Chapter 1 of Dr. Reeves' new book is so intensely challenging that I almost see no reason to continue. I feel like if I could live out the lifestyle Paul calls his readers to imitate--the crucified life--then everything else would fall into place.
The main idea of this chapter is that the Christian is meant to imitate Christ's crucifixion, as Paul does. Reeves asks why we think that because of a relationship with Christ we should receive comfort, riches, blessings, joy, peace, etc., when Paul suffered the loss of all things because of Christ? When Paul left Jerusalem for Damascus, he was a successful, pious, respected Jew. Yet, when Jesus blinded Paul and called him to be a follower, Paul lost all of that. Where Paul once rejoiced in obedience to the law and personal acts of holiness, now he found suffering, loss, and death as gain. In other words, Paul did not ADD Jesus to his life. No, he lost everything to gain Christ. Thus, Reeves asks what he as an American Christian has ever lost to gain Jesus.
The obvious problem is that such a way of life is contrary to our values. We want to earn God's favor through hard work, planning, and playing on our strengths. God wants to work through persecution, weakness, and depression. The reason we ask why bad things happen to good people is because we think righteous people should receive better blessings. But, if we apply that line of thinking to the cross, what does that make Jesus? Apparently, a very unrighteous person.
Therefore, it is through loss--taking up one's cross--that true gain is found. Yet, Reeves rightly cautions against a sort of reverse health-and-wealth "Gospel" here. He notes that we cannot pick suffering because we will receive something good in return. Rather, we should see suffering AS gain! Why? Because pain opens our eyes to see Jesus. Jesus is the blessing we recieve when all other blessings are gone.
Dr. Reeves points to the Galatains as examples of those who, like those of us who are comfortable Americans, admire the crucified life in others but don't exactly want to live it ourselves. Reeves writes, "Who would point to a broken-down, beaten and bruised man and say with admiration, 'I hope my life turns out like his'?" (32) Paul's churches wanted to avoid pain by any means necessary, both their own pain and Paul's. But, Paul rejoiced that his suffering led him to Jesus, and he begged his congregations to imitate him. For their crucified lives would result in resurrected lives.
"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death" (Phil 3:10)
-Matt
Friday, December 16, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Spirituality According to Paul
Emily and I have both finished our semesters (and the entirety of her in-classroom time in PA school for Emily) and are excited about having free time again. Because I'm a nerd, I cannot wait to get into several different books I will be starting. Normally, I don't like to read various books at the same time, but there are just so many things I'm interested in. One book is my professor from SBU Dr. Rodney Reeves' new book "Spirituality According to Paul: Imitating the Apostle of Christ" published by IVP. It came out in the Fall, and I have been waiting to read it for weeks now. I decided to try book reviewing on my blog, and I hope I can be consistent. So, here is my first edition of the book review.
What is exciting about Reeves' new book is that he frames his discussion of Paul in a way that I have only recently come to understand. As I expressed in previous posts, both within my application paper of 1 Peter 2 and in my discussion of revenge, Christians are meant to imitate Jesus and his Gospel, not just believe. We all understand that Christian faith is not simply a matter of intellectual assent. Belief entails more than stating that you accept Christian propositions as truth. James tells us that even the demons believe! Confessing Jesus as Savior and Lord means that he is both your sacrifice and your master. However, within our individualistic, conversion-oriented culture, people find it quite difficult to understand how and even why they should live in obedience to Jesus. If I'm saved, who cares how I live. Our usual response is that the Bible says so. I'm willing to accept this answer. However, I was annoyed when my parents said, "Because I said so," and I don't find it to be a wise pedagogical (teaching) method for spiritual growth.
Thus, when I began to realize that Peter was telling his converts in 1 Peter 2 that they were supposed to live out Christ's story in their own lives, a light bulb flashed on. I began to understand that the idea of imitating Christ could be a framework for spiritual growth. People are story oriented and could be tought to see the entirety of Jesus' life as THE example for Christian living.
