One way this social stigma affects Christianity can be seen in the emergence of a group called the Yesu Bhaktas.

The term Yesu Bhaktas, meaning ‘Devotee of Jesus,’ encompasses a large and growing movement among Christians in India, including a group known as the ‘Non Baptized Believers.’ These groups wish to profess Jesus, but do so privately, and at the same time stay true to their social and traditional religious obligations. These types of Christians have birthed a new phrase in India called ‘Churchless Christianity.’[5] Of course, such a phrase is troubling to most theologically conscious Christians. For the Bible makes it clear that true believers of Jesus Christ are members of the Body of Christ, i.e. the church.

And yet Yesu Bhaktas believe that being a follower of Christ does not mean that you must become a Christian. They view that as a false teaching of the colonial era missionaries, who, they believe, saw the Hindu lifestyle as demonic and tried to convince Indian converts to reject their way of life. Thus, Yesu Bhaktas have an eclectic approach to Christianity. They reject baptism but they expect Jesus to take them to heaven and to take care of their non-professing wives and children. They understand that the Christian life requires avoiding a sinful life and doing good to others, but on the other hand they admit they would not be interested in going to a cottage prayer meeting or having fellowship with other believers.[6]

Obviously, Yesu Bhaktas and others like them present many obstacles for missionaries in India who are striving to make fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ. Other groups along this line include the numerous tribal religions in the country. As with the Yesu Bhaktas, these groups are typically open to the Christian religion. Here the problem for Christianity is not so much an established social order, but rather overcoming the distinctiveness of these tribal religions which practice, in no uncertain terms, a form of pantheism. Many of these tribes might accept Christianity but refuse to give up their worship of creation. For these people, an understanding of being one with creation is the foundation for all religion.[7]

These groups are but a small sample of the inherent problems modern Christianity faces in regards to the well-established beliefs of the Indian culture. A common theme that seems to run through each group is some form of syncretism, the practice of praying to all gods and believing that all gods are equal and are legitimate paths to the ultimate goal. Modern missionaries in India are still grappling with this issue. It makes it difficult to decipher between those who are truly devoted to Christ from those who are seeking to add to their list of gods.

Another problem for modern Christianity is the diverse nature of the expression of the religion. Despite what modern Hindu nationalists espouse, Christianity has a long and diverse history in India dating back to the earliest part of the Christian era. For centuries the Christians in India were completely isolated from the mainstream Church of the west. As a result, these first Christians, who were part of the ‘first wave,’ worshipped in ways that were at odds with the Orthodox church of the west. These first Christians were then followed by the Catholic missions of the second wave, the Protestant missions as the third wave, and now scholars see the fourth wave as the increasing influence of Pentecostalism.[8]

Pentecostalism in particular has seen a large increase in adherents in India during the past century. It is estimated that twenty percent of Protestant Christians in India have some affiliation with this movement.[9] Like the tribal pantheists discussed above, many tribal versions of Pentecostalism have similar mixtures of Christian and Indian religious beliefs. For instance, some folk churches that are Pentecostal are lead by ‘gurus’, who are expected to have the gift of healing. Some of these gurus believe that baptism is not required of Christians. They believe that their healing of the sick and the casting out of demons to be proof of their Christianity.[10] This sort of doctrine seems to be exactly what the Lord Jesus warned about in Matthew chapter seven, verses twenty-one through twenty-three.

Nevertheless, the main point of emphasis here is that the Christian faith in India is very diverse and is intermingled with various expressions of the Hindu religion. Such intermingling makes it difficult for modern missionaries to make fully devoted followers of Christ who are willing to cast off their allegiance to the various Hindu social and religious structures.

The established social and religious structures are indeed difficult obstacles to overcome. Just as difficult, it seems, is the current political structure of the country. In 1947 India finally achieved political autonomy. One of the results of this independence was the partitioning of the sub-continent into two countries: the Islamic state of Pakistan and the secular nation of India. But secularism in India did not necessarily entail hostility toward religion, not at the beginning of the independent state anyway, or even a strict separation of church and state. On the contrary, the Indian form of secularism was at first committed to the development of many religions.[11]

The first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, believed that India should be a composite nation that should consist of multiple religions and ethnicities. He believed that such diversity would enrich the nation and serve to merge the multiple people groups into one ethos.[12] As a result, the first four decades of Indian independence featured a relatively flourishing Christianity with little to no meddling or hostility from the government.

But all of that began to change during the end of the twentieth century as the political climate of India began to shift. At the forefront of the change was a return to the old ideologies of Hindu nationalism, which views Christianity as a construct of the colonial period and a view that is prejudiced and hostile toward both Muslim and Christian minorities in the country.[13] This political shift resulted in the rise of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which came to power via a targeted campaign to illicit fear of ‘the outsider’ among the growing middle class of the nation.

This group, and their general ideology, poses a great threat to Christianity in India moving forward. They have successfully employed technologies of mass media, including state-run television, political propaganda, electioneering, and new sources of wealth generated by the emerging Indian economy in order to consolidate their strength and influence.[14] The BJP has been responsible for a series of attacks against Christians, including churches being destroyed, assaults and rapes of nuns, and brutal murders of priests.^{^[15]}

In sum, it has been demonstrated that the continued growth of Christianity in India faces many challenges. It should be noted that there are many other challenges facing modern Christianity in India which we simply do not have time to discuss in this forum. However, the author believes the examples mentioned in this paper serve to illustrate the core issues that lie at the heart of most of the problems facing Christianity in modern India. There should be little doubt that the social, religious, and political structures of India are inherently at odds with the main tenets of the Christian faith.

Altogether, these issues put Christians in India in a precarious position. They find themselves situated between a modernizing India on one hand and still an ever present struggle against old prejudices and well-entrenched social, religious and hostile political practices on the other. Modern missionaries must proceed with caution in making new disciples. This entails learning how to convince new converts that Christianity is not just one of many religious paths to god, and also avoiding alienating the powerful Hindu nationalists. The future of Christianity in India depends greatly on just how well these two obstacles can be overcome by the current and future generations of both indigenous and missionary Christians in India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aleaz, K P. "A tribal Christian theology from India." Asia Journal of Theology 19, no. 2 (October 1, 2005): 379-394. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed August 11, 2010).