I say all that to say that when I read Reeves' preface and introduction, I was hooked. Dr. Reeves sees in Paul's life the very thing I have just argued for: imitating Jesus. Reeves suggests that the way we can "apply" Paul's letters to our own lives is by learning to imitate the apostle... who imitated Jesus. Paul "lived the Gospel" and when we wrestle with his letters, "he becomes our mentor, a life worth imitating." (10-11) Dr. Reeves notes that all believers necessarily imitate someone in their approach to their faith and growth, whether a pastor, parent, or mentor. But, what if we let Paul be our mentor?
The strange thing about Paul is that he didn't have direct connection to Jesus like the 12 Disciples. Yet, Paul taught that he himself had participated in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, connecting him in a very special way with Jesus. Therefore, Paul was not obligated to share direct teachings from Jesus' ministry or talk about his miracles or healings. Instead, Paul could preach the Gospel by saying, "Look at me!" Paul imitated Jesus and he wanted his converts to do the same, through the empowering and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Yet, imitating Christ does not mean acting EXACTLY as he did. Paul's audience members were not meant to go to Galilee and work with fisherman... and so on. Just as imitating the batting style of Albert Pujols will make me a better batter even though nobody expects me to actually play in the World Series, so imitating Jesus is not necessarily about recreating his exact circumstances.
So, Paul used his letters to define which actions of Paul (and Jesus) Christians ARE meant to imitate. Reeves suggests that this theme is "why Paul wrote letters." (16) I would assume Dr. Reeves does not mean that the entirety of all of Paul's letters falls under the theme of imitation. For me, the idea of imitation is (the best) one of many ways to frame spirituality and growth. But, I'm not sure every letter can be squeezed into this box. But, I'd love to be convinced otherwise! We'll see where the rest of the book takes us.
-Matt
Saturday, December 3, 2011
My Paper is Done!
Here is my application paper for the big exegesis paper I just completed. It is in the form of a sermon manuscript, so it's sort of written to be preached. Anyway, it's about 4 pages, single-spaced. So, it's kind of (very) long for this format. But, I'll never complete it if I only put up pieces. So, enjoy.
You may remember a popular fad in the Christian world several years ago where Believers wore bracelets with four meaningful letters: W-W-J-D. These letters asked a question, the answer of which would determine how you lived your life. The question, of course, was, “What would Jesus do?” Unfortunately, the answer was largely dependent upon how the questioner viewed Jesus’ personality. Some imagine Jesus as a shy, humble, meek character who would run away from confrontation and never push the boundaries on anything. Others view Jesus as a fighter who never stepped down from a confrontation with the Pharisees and who so challenged the status quo that he was ultimately murdered. One side sees Jesus as a vegetable-eating, sandals-wearing, peace-and-love hippy. A different group suggests he was a focused, motivated, type-A executive who marketed Christianity with as many bells-and-whistles as he could muster.
The point, of course, is that we all tend to make Jesus in our own image when we try to imagine what he would do in a given situation. But, what if the question became a bit more concrete? What if we did not ask what Jesus would do but what he did do? I suggest that by asking what Jesus did, rather than what he would theoretically do, it will force us to read the Gospels more carefully and root our lives more thoroughly in the character of Christ. And, the reason I believe this is because the “rock” of the church, the apostle Peter, sought to have his own audience imitate Jesus. Let’s read 1 Peter 2:11-25 together.
The reason Peter wrote this letter is because Christians in modern day Turkey were suffering persecution. This persecution was not ordered or carried out by the government but took shape in the harassment and verbal slandering of their neighbors and co-workers. Based upon Peter’s exhortations, it seems that the Christians were tempted to respond harshly to those who slandered them. But, Peter suggests a different path, one that will follow the very footprints of Jesus. It is the path of right conduct or proper living in response to slander. Look at vv. 11-12 where Peter says that Christians should desire right conduct for others’ benefit.
First, in v. 11, he notes that following sinful desires does the Christian no good. It is not natural to desire worldly pleasures for those whose real citizenship is God’s Kingdom. When you do something that is not natural, it can be very harmful. For instance, those who receive organ transplants experience a battle within their own bodies. The body knows that the organ is not natural, so it fights it. Peter says the same thing is true when sinful desires co-exist with a Christian soul. There is a battle, which is not healthy for the Christian.
Yet, what is more important—and what will be the focus of the rest of Peter’s exhortation—is that a Christian’s actions impact non-Christians. Specifically, in v. 12, Peter suggests that Christians have a commission to spread the Gospel, even through actions. Remember that Peter was present when Jesus gave the Great Commission, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 28. Peter knows a Christian must teach others to become disciples. But, it makes no sense to verbally teach one thing while living in a way that contradicts the message. Furthermore, it seems that, in Peter’s situation, Christians are already being slandered for how they live. People may have rightly perceived the Christian claim that “Jesus is Lord” as indication that Caesar is not. Therefore, Christians were slandered, being called traitors or schemers. Yet, Peter hoped that by maintaining proper conduct by avoiding the desire for vengeance, their accusers might be converted before the End. The Day of Visitation mentioned by Peter in v. 12 is a day where God will bestow grace on His people and punishment upon those who are not. Peter wants his audience to be motivated to do what it takes for their persecutors to see that the Christian God is real, even though fighting against their persecutors would feel better.
You may be wondering what Peter’s audience was wondering at this point: what type of good conduct does Peter mean? Well, Peter believes that right conduct toward authority in the form of submission will counter the claims of slanderers. Look at vv. 13-17. Peter begins by pointing to the fact that God’s glory is at stake. In other words, Christians’ actions and attitudes do not only impact them, for people will judge their God based upon those actions. That truth is scary for all of us, imperfect as we are. Yet, it is an important reminder because it gives perspective. So, Peter describes the role of the Emperor and his secondary officials, who are God-ordained authorities for keeping order in society. If you have read Romans 13 recently, this concept may sound familiar. In John’s Gospel, Jesus even tells Pilate that he would not have authority if God had not given it to him. We do not normally think this way today. But, when our thinking and Biblical thinking clash, we must alter our views.
Peter returns to his evangelistic, or at least apologetic, focus in v. 15. Again, there are people who foolishly persecuted Christians, apparently based upon a view that they were anti-government. Peter wants his people’s submission to governmental authority to change the minds of these slanderers. Hopefully, when it becomes clear to all that Christians can co-exist in society in a healthy way, it will silence hurtful accusations. Peter then throws in an interesting qualification in v. 16. It seems that, like today, Christians in the first century wanted to claim that their freedom in Christ allowed them to do whatever they wanted. They believed they were free from any standard or any obligation. Peter states, however, that they are free to be slaves of God. Thus, their freedom can never be an excuse for evil conduct. Rather, they are free from their slavery to sin, a freedom that should result in good conduct.
Following the qualification about true Christian freedom, Peter summarizes what he has said in the last few verses with four imperatives that impact all realms of life. First, they should seek to honor all people. This is such a broad principle that if people can learn to follow it, all other issues will simply fall into place. What is interesting is that, in their society, honor was like money. It was the most important thing a person could have and it could be gained or lost. With money today, the most natural thing is to try and accumulate as much for yourself as possible. What is unnatural, then, is to give it away. The same was true of honor in their day. So, to honor all meant seeking their gain above your own. The second imperative is for the church to love one another. Although we often miss this, for Jesus and the Biblical authors, loving other Christians and loving God were inseparably linked. If you do not believe me, read 1 John this week. So, love should be a defining characteristic of the church. Third, Christians must fear God, which means to acknowledge and respect his power and authority. In other passages of the Bible, God’s grace is the focus as well as his friendship with his people. It is possible, though, that Peter’s audience has become a little too comfortable with God, treating him as less than the Creator, King, and Judge. There must be a healthy balance. Finally, Peter reminds them that they should honor the Emperor. He is a God-given authority, so God’s people should honor him as such.