Bhakiaraj, Paul Joshua. "New faces of the church: an Indian case study." Evangelical Review of Theology 34, no. 1 (January 1, 2010): 79-83. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed August 11, 2010).

Frykenberg, Robert Eric. Christianity in India: From Beginnings to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

McLeod, Hugh, Ed. The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 9, World Christianities c. 1914-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Raj, P Solomon. "The influence of pentecostal teaching on some folk Christian religions in India." International Review of Mission 75, no. 297 (January 1, 1986): 39-46. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed August 11, 2010).

[1] Robert Eric Frykenberg. Christianity in India:From Beginnings to the Present. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), vi-vii.

[2] Ibid., vii.

[3] Paul Joshua Bhakiaraj. 2010. "New faces of the church: an Indian case study." Evangelical Review of Theology 34, no. 1: 79-83. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed August 11, 2010), 79.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 80, 81.

[7] K.P. Aleaz. 2005. "A tribal Christian theology from India." Asia Journal of Theology 19, no. 2: 379-394. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed August 11, 2010).

[8] Frykenberg. Christianity in India:From Beginnings to the Present. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 465.

[9] Ibid., 466.

[10] P Solomon Raj. 1986. "The influence of pentecostal teaching on some folk Christian religions in India." International Review of Mission 75, no. 297: 39-46. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed August 11, 2010), 43.

[11] Hugh McLeod, Ed. The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 9, World Christianities c. 1914-2000. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.), 432.

[12] Ibid.

[13]Ibid., 434.

[14] Ibid.

[15]Ibid., 435.

The Decline of European Christianity

2010-08-04T17:06:00.001-04:00

It has been nearly one hundred years since the European journalist Hilaire Belloc reported of Catholicism, “Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe.”[1] Indeed, just a century ago Europe was still regarded as the center of Christianity from which for the previous three hundred years missionaries had ventured from there to other parts of the world to convert the unevangelized. Now just a century later most of Europe is distinctly post-Christian and in dire need of evangelization itself. The purpose of this paper will be to explore the reasons for this dramatic decline in Europe during the past century. Specifically, the author will argue that the decline of Christianity in Europe is the culmination of the growth of religious tolerance and secular humanism, which have taken root as a result of a series of religious, political and social revolutions across the continent since the time of the Reformation.

The descent of Europe into a post-Christian continent has been a long and drawn out process.[2] The beginnings of the decline of Christianity across Europe can be traced as far back as the Reformation. It was the Reformation and the subsequent Wars of Religion that fragmented Christianity into various sects and impressed upon the rulers of Europe the futility of imposing any single orthodoxy over another. For the leaders of Europe, little could be done but to accept the diversity of Christianity and get on with the business of governing.[3]

Such was the backdrop of what we commonly refer to as the beginning of the modern era. It was the beginning of the era of toleration. Not just religious toleration, but it also morphed into the toleration of various beliefs and practices that were inherently opposed to the traditional tenets of Christianity.

The beginning of religious toleration is first seen toward the end of the sixteenth century. After the Reformation and the Wars of Religion, it was generally accepted that the people of Europe would follow the religion of their respective kings.[4] However, during the late sixteenth century religious toleration was already under way in many European countries. For instance, during this time several cities in Germany allowed Catholics and Lutherans to have equal rights. In France, the Edict of Nantes allowed for partial tolerance of Protestants.[5]

The Edict of Nantes would eventually be revoked in 1685. However, as Europe moved into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries religious and non-religious toleration started to become the norm. By the late eighteenth century toleration laws had been enacted in Britain, Ireland, Austria, France, and parts of Germany. The countries of Denmark, Sweden, and Spain would follow with their own toleration laws in the mid-nineteenth century.[6]

Toleration of other forms of Christianity was not all that was happening during this time. In 1694 England abolished censorship. One of the results was an increase in a number of books advocating Deism. By the early eighteenth century Deism had become fashionable among the intellectual elite of Britain.[7]In addition, by this time Enlightenment thought and rationalism was becoming firmly entrenched among the intellectually elite across all of Europe, especially in France and Germany. It should be no surprise then that statistics show that from the mid-eighteenth century to the start of the nineteenth century a significant decline in Christian observance was already under way in both France and Germany.[8]

Nevertheless, by the start of the nineteenth century Christianity was still dominant among the masses. But the age of tolerance and rational thinking was now firmly in place across Europe and the nineteenth century would see big changes in the way Christianity was viewed. The biggest change started to occur in the mid part of the century as the ever increasing field of the natural sciences began to acquire prestige as a way to truth.[9] The people of Europe began to view science as far superior to religious tradition. In fact, by 1914 far fewer Europeans believed in the story of Noah and the Ark compared to just one hundred years earlier.[10] There is no doubt that as Europe entered the twentieth century the ideas of naturalism and toleration were forcing the continent into the ideology of secular humanism.

Secular humanism can be defined as the “the practice and advocacy of nontheistic humanism by legislators, judges, scientists, educators, writers, and entertainers.”[11]It is a belief that advocates moral relativism and excludes all considerations of the existence of God. In effect, secular humanism is an ideology that believes there is no consensus to what is or is not sacred and or moral.

The rise of secular humanism across Europe happened in two distinct ways during the twentieth century. During the first half of the century the continent was plagued by a series of radical Socialist regimes, which viewed Christianity as a tool of oppression used by the upper classes to keep the poor and destitute under their control.[12] The Socialists ideologies were a direct result of the rise of secular humanism and naturalism that had come to life in the previous century. These influences can be seen in how the Socialist regimes devalued human life, believed in delusions of race superiority, and in their overt anti-religion bias.

The anti-religious Socialist regimes plunged Europe into two World Wars, the second of which ended in 1945 with large scale death and destruction across the continent. No one believed that these ideologies would overturn Christendom in the traditional Christian stronghold of Europe. But the fact that these so-called Christian nations killed millions of people seriously wounded Christianity in Europe for the next half century and perhaps beyond.

Indeed, post war Europe would continue its descent into secular humanism. The second distinct way in which secularism would make its mark in Europe would be during the radical social movements of the second half of the century. Most notable among the radical social movements in relation to Christianity was the sexual revolution beginning around 1960.