As Peter moves on, he becomes more specific in vv. 18-20. His instructions to slaves, here, and to women in chapter 3 suggest that Peter wants to speak to those who are at the bottom of the social ladder. If they can be submissive even when those in authority over them do not deserve it, then anyone can. To the slaves, then, Peter suggests that right conduct is even expected in submission to hurtful people. Ancient slavery was much different from the slavery of early American history. People were so poor in the first century that they would often sell themselves into slavery just to guarantee they would be fed. Some slaves were treated almost like a member of the family. On the other hand, slaves were property, and masters could use them to do any job or satisfy any desire at any time. In fact, Aristotle wrote that it was impossible to do an injustice to a slave since slaves were simply property. Peter does not view slaves this way. What he calls slaves to do is to focus on their belief in God—their consciousness of him—and to let that motivate them to patiently endure.
When you think about the lifestyles of Christian slaves, I hope you can agree that if ancient slaves were called to submit, modern Christians certainly can. It is interesting that revenge is a praiseworthy thing in our culture. There was a movie that came out a few years ago called “Taken,” where a man’s daughter is kidnapped. The movie is about this man hunting down his daughter while torturing and killing those who took part in her capture. I have to admit that I loved every minute of it. God moves too slow sometimes, so it feels nice to speed up punishment by exacting it ourselves. Furthermore, we feel like it is our duty to play the role of judge, jury, and executioner. However, what Peter suggests in v. 19 is that God approves enduring undeserved attacks. He does not mean that the slaves must be Stoics who try to act like pain is not a real thing. Instead, they are to be so focused on God and so trusting in his justice that they can endure anything. God favors such an attitude. Furthermore, although Peter does not explicitly say so, context would suggest that slaves’ submission and righteous endurance could be evangelistic in the lives of their masters. But, if the slaves are sinful, then the Gospel will not be preached through their actions. In fact, according to v. 20, not even God favors the endurance of a deserved punishment. Sin has its consequences, the endurance of which finds no approval before God or earthly master.
All of Peter’s exhortations for right conduct through submission and endurance have been leading up to the model of Christ. For, Peter views Christ as the ultimate example of selfless right conduct. It makes perfect sense for Peter to turn to Christ in light of his discussion of slaves enduring undeserved attacks. Peter says in v. 21 that slaves and probably all Christians were called to endure injustice. If that shocks you, you are not alone. Both our society and theirs taught that pain and suffering are proof that a person did something bad. On the flip side, if you love God enough and pray every day, no harm will ever come to you. People then and now treat trials and sickness as if they only appear when people have sin or weak faith. Yet, Peter and the Biblical witness absolutely disagree.
You see, as a Christian, Peter says that you were called to live out the Gospel, not just believe it. What is the Gospel? It is a story of God pursuing man to the point that he experienced great pain. If we are to follow in his footsteps and live out the Gospel, our lives should reflect this story. It means that Christians willingly endure great pain, hoping that it will result in the benefit of some. That pain may look like giving up some hard-earned money or sacrificing time. It may look like befriending the friendless instead of enjoying time with your own friends. Or, as Peter is more concerned, it might mean following Christ’s example by suffering undeserved attacks for the benefit of others without retaliating. Peter uses Isaiah 53 to describe how Christ endured the suffering of his trial, beatings, and crucifixion without retaliating. Remember that while Jesus was on the cross, people mocked him by saying that he should call down angels to avenge himself if he is really who he says he is. Revenge would have been better for Jesus, since he could have proven who he was and removed the pain of the cross. However, he remained on the cross and endured its pain as well as the people’s taunts so that we might experience God’s grace.
Therefore, at the end of v. 24 and through v. 25, Peter tells his audience that they should willingly suffer for others’ benefits since they gained from Christ’s pain. Peter does not come right out and command them to suffer, for the implication is clear. It is by Christ’s wounds that they were healed, so they should freely endure wounds hoping that others might be healed. It is because Christ did not remove himself from the cross and seek vengeance that those who were wanderers have now turned to know God. Thus, Christians should not seek vengeance upon their enemies but should seek to instigate repentance by enduring gracefully. Their focus and our focus should be that God receives glory through the repentance of those who hate Christians. In everything including our attitudes toward sin, submission, forgiveness, and endurance, our greatest desire should be to live a Gospel-telling life through our words and actions. Such a lifestyle finds favor with God.