This movement was distinctly secular in origin as governments began to enact legislation that was overtly non-Christian. Great Britain led the way by liberalizing laws on obscenity (1959), abortion (1967), divorce (1969), homosexual acts between consenting adults (1967), abolition of theatre censorship (1968), and provisions for contraceptives for unmarried couples (1967).[13] There was some objection by Christian leaders in Europe during the time. However, the old European ideology of toleration would secure the permanent liberalization of these laws. While most of the leaders for change were secularists there was much support to be found among the churches. It seems that European Christians resigned themselves to the notion that their society was becoming increasingly pluralistic and therefore compromise and toleration was necessary.[14]

Some argue that these changes have not changed the face of European Christianity. But this view seems untenable in view of the overwhelming statistics that show a rapid decrease in Christian affiliation across the European continent within the past fifty years. In France alone, between 1958 and 1990, the proportion of babies receiving Catholic baptism fell from 91 percent to 51 percent and the proportion of Catholic weddings during the same period fell from 79 percent to 51 percent.[15]

Statistics show that in Germany in 1967 two-thirds of Germans believed that the Bible was the Word of God but by 1992 only half of them believed that, and only one out of ten believed that the Bible was without error.[16] In addition, in 1967 25 percent of Germans attended Church “every or almost every” Sunday, but that number had decreased to 10 percent by 1992.[17] These numbers are not isolated to these two countries. Most, if not all, European countries have similar statistics. There should be little doubt that these statistics reflect the emergence of a substantial portion of the population that has rejected any kind of Christian identity, either because they now belong to another faith, or more likely because they do not associate themselves with any religion whatsoever.[18]

In sum, the author believes the decline of Christianity has been a long process that first began with religious toleration among different sects of Christianity. At the same time, toleration began to include non-traditional Christian beliefs which ultimately forced Europe into a secular society. The author does not believe that toleration of the views of other people is necessarily a negative influence upon Christian beliefs. However, the European example is one of toleration that ultimately led to acceptance of non-traditional Christian beliefs by a large portion of the population.

The decline of Christianity can be clearly traced from the first attacks on the Bible during the nineteenth century and by the rise of secular humanism. As time passed, the people of Europe slowly lost their faith until they eventually caved in under the pressure of secular humanists. The author believes this is an important lesson for American Christians to learn as we face many of the same battles in this country at the beginning of the twenty-first century as did our European counterparts in the twentieth century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bush, L Russ. "What is secularism." Southwestern Journal of Theology 26, no. 2 (March 1, 1984): 5-14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 28, 2010).

McLeod, Hugh and Werner Ustorf, eds. Decline of Christendom in Western Europe, 1750-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

McManners, John, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

O'Sullivan, John. "Is Europe Losing Its Faith?." Insight on the News 18, no. 31 (August 26, 2002): 27. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 26, 2010).

Shand, Jack D. "The Decline of Traditional Christian Beliefs in Germany." Sociology of Religion 59, no. 2 (Summer98 1998): 179. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 26, 2010).

Wilson, Brian. Christianity. London: Routledge, 1999.

[1] John O’Sullivan. 2002. "Is Europe Losing Its Faith?." Insight on the News 18, no. 31: 27. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 26, 2010).

[2] Hugh McLeod and Werner Ustorf, eds., Decline of Christendom in Western Europe, 1750-2000. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 5.

[3] Brian Wilson, Christianity. (London: Routledge, 1999), 67.

[4] McLeod, Decline of Christendom in Western Europe, 1750-2000. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 5.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 7.

[8] Ibid., 8.

[9] John McManners, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 349.

[10] Ibid., 344.

[11] Russ L. Bush. 1984. "What is secularism." Southwestern Journal of Theology 26, no. 2: 5-14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 28, 2010).

[12] Ibid., 355.

[13] McLeod and Ustorf, eds., Decline of Christendom in Western Europe, 1750-2000. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 4.

[14] Ibid., 4.

[15] Ibid., 3.

[16] Shand, Jack D. 1998. "The Decline of Traditional Christian Beliefs in Germany." Sociology of Religion 59, no. 2: 179. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 26, 2010), 181.

[17] Ibid., 180.

[18] McLeod and Ustorf, eds., Decline of Christendom in Western Europe, 1750-2000. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 3.

Julius Wellhausen and the Age of Rationalism

2010-07-20T22:18:00.001-04:00

It is often said that Julius Wellhausen is the father of modern biblical criticism. Indeed, his contribution to biblical criticism left an indelible mark on the field. However, the contributions of Mr. Wellhausen would not have been possible if not for the work of many scholars who came before him. Furthermore, the work of Wellhausen and those who came before him were a direct result of the prevailing intellectual thought of the time: Enlightenment thought and rationalism. The purpose of this paper, then, is to argue that the core of the work attributed to Mr. Wellhausen are not primarily his at all, but are the results of the work of many scholars whose work in the field of biblical criticism relied heavily upon a faulty allegiance to rationalism, and to show sound evidence that refutes the majority of his work and theories regarding the composition of the Pentateuch.

The most significant work of Julius Wellhausen was his Introduction to the History of Israel, 1878, 6^th ed., 1905.[1] This famous work resulted in what is now known as the famous J-E-D-P, or Documentary, theory of the authorship of the Pentateuch.[2] The Documentary theory asserts that the Pentateuch was written over a long period of time by various writers. Additionally, the theory supposes that one or more redactors or editor/compilers brought together various documents that make up the Pentateuch and assembled them together as a whole.

These documents, according to the theory of Mr. Wellhausen, are as follows: the Jehovist or Yahwist document (J), written around the ninth century B.C.; the Elohist document (E), dated during the eighth century B.C.; the contents of the book of Deuteronomy (D), dated sometime during the time of Josiah, 640-609 B.C.; and finally the Priestly document (P), written around the fifth century B.C. Wellhausen believed the entire corpus was put into its current form as the Pentateuch around 200 B.C. [3]

Ironically, the work of Mr. Wellhausen could itself be described as a work of compilation and editing. A brief survey of eighteenth and nineteenth century criticism makes it apparent that many of the views that are attributed to his name are not primarily his at all. This is not meant as a slight on his work, for Mr. Wellhausen fully accepted the work of his predecessors.[4] But in order to fully understand his theories one must first understand the works of those who influenced him the most.

Chief among his influences were W.M.L De Wette, Wilhelm Vatke, and K.H. Graf. De Wette was the first to claim that the majority of the contents of the book of Deuteronomy were written during the time of King Josiah. Vatke followed the work of De Wette and declared that many sections of the Elohistic document could be dated as late as the Babylonian exile.[5] Graf followed up on the work of Vatke by allegedly showing that the laws of the Jehovah document were written before the Deuteronomy document and those of the Elohistic document were later.[6]

It was from the work of these men that Julius Wellhausen was able to build what would become known as the Documentary theory. He applied the approach of Vatke “to the study of Hebrew religious institutions” and combined that with “arrangements of ritual laws made by Graf” in an attempt to prove that the progressive development of the Hebrew religion “could only be compatible with a late date for the “P”, Priestly document.”[7]

In effect, the work of Mr. Wellhausen was not primarily the result of his own methods of biblical criticism, but rather was the result of a century of work by a host of scholars, whose work he brought together in a rather subjective way; formulating his hypothesis through the use of logic and a process of elimination of possible solutions to the apparent problem of multiple authors of the Pentateuch.[8] Inherent in his work, and the work of those who came before him, is an emphasis on rationalism and on Hegelian evolutionism.[9]

His defenders readily point out the fact that his “investigations are the classical instruments of criticism developed by the Enlightenment scholarship of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,” which, according to Wellhausen himself, is a subjective process of subtraction and a creative act of reconstruction, as he quipped, “History…always has to be constructed…The question is whether one constructs well or ill.”[10]

His point is well taken and certainly true. In reconstructing the past one must build carefully and as we all know the building process begins with the foundation. In the case of reconstructing biblical history, the foundation begins with the set of presuppositions the builder has concerning God and the supernatural. For Wellhausen and his predecessors, their reliance on rationalism and Enlightenment thinking in their endeavors of biblical criticism eliminated God and the supernatural from the very beginning.

Denials of the supernatural were common among Enlightenment thinkers who threw off the traditional methods of thought and sought to find truth via the scientific method and rationalism. Such methods and philosophies invariably gave way to two notable nineteenth century contributions to the expanding field of science: the works of Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. Their works during the mid-nineteenth century all but swept away the old order of thought and gave rise to naturalistic reasoning among all the sciences.

It was against this backdrop that modern biblical criticism found its determining form. With the aid of scholars such as Wellhausen, the science of biblical criticism sought to take its own place alongside its famous contemporaries to make its own mark in the struggle for human freedom.[11] Modern day defenders of Wellhausen freely admit that he was a product of his time and that he was duly influenced in his approach to the Bible.[12] Science and reason was now regarded as far superior to religious tradition and all notions of the supernatural were discarded. The Bible became nothing more than just another ancient text to dissect and critique.

Ironically, one of the offshoots of the expanse of science, the field of archaeology, has helped refute the main tenant of the Documentary theory: that the literary form of the Pentateuch is from a much later period. For example, the “D” document allegedly uses a seventh-century B.C. style and structure. However, archaeological discoveries have shown that the “literary form used in Deuteronomy is, in fact, an ancient one throughout the Near East.”[13]

Another assumption of the Documentary theory is that one author could not have used the various literary styles that are apparent throughout the Pentateuch. But this reasoning fails to recognize the education that was afforded to Moses as an Egyptian, who undoubtedly was exposed to all available artistic and narrative writings of the time. Moreover, this theory fails to recognize the fact that good authors often change their style and form to meet the needs of their audience.[14]

Perhaps the most famous objection of the Documentary theory is the different names for God employed throughout the Pentateuch. Critics have argued from before the time of Wellhausen that these different names suggest different authors. But this objection is unsustainable for two reasons. First, the uses of the Divine names are so interspersed throughout the text that J-E-D-P scholars cannot agree where to draw the lines between the two apparent authors. Secondly, such a theory once again fails to recognize the fact that the same author might use different styles of form and word choice in order to achieve varying effects.[15]

Other objections raised in favor of the Documentary theory are the various parenthetical sections, and the names of places that did not occur until well after the time in which they were supposedly written. However, most conservative scholars admit that such additions could have been added by scribes at a later time in order to update an ancient text or to clarify the meaning of the text.[16] Either way, such additions, if they are in fact additions, do not subtract from the whole of the work of the Pentateuch as being from mostly one author.

In sum, it would be disingenuous for the modern day defenders of Wellhausen to assert that his works have withstood the test of time, or that his work was not influenced in some way by the prevailing rational and naturalistic thought of the nineteenth century. This does not deny his intellectual prowess and the quality of his work. He was clearly a man who possessed a brilliant mind, the quality of which is most clearly seen in his work on texts of the books of Samuel, “a study that surpassed all others on the subject until the discovery of the Qumran scrolls.”[17]

Nevertheless, one must not dismiss the limitations of his era. Since his time, advancements in archaeology have discovered many inherent fallacies and weaknesses of the Documentary theory. Moreover, it cannot be denied that Mr. Wellhausen lived during a time when the intellectual climate was dominated by new naturalistic theories, such as evolution. It was a time wrought with the endeavors of many who thought they could simplify the complexities of life through one interpretive principle.[18] The author believes the fallacy of such thinking is nowhere more apparent than in the Documentary theory itself, a theory that tried to explain away the supernatural, whether intentional or not, through the lens and ideology of nineteenth century naturalistic rationalism.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999.

Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

Irwin, William Andrew. "The significance of Julius Wellhausen." Journal of Bible and Religion 12, no. 3 (August 1, 1944): 160-173. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 15, 2010).

Kratz, Reinhard G. "Eyes and Spectacles: Wellhausen’s Method of Higher Criticism†." Journal of Theological Studies 60, no. 2 (October 2009): 381-402. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 10, 2010).

[1] Norman L. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 770.

[2] Ibid.

[3] R. K. Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.), 22.

[4] William Andrew Irwin. 1944. "The significance of Julius Wellhausen." Journal of Bible and Religion 12, no. 3: 160-173. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 15, 2010), 164.

[5] Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.), 15-16.

[6] Irwin. 1944. "The significance of Julius Wellhausen." Journal of Bible and Religion 12, no. 3: 160-173. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 15, 2010), 163.

[7] Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.), 21.