In conclusion, “What would Jesus do?” is a helpful question. However, Peter indicates that Christ already showed his people how to live by what he did do. Believers, then, are called to live out the Gospel by imitating Christ’s example. None of Christ’s ministry, especially his suffering, was for his own benefit. Rather, he considered it his joy to suffer for the profit of those he loved. Thus, no matter what situation you find yourself in, it is appropriate to think back to what Christ did and seek to imitate Him. Are you being slandered for your faith? Imitate Christ by withholding vengeance so that your attackers might see the Gospel in you and turn to God. Are you struggling with authority? Imitate Christ through your submission so that those watching might see God through your Gospel-living. Are you battling with sinful desires? Seek to imitate Christ’s purity knowing that he has cleansed you through his sacrifice. For, this is the lifestyle to which you have been called for the glory of God.
-Matt
You may remember a popular fad in the Christian world several years ago where Believers wore bracelets with four meaningful letters: W-W-J-D. These letters asked a question, the answer of which would determine how you lived your life. The question, of course, was, “What would Jesus do?” Unfortunately, the answer was largely dependent upon how the questioner viewed Jesus’ personality. Some imagine Jesus as a shy, humble, meek character who would run away from confrontation and never push the boundaries on anything. Others view Jesus as a fighter who never stepped down from a confrontation with the Pharisees and who so challenged the status quo that he was ultimately murdered. One side sees Jesus as a vegetable-eating, sandals-wearing, peace-and-love hippy. A different group suggests he was a focused, motivated, type-A executive who marketed Christianity with as many bells-and-whistles as he could muster.
The point, of course, is that we all tend to make Jesus in our own image when we try to imagine what he would do in a given situation. But, what if the question became a bit more concrete? What if we did not ask what Jesus would do but what he did do? I suggest that by asking what Jesus did, rather than what he would theoretically do, it will force us to read the Gospels more carefully and root our lives more thoroughly in the character of Christ. And, the reason I believe this is because the “rock” of the church, the apostle Peter, sought to have his own audience imitate Jesus. Let’s read 1 Peter 2:11-25 together.
The reason Peter wrote this letter is because Christians in modern day Turkey were suffering persecution. This persecution was not ordered or carried out by the government but took shape in the harassment and verbal slandering of their neighbors and co-workers. Based upon Peter’s exhortations, it seems that the Christians were tempted to respond harshly to those who slandered them. But, Peter suggests a different path, one that will follow the very footprints of Jesus. It is the path of right conduct or proper living in response to slander. Look at vv. 11-12 where Peter says that Christians should desire right conduct for others’ benefit.
First, in v. 11, he notes that following sinful desires does the Christian no good. It is not natural to desire worldly pleasures for those whose real citizenship is God’s Kingdom. When you do something that is not natural, it can be very harmful. For instance, those who receive organ transplants experience a battle within their own bodies. The body knows that the organ is not natural, so it fights it. Peter says the same thing is true when sinful desires co-exist with a Christian soul. There is a battle, which is not healthy for the Christian.
Yet, what is more important—and what will be the focus of the rest of Peter’s exhortation—is that a Christian’s actions impact non-Christians. Specifically, in v. 12, Peter suggests that Christians have a commission to spread the Gospel, even through actions. Remember that Peter was present when Jesus gave the Great Commission, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 28. Peter knows a Christian must teach others to become disciples. But, it makes no sense to verbally teach one thing while living in a way that contradicts the message. Furthermore, it seems that, in Peter’s situation, Christians are already being slandered for how they live. People may have rightly perceived the Christian claim that “Jesus is Lord” as indication that Caesar is not. Therefore, Christians were slandered, being called traitors or schemers. Yet, Peter hoped that by maintaining proper conduct by avoiding the desire for vengeance, their accusers might be converted before the End. The Day of Visitation mentioned by Peter in v. 12 is a day where God will bestow grace on His people and punishment upon those who are not. Peter wants his audience to be motivated to do what it takes for their persecutors to see that the Christian God is real, even though fighting against their persecutors would feel better.