[8] Irwin. 1944. "The significance of Julius Wellhausen." Journal of Bible and Religion 12, no. 3: 160-173. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 15, 2010), 164.

[9] Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.), 22.

[10] Kratz 2009. "Eyes and Spectacles: Wellhausen’s Method of Higher Criticism†." Journal of Theological Studies 60, no. 2: 381-402. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 15, 2010), 387.

[11] Irwin. 1944. "The significance of Julius Wellhausen." Journal of Bible and Religion 12, no. 3: 160-173. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 15, 2010), 161.

[12] Kratz 2009. "Eyes and Spectacles: Wellhausen’s Method of Higher Criticism†." Journal of Theological Studies 60, no. 2: 381-402. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 15, 2010), 391.

[13] Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 588

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid. , 587.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Harrison. Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.), 21.

[18] Ibid., 22.

A Brief History of the Crusades

2010-03-04T14:17:00.001-05:00

The Crusades of the Middle Ages were instrumental in what has become centuries of mistrust between Islam and Christianity. In fact, Muslims often equate the term ‘crusade’ with Christian brutality. The word brutality, it seems, should never be used to describe Christianity. Christ taught His disciples to “turn the other cheek” and to “love [their] your enemies.”(Matt. 5:39;44). But the Crusades of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were indeed brutal at times. It is no wonder then that many people have a difficult time reconciling the teachings of Christ with the era of the Crusades. The purpose of this paper is to explore the motivating factors behind the Crusades and whether or not they were representative of a Christian worldview.

Saint Augustine was the first prominent Christian leader to lay out the terms of justifiable warfare. Augustine tried to square the apparent dichotomy between being a devoted follower of Christ, whose life exemplified pacifism, with the reality of war. Augustine argued that secular rulers were responsible for the protection of their people. He believed that wars of self-defense were permissible but that the intent of a ruler to go to war should be based on love for his people. War, Augustine argued, should not be waged out of hatred, anger, or greed.[1] This concept became known as the just war theory.

The theory of just war was adapted and utilized by Christians during the ninth and tenth centuries amid a growing military threat from Islamic armies against western Europe. These early battles against Islam gave rise to a long tradition of papal support of ‘holy wars’ against the Muslims.[2] While the responsibility of defending Europe was still officially in the hands of secular kings, the Church increasingly used its authority to persuade Christians to support the wars against the Muslims. In fact, the Church went so far as to promise eternal life to those who died in defense of Christendom in these early wars.[3]

The Muslim threat to western Europe eventually waned. The result, however, was not peace. On the contrary, the people of western Europe turned against each other in a series of murderous wars between an increasingly brutal and lawless ruling class.[4]The Church leaders during the early eleventh century were appalled by these wars and they cracked down on the responsible parties. Church leaders held peace councils, excommunicated aggressors, and imposed truces whereby all hostilities between fellow Christians were forced to cease.[5] This movement became known as the so-called Peace of God movement.

There was more to the Peace of God movement than simply cracking down on the warring factions. The Church utilized the movement to organize the warrior-class for its own purpose, which led to the transformation of the warring aristocracy of the tenth century into the Christian knights of the eleventh century. This transformation played an important role in the Crusades that followed. The responsibility of waging war would no longer be controlled by secular rulers. Future wars would be sanctioned by the Church through the agency of its Christian knights.[6]

Meanwhile, relations between Christians and Muslims continued to deteriorate during the eleventh century. Much of the tensions were focused around the Christian holy sites of Jerusalem, which were destroyed by the Caliph of Cairo in the year 1009.[7] In addition, Christian pilgrims from Europe were treated with increasing hostility from Muslims on their long pilgrimages.[8] The mounting pressure against the Christians in the Middle East forced them to call for help.

In November of 1095 Pope Urban II took matters into his own hands at the Council of Claremont. He urged the warriors of Europe to take up the cause of defending the Christian churches of the east and restoring the Holy Land to Christian rule. Moreover, he explicitly linked this type of war with spiritual benefits by granting a free pardon to all crusaders from the punishment of sin.[9] This was over and above the former decree of eternal life for those who died in defense of Christendom. The link between holy war and salvation was clear and it caught the imagination of Europe.

He also offered a powerful economic incentive by declaring that the crusaders would be allowed to keep the lands which they conquered.[10] This was a very attractive material incentive that offered the possibility of the accumulation of wealth. Such accumulation of land and bounty was unlikely to happen for most of the participants if they remained in Europe the remainder of their lives. Thus, men from all over Europe and from every social class were eager to participate in the war. Pope Urban II had succeeded in amassing a large army for the defense of the Holy Land. In truth, however, it seems the lure of wealth and the unfounded promise of a free pardon from sin were the real motivation for the fighting men of the First Crusade.

The armies, also joined by hopeful Christian settlers, began their trek to the Middle East by the spring of 1096.[11]They swiftly conquered Antioch in 1098 and Jerusalem by 1099. Ten years later they had carved out four distinct settlements: the country of Edessa, the principality of Antioch, the kingdom of Jerusalem, and the country of Tripoli.[12]But the Christian conquerors were brutal in their methods. They typically massacred all the inhabitants of the cities they conquered and sometimes ate them.[13] Nevertheless, the First Crusade was a military success. The crusaders continued to put down permanent settlements and by 1124 they had managed to colonize a relatively large portion of the region.

The settlers soon discovered they could not maintain their settlements without continued support. Thus, a pattern developed whereby calls for help from the settlers were endorsed by the papacy in the form of crusade declarations. A number of small campaigns of support ensued until the Muslims conquered the kingdom of Edessa in 1144. The Second Crusade was endorsed by Pope Eugene III in response to the fall of Edessa.[14] Like the First Crusade, the call to holy war was met with much excitement by the men of Europe. It was an opportunity for that generation to claim notoriety and wealth for themselves in the same way that their fathers and grandfathers had done when they conquered the Holy Land during the First Crusade.

Pope Eugene chose Louis VII, King of France, to be the leader of the Second Crusade in hopes of having one single military leader in charge of the campaign. What he did not count on was the enthusiasm of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who ultimately enticed King Conrad of Germany to take up arms as well. Instead of one army there were two. The two armies set off for the Holy Land in 1147 under the two kings.[15]After a long and arduous journey, the two armies eventually besieged Damascus but were unable to take the city in the face of overwhelming opposition from the Muslim armies.[16] The campaign to take back Edessa proved fruitless. The two kings were convinced to retreat and the Second Crusade ended in failure.