You may be wondering what Peter’s audience was wondering at this point: what type of good conduct does Peter mean? Well, Peter believes that right conduct toward authority in the form of submission will counter the claims of slanderers. Look at vv. 13-17. Peter begins by pointing to the fact that God’s glory is at stake. In other words, Christians’ actions and attitudes do not only impact them, for people will judge their God based upon those actions. That truth is scary for all of us, imperfect as we are. Yet, it is an important reminder because it gives perspective. So, Peter describes the role of the Emperor and his secondary officials, who are God-ordained authorities for keeping order in society. If you have read Romans 13 recently, this concept may sound familiar. In John’s Gospel, Jesus even tells Pilate that he would not have authority if God had not given it to him. We do not normally think this way today. But, when our thinking and Biblical thinking clash, we must alter our views.
Peter returns to his evangelistic, or at least apologetic, focus in v. 15. Again, there are people who foolishly persecuted Christians, apparently based upon a view that they were anti-government. Peter wants his people’s submission to governmental authority to change the minds of these slanderers. Hopefully, when it becomes clear to all that Christians can co-exist in society in a healthy way, it will silence hurtful accusations. Peter then throws in an interesting qualification in v. 16. It seems that, like today, Christians in the first century wanted to claim that their freedom in Christ allowed them to do whatever they wanted. They believed they were free from any standard or any obligation. Peter states, however, that they are free to be slaves of God. Thus, their freedom can never be an excuse for evil conduct. Rather, they are free from their slavery to sin, a freedom that should result in good conduct.
Following the qualification about true Christian freedom, Peter summarizes what he has said in the last few verses with four imperatives that impact all realms of life. First, they should seek to honor all people. This is such a broad principle that if people can learn to follow it, all other issues will simply fall into place. What is interesting is that, in their society, honor was like money. It was the most important thing a person could have and it could be gained or lost. With money today, the most natural thing is to try and accumulate as much for yourself as possible. What is unnatural, then, is to give it away. The same was true of honor in their day. So, to honor all meant seeking their gain above your own. The second imperative is for the church to love one another. Although we often miss this, for Jesus and the Biblical authors, loving other Christians and loving God were inseparably linked. If you do not believe me, read 1 John this week. So, love should be a defining characteristic of the church. Third, Christians must fear God, which means to acknowledge and respect his power and authority. In other passages of the Bible, God’s grace is the focus as well as his friendship with his people. It is possible, though, that Peter’s audience has become a little too comfortable with God, treating him as less than the Creator, King, and Judge. There must be a healthy balance. Finally, Peter reminds them that they should honor the Emperor. He is a God-given authority, so God’s people should honor him as such.
As Peter moves on, he becomes more specific in vv. 18-20. His instructions to slaves, here, and to women in chapter 3 suggest that Peter wants to speak to those who are at the bottom of the social ladder. If they can be submissive even when those in authority over them do not deserve it, then anyone can. To the slaves, then, Peter suggests that right conduct is even expected in submission to hurtful people. Ancient slavery was much different from the slavery of early American history. People were so poor in the first century that they would often sell themselves into slavery just to guarantee they would be fed. Some slaves were treated almost like a member of the family. On the other hand, slaves were property, and masters could use them to do any job or satisfy any desire at any time. In fact, Aristotle wrote that it was impossible to do an injustice to a slave since slaves were simply property. Peter does not view slaves this way. What he calls slaves to do is to focus on their belief in God—their consciousness of him—and to let that motivate them to patiently endure.