In the following years a new Muslim general, Salah-al-Din, came to power in Egypt. In 1187 his army slaughtered the remains of the Christian defenders at the Battle of Hattin.[17] From there, his army swiftly conquered Jerusalem. All that remained of the Christian settlements were some fortresses along the immediate Mediterranean coastline. Word of the fall of Jerusalem was met with shock and dismay across Europe and the call to arms was swift. Pope Gregory VIII summoned the kings of Europe and launched the Third Crusade in 1189.

The Third Crusade was initially led by the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, who died in route to the Holy Land. His army eventually made it to the coastal fortresses where they were joined by two additional armies led by King Philip II of France and King Richard I of England. [18] The armies had some early success in fortifying a small kingdom along the coast but they were never able to take Jerusalem. Political and social problems in Europe forced the kings to return home. However, they were able to forge a truce with the Muslims before leaving whereby the native Christians were allowed to worship in Jerusalem and pilgrims were allowed to visit without fear of attack from the Muslims.[19]Thus, the Third Crusade ended with some measure of success.

Other crusades were launched in the years to come. The Fourth Crusade was launched in 1198 with the intent of conquering Jerusalem but its armies never made it to the Holy Land. Another so-called ‘private crusade’ in 1228 was able to briefly capture Jerusalem and hold it for fifteen years.[20]The last vestiges of the Christian settlements were finally defeated at Acre in 1281 and the great Crusades to the Middle East were over. [21]

The original intent of the Crusades was the defense of Christians and churches in the Holy Land and Middle East. Such a premise could be construed as rightly aligned with the original theory of just war as proposed by Augustine. Indeed, Christians in the Middle East during the eleventh century were under constant assault from their Muslim counterparts. The First Crusade was a military success whereby it succeeded in defending the native Christians and succeeded in putting down permanent settlements in the Holy Land. Over the years these settlements required more support which resulted in numerous military campaigns to defend the Christian settlers.

However, it seems self-defense was not the overwhelming motivating force for most of the crusaders. They were intrigued by the lure of greed and an unfounded promise of eternal life. The original intent of self-defense was overshadowed by the flagrant exploitation by Pope Urban II of his position as pope by granting a free pardon of sin to all who took up arms to fight the Muslims. Only God has the power to grant such a pardon. Furthermore, a free pardon of sin can only be obtained by exercising faith in Jesus Christ as the true Son of God.

In sum, the Crusades were clearly not what Augustine had in mind when he wrote his theory of just war. The Crusaders were wrought with hatred for their enemies and were lured by an insatiable appetite for land and wealth. Furthermore, the declaration by Pope Urban II to pardon sins clearly overstepped his authority. It seems likely that the atrocities committed by the Christian warriors against the Muslim natives were in large part due to the unfounded pardon of sin. The Crusaders were free to kill and plunder in the name of Christ without fear of the eternal consequences. Such atrocities and motives are inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. Therefore, the author believes that the Crusades were not representative of a proper Christian worldview.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Duffy, Eamon. Saints and Sinners: A History of The Popes. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997.

Hill, Jonathan. Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford: Zondervan, 2006.

McManners, John. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Orend, Brian. "When Is War Justifiable?." Military History 24, no. 7 (October 2007): 18-19. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 26, 2010).

Paine, Mike. The Crusades. Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books, 2005

[1] Brian Orend. 2007. "When Is War Justifiable?." Military History 24, no. 7: 18-19. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 26, 2010).

[2] Eamon Duffy. Saints and Sinners:A History of The Popes. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), 104.

[3] John McManners. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 171.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Duffy. Saints and Sinners:A History of The Popes. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), 104.

[6] McManners. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 171.

[7] Jonathan Hill. Handbook to the History of Christianity. (Oxford: Zondervan, 2006) ,206.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Duffy. Saints and Sinners:A History of The Popes. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), 105.

[10] McManners. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 172.

[11] Ibid., 36

[12] Ibid.,111

[13] Hill. Handbook to the History of Christianity. (Oxford: Zondervan, 2006) ,206.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Mike Paine. The Crusades. (Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books, 2005), 64.

[16] Ibid., 69.

[17] Ibid., 85.

[18] Paine. The Crusades. (Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books, 2005), 88-89.

[19] Ibid., 95.

[20] Hill. Handbook to the History of Christianity. (Oxford: Zondervan, 2006) ,207.

[21] Ibid.

The Gospel of John: The Most “Jewish” of the Four Gospels?

2010-01-27T15:10:00.001-05:00

What is in the Gospel of John that would cause a Jewish Scholar to say “it is the most Jewish of the four.” If it is so, why do many people tell new converts to begin reading this Gospel?

The tradition of Church Fathers Irenaeus and Eusebius was that the Apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel from Ephesus.[1] The majority of scholars agree that John was writing to a primarily Gentile church somewhere beyond the borders of Palestine. Other evidence to support this view is how John made use of the Greek term logos, and a direct reference to Greek interests in chapter twelve, both of which would have appealed to a Greek audience.[2] Furthermore, the author of John seems to have a polemical attitude toward the Jews.[3] Overall, “there is a strong body of opinion [that] regards the Gospel of John as a presentation of Christianity in a Hellenized form.”[4]

With such a seemingly overtly anti-Jewish and pro-Gentile slant to the Gospel, it seems unlikely that anyone would dare say that the Gospel of John was the most Jewish of the four Gospels. Especially in light of the fact that the Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been written with a primarily Jewish audience in mind. So then, what is it about the Gospel of John that made the noted Jewish scholar, Israel Abrahams, quip “To us Jews, the fourth Gospel is the most Jewish of the four!”?