When you think about the lifestyles of Christian slaves, I hope you can agree that if ancient slaves were called to submit, modern Christians certainly can. It is interesting that revenge is a praiseworthy thing in our culture. There was a movie that came out a few years ago called “Taken,” where a man’s daughter is kidnapped. The movie is about this man hunting down his daughter while torturing and killing those who took part in her capture. I have to admit that I loved every minute of it. God moves too slow sometimes, so it feels nice to speed up punishment by exacting it ourselves. Furthermore, we feel like it is our duty to play the role of judge, jury, and executioner. However, what Peter suggests in v. 19 is that God approves enduring undeserved attacks. He does not mean that the slaves must be Stoics who try to act like pain is not a real thing. Instead, they are to be so focused on God and so trusting in his justice that they can endure anything. God favors such an attitude. Furthermore, although Peter does not explicitly say so, context would suggest that slaves’ submission and righteous endurance could be evangelistic in the lives of their masters. But, if the slaves are sinful, then the Gospel will not be preached through their actions. In fact, according to v. 20, not even God favors the endurance of a deserved punishment. Sin has its consequences, the endurance of which finds no approval before God or earthly master.
All of Peter’s exhortations for right conduct through submission and endurance have been leading up to the model of Christ. For, Peter views Christ as the ultimate example of selfless right conduct. It makes perfect sense for Peter to turn to Christ in light of his discussion of slaves enduring undeserved attacks. Peter says in v. 21 that slaves and probably all Christians were called to endure injustice. If that shocks you, you are not alone. Both our society and theirs taught that pain and suffering are proof that a person did something bad. On the flip side, if you love God enough and pray every day, no harm will ever come to you. People then and now treat trials and sickness as if they only appear when people have sin or weak faith. Yet, Peter and the Biblical witness absolutely disagree.
You see, as a Christian, Peter says that you were called to live out the Gospel, not just believe it. What is the Gospel? It is a story of God pursuing man to the point that he experienced great pain. If we are to follow in his footsteps and live out the Gospel, our lives should reflect this story. It means that Christians willingly endure great pain, hoping that it will result in the benefit of some. That pain may look like giving up some hard-earned money or sacrificing time. It may look like befriending the friendless instead of enjoying time with your own friends. Or, as Peter is more concerned, it might mean following Christ’s example by suffering undeserved attacks for the benefit of others without retaliating. Peter uses Isaiah 53 to describe how Christ endured the suffering of his trial, beatings, and crucifixion without retaliating. Remember that while Jesus was on the cross, people mocked him by saying that he should call down angels to avenge himself if he is really who he says he is. Revenge would have been better for Jesus, since he could have proven who he was and removed the pain of the cross. However, he remained on the cross and endured its pain as well as the people’s taunts so that we might experience God’s grace.
Therefore, at the end of v. 24 and through v. 25, Peter tells his audience that they should willingly suffer for others’ benefits since they gained from Christ’s pain. Peter does not come right out and command them to suffer, for the implication is clear. It is by Christ’s wounds that they were healed, so they should freely endure wounds hoping that others might be healed. It is because Christ did not remove himself from the cross and seek vengeance that those who were wanderers have now turned to know God. Thus, Christians should not seek vengeance upon their enemies but should seek to instigate repentance by enduring gracefully. Their focus and our focus should be that God receives glory through the repentance of those who hate Christians. In everything including our attitudes toward sin, submission, forgiveness, and endurance, our greatest desire should be to live a Gospel-telling life through our words and actions. Such a lifestyle finds favor with God.
In conclusion, “What would Jesus do?” is a helpful question. However, Peter indicates that Christ already showed his people how to live by what he did do. Believers, then, are called to live out the Gospel by imitating Christ’s example. None of Christ’s ministry, especially his suffering, was for his own benefit. Rather, he considered it his joy to suffer for the profit of those he loved. Thus, no matter what situation you find yourself in, it is appropriate to think back to what Christ did and seek to imitate Him. Are you being slandered for your faith? Imitate Christ by withholding vengeance so that your attackers might see the Gospel in you and turn to God. Are you struggling with authority? Imitate Christ through your submission so that those watching might see God through your Gospel-living. Are you battling with sinful desires? Seek to imitate Christ’s purity knowing that he has cleansed you through his sacrifice. For, this is the lifestyle to which you have been called for the glory of God.