The answer to that question can be found in the author of the Gospel. The author displays his knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs in such a way that he leaves no doubt to the fact that he was a Palestinian Jew that lived in the land before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.[5] The author gives his readers detailed references to ancient landmarks in Jerusalem that were mostly destroyed by A.D. 70. These landmarks include the five colonnades at the pool of Bethesda (5:2), the Colonnade of Solomon (10:23), the palace or praetorium (18:28), among others.[6] The author also gives a correct division of the land throughout Palestine, including Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Details of towns such as Nazareth, Cana, Capernaum, and Sychar are all deemed accurate by scholars.[7]

Most importantly, the author of the Gospel displays an intimate knowledge of the Jewish religion. A good portion of the structure of the Gospel is organized around the feasts of the Jewish year, including many references to the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Feast of Dedication. The author was keenly aware of the intricacies of Jewish customs such as weddings, the keeping of the Sabbath, methods of burial, and the methods of observing the feasts.[8]

The Gospel also includes many Old Testament references, emphasizes the necessity of Jewish prophetic fulfillment, and uses a general Semitic vocabulary and style.[9] Lastly, the author displays knowledge of rabbinical methods of argument and teaching, something that would no doubt be intriguing to modern day Jewish scholars.[10]

There is no doubt then that the Gospel would have a clear Jewish undertone to knowledgeable Jewish readers. The accurate description of ancient Jerusalem and portrayal of Jewish customs and religion would have a high appeal to a Jewish audience, as the author displays an authentic and intimate knowledge of the rich Jewish heritage of the early first century.

However, the Jewish undertones aside, the Gospel is clearly written in an evangelistic manner with an appeal to everyone to come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. The book has a clear purpose statement (John 20:31), and a theme of believe (faith) and live permeates the entire work. The dual theme of believe and live gives the reader a clear presentation of salvation and the good new of Jesus Christ unlike any other New Testament book. Therefore, the book should be read by new converts and anyone interested in learning the truth of Jesus Christ as Savior.

In sum, the author of the Gospel of John clearly wrote with an intimate knowledge of Jewish customs and religion that would appeal to a Jewish audience. However, the author also employs a simplistic literary style, yet profound theological treatise, which encourages the reader to respond in faith to the revelation of Jesus Christ as the true Son of God who died for the sins of mankind. Thus, the Gospel of John should be read and enjoyed by everyone. Whether Jewish, scholar, layman, potential convert to Christianity, or new convert alike, the Gospel of John has something for everyone.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gaebelein, Frank E, gen. ed. “John” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.

Guthrie, D., and Motyer, J.A., eds. The New Bible Commentary: Revised.Gran Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1970

Wilkinson, Bruce and Boa, Kenneth. Talk Thru The Bible, vol. 1.Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,1983

[1] Frank E. Gaebelein, Gen. ed. “John” in The Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) p. 10

[2] Ibid.

[3] D. Guthrie and J.A.Motyer, eds. The New Bible Commentary: Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) p.926

[4] Ibid.,927

[5] Bruce Wilkinson and Kenneth Boa, Talk Thru the Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983) p. 337

[6] Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) p. 3

[7] Ibid.,4

[8] Ibid.,.3

[9] Ibid.,6

[10] Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary: Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) p.926

The Jerusalem Council, and Paul’s Message to the Athenians.

2009-10-07T11:44:00.001-04:00

What is the significance of the decision made at the Jerusalem “Consultation” in Acts 15?

The contention leading up to the consultation revolved around the issue of whether or not circumcision, and thus by implication adherence to the Law of Moses, was a necessary requirement for salvation.

The principles of the gospel message were at stake. The elders and leaders of the Jerusalem church were forced to decide if the good news of Jesus Christ was for all people or whether this new movement would remain a strict Jewish sect. After some debate the church leaders came to a decision on what must be considered the most significant doctrinal position ever adopted by the church: salvation can only be received by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ Jesus alone (MacArthur p.1660).

Richard N. Longenecker says the decision “must be considered one of the boldest and most magnanimous in the annals of church history” (p. 450). He cites the importance of the refusal of the church leaders to hinder the progress of the gospel outside of Judaism despite the inevitable persecution they would face from the Jewish nation for such a decision (p.450). Yet, they made the right decision in allowing the gospel message to go out to all people without legalistic requirements to the adherence to the Law of Moses.

The decision reached by the leaders of the church created unity between the Jewish and Gentile Christians and their related mission of spreading the gospel. The gospel was subsequently preached throughout the Roman Empire and set the foundation for the spread of Christianity to the ends of the earth.

How did Paul share his faith with the Athenians in Acts 17?

Paul’s speech to the philosophers in Acts 17 could be viewed as contentious. First, Luke tells us that Paul’s “spirit was provoked” when he saw the idols that filled the city of Athens (Acts 17:16). Luke also describes the philosophers as ridiculing Paul as a “babbler” (Acts 17:18), a term that Darrell Bock says alludes to the “intellectual arrogance” of the philosophers (p. 562).

Despite the contentious setting, Paul manages to share his faith in a reserved manner. The key to this polite discourse is how Paul is able to find common ground with an otherwise hostile crowd. Paul finds common ground in that the Athenians are pursuing the God of creation. This “unknown God” is the same God that Paul is preaching to them (Acts 23-24). He also finds common ground with the crowd from their own poets (17:28). Darrel Bock says Paul uses a quote from a pagan poet in an attempt to get the crowd to “recognize the relationship all people have to God” (p.568).

With a common foundation laid, Paul argues that the God they recognize but do not understand is the creator and sustainer of all things. As the creator of all things God cannot be contained in something built by the hands of men, for He has created all things and is sovereign over all. Therefore, Paul argues that all men will be held accountable by the Creator in how they respond to the good news of the risen One (Acts 17:29-31). Paul calls on “all men everywhere to repent”(Acts 17:30) , making it clear that faith and repentance are synonymous in the plan of salvation.

In spite of the contentious setting within such an idolatrous arena, Paul manages to keep his emotions from preventing him in confronting the Athenians with a “generous and honest spirit” (Bock p. 573). He finds common ground from which he can then proclaim the truths of the gospel in a manner that does not allow his emotions to get in the way of the proclamation of the truth: repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

Darrell Bock notes the importance of this lesson for Christians today, as he writes, “Both message and tone are important in sharing the gospel. Here Paul is an example of both” (p.573). The implication is that Christians should not allow the state of our culture to prevent the gospel from being shared in truth and humility. And above all, the gospel message should never be altered.

Works Cited

Bock, Darrell L. Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament. Grand Rapids:Baker Academic, 2007.

Longenecker, Richard N. Acts: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Ed. Frank E. Gaeblein.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997.

The significance of the Great Commission, and a discussion on tongues.

2009-09-09T10:42:00.001-04:00

What is the significance of Acts 1:8?

Acts 1:8 is significant because it is essentially the marching orders of the church. The command given to the disciples in Acts 1:8 is still in effect today. We are not to concern ourselves with trivial matters. Rather, we are under orders to spread the good news of the gospel, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

But this event is significant in other ways too. First, this event is arguably one of the most significant in all of world history. It is this event that triggered the rise of Christianity from a meager 120 disciples, to 2 billion disciples today (Major). In fact, Christianity has grown to have the largest percentage of adherents than any other world religion (Major). There is no doubt as to the historical significance of this event.

But it is also important because of the promise that Christ made to his disciples concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit. This promise was fulfilled just a few days later. The significance of this fulfilled promise must not be overlooked. It was the coming of the spirit that empowered the first disciples to boldly proclaim “the message of God’s work through Jesus” (Bock 63). That same power is in all Christians today, enabling us to continue to carry out the command of our Lord to carry his message to all people.

What kinds of tongues were being spoken at Pentecost? Were any of them unknown (so-called “heavenly”) languages?

It seems clear from the context of the passage that the tongues spoken at Pentecost were known languages. The text itself clearly says that the Jews who were present were from other nations and they were hearing their own native language (Acts 2:5-6).

It is clear that the intent of this passage is to demonstrate that God is now identifying himself with the message proclaimed by the apostles. Paul confirms this with his teaching in I Corinthians 14:21-22, where he states that these signs were foretold in the Old Testament and are necessary to validate the message of the apostles. It seems illogical to conclude that God would speak in gibberish as a sign to unbelievers.

Furthermore, an understanding of the Greek text confirms the idea that these were known languages. Bock says it is clear that the term heterais glossais “refers to other languages, as verse 8 makes clear” ( 99). In addition, the word, tongue, except when explicitly referring to the bodily organ, always refers to the known languages of the world when used in the Bible (Bellshaw 147). In fact, Bellshaw believes that the term, unknown, found in reference to tongues in chapter 14 of I Corinthians, was not a part of the original Greek text and should be omitted altogether (147).

Therefore, such evidence should leave little doubt that the tongues referred to at the time of Pentecost are clearly that of known languages.

Works Cited

Bellshaw, William G. “Confusion of Tongues.” Bibliotheca sacra.

120 no 478 April-June 1963, p 145-153.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament. Grand Rapids:Baker Academic, 2007.

“Major Religions of the World Ranked by Adherents.” 2005. www.adherents.com September 7, 2009.

Trusting God for Provision

2009-07-21T13:52:00.001-04:00

Matthew 6:33 “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”

God, I will trust that you have in mind what is best for me.

Sometimes it’s easy to lose sight of who is really in control. It’s not me, and it’s not you. God alone is in control. It’s easy to admit that on an intellectual level. I mean it’s something that I know to be true. But nevertheless, it is a fact that sometimes gets shoved aside and replaced with anxiety about the future.

Why is that? Is it just human nature to worry? It’s probably more correct to say that it is human nature to want to be in control. Just ask my wife. She’ll tell you I have some control issues. Not in necessarily bad ways. I mean, I like to have control over the car when we drive somewhere. I like to have control over the remote control when we watch television. There are just certain things I want done my way. That does not necessarily make me a bad person. It makes me human.

That type of control can easily spill over into my spiritual life too. This is when control becomes a problem for the Christian.

I don’t know about you, but I am in a season of waiting. The future is not as clear as I would like it to be. Thus, at times I am tempted to try and wrestle control of my life away from God. Don’t get me wrong. I strongly believe that I am in the center of God’s will for my life. It’s just that while I wait for the next season in my life doubt and fear sometimes creep in and make me wonder if I really am doing the right thing. When this happens the wait becomes all about the wait, and it becomes easy to lose focus on God. This can cause me to worry about things that have no eternal significance.

Jesus Christ said, “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” What things was Jesus talking about? He was talking about things that you and I worry about on a daily basis; such as money, food, clothing, and housing. He was talking about things that have no eternal significance; material things. But please don’t misunderstand what Christ is saying here. He is not promising us riches, and luxurious homes and cars.

The promise of Christ is that He will provide for those who seek Him and His righteousness. Seeking the kingdom of God involves a never ending thirst and hunger for His presence and His righteousness in my life. The implication is that I should never be content with my salvation. I need to continually pursue Christ in such a way that my priority in this life is always spiritual. When that happens, God will meet my material needs. Where God guides, He provides.

If you are feeling anxious about the future, take some time each day to pursue God. Don’t give in to the temptation to make the wait all about the wait. Use your time to focus on God. Seek His presence in your life through daily Bible study and prayer. And if things get tough, try a little prayer: God, I will trust that you have in mind what is best for me.

My Testimony of how I came to know Christ.

2009-07-18T13:39:00.001-04:00

Below is a one page paper I had to write recently detailing my testimony as a Christian. I have a much longer version, but this should suffice for this forum.

My life before I came to Christ. My life before Christ was empty, dark, lonely, and filled with despair. I struggled with a powerful addiction to marijuana and a deep rooted anger that began by the age of fifteen. The drug abuse and anger eventually controlled all aspects of my being. I could feel God’s call on my life during those years, but I was in no mood to listen. There was a very real struggle for my soul. The battle raged daily. I wanted desperately to escape the addiction that was controlling my life. I just didn’t know how.

Circumstances surrounding your conversion. God finally got through to me. One day I made a work related mistake which was a direct result of my drug use. I flew into a fit of rage after realizing what I had done. I began to cry after the fit of rage had passed, and then I prayed to God. There was no bargaining with God in this prayer. I simply said, “I give up God. I’m yours. Do with me as you wish”. I committed on that day to live for God and to give him control of my life. I immediately stopped using drugs and began attending a local church. I gave my life to Christ three months later.

How would you describe your spiritual growth from the time you accepted Christ to today? I am confident that I am growing and maturing as a Christian. I strive to grow in my relationship with Christ through daily devotion and Bible study. Three short years ago I was adrift in sin and drug abuse with no direction in my life. Now I am a 36 year old sophomore in college, newly married, and full of life! I am planning for a full-time career in ministry, with the hope of sharing with people the life changing power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no doubt that the new direction in my life is a direct result of having a relationship with Jesus Christ.