-Matt
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Last Couple of Days
Cute picture of how Willy and Jake were sleeping last night.
The audio is worthless, but it's just a taste of the cool presentation that went along with the Hillsong Concert last Sunday night. I think this is the song Your Name High.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Introverts Unite!
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/11/18/22339/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatheosJesusCreed+%28Blog+-+Jesus+Creed%29
This is a great post on the Jesus Creed blog that I read every day. It's often surprising when I hear people who are extroverts talk about us introverts as if we are evil. Can we come across as unfriendly or uncaring? Sure, if by friendly and caring you mean talking, not listening, and enganging in meaningless, surface-level conversation. That's a cheap shot. What's funny is that we can be as annoyed by extroverts as extroverts are by us. The deference is we keep out mouths shut about it. :) Anyway, I guess God made us each different for a reason. I think the introvert/extrovert issue is a sliding scale more than anything. There are some people I get around that I think, "Man, they never say a word!" But, usually, if I can get past small talk and engage them, or speak with them in a smaller or more comfortable setting, I find they're lovable, passionate people hungry for meaningful and deep relationships.
So, if have some introverts in your life, have a cup of coffee (hot-chocolate for me), open up yourself, and get to know them. They're really not that bad, I promise!
-Matt
This is a great post on the Jesus Creed blog that I read every day. It's often surprising when I hear people who are extroverts talk about us introverts as if we are evil. Can we come across as unfriendly or uncaring? Sure, if by friendly and caring you mean talking, not listening, and enganging in meaningless, surface-level conversation. That's a cheap shot. What's funny is that we can be as annoyed by extroverts as extroverts are by us. The deference is we keep out mouths shut about it. :) Anyway, I guess God made us each different for a reason. I think the introvert/extrovert issue is a sliding scale more than anything. There are some people I get around that I think, "Man, they never say a word!" But, usually, if I can get past small talk and engage them, or speak with them in a smaller or more comfortable setting, I find they're lovable, passionate people hungry for meaningful and deep relationships.
So, if have some introverts in your life, have a cup of coffee (hot-chocolate for me), open up yourself, and get to know them. They're really not that bad, I promise!
-Matt
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Revenge and the Gospel
I am realizing more every day how the concept of revenge drives our culture and drives me. I love movies like "Taken" with Liam Neeson where the "good" guy kills all the people who have hurt him and his family. I love riding people's bumpers who pull out in front of me when they could have just as easily waited for me to go by. Stupid drivers deserve to feel my wrath. I feel like it's my duty to retaliate in response to the wrongs I see and hear, especially when they personally affect me.
What's scary is when we feel like our revenge is justified by God, as if we're somehow defending his honor by lashing out at another created human being. I should seek to honor God in all I do, but it's very dangerous to feel as if I am his sole crusader. It's also dangerous to feel as if God wants me to punish another for his or her spiritual insufficiency.
1 Peter 2:23 has been on my heart a lot lately. "When they hurled their insults at him [Jesus, of course], he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly." Two verses earlier, Peter said, "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps." Peter wrote this to slaves under harsh masters who punished them for their faith in Christ. SO, if Jesus can respond to those who killed him unjustly with grace, confident in the justice of God and if people IN SLAVERY are expected to imitate Christ's example, how much more should I respond in a like manner in my much lighter afflictions!
A second statement that I am constantly reading in new ways is Jesus' call for his followers to take up their crosses. We generally read it as a call to embrace difficulty and to not assume that the Christian walk is an easy one. While I think that could be part of what Jesus meant, I think the truth behind Jesus' statement is even bigger. We all know that Jesus did not die on the cross just to make a point that pain can be a good thing. No! Rather, he died FOR wicked, sinful people, that they might have right relationships with God. What if this is our call as well? What if we are meant to sacrifice to provide a point of connection between sinful people and God? Could we imitate Jesus in this way in our relationships, forgiving when others don't deserve it in hopes that they'll see a tangible proof of God's grace in us? Could we be insulted without retaliating? Could we suffer without making threats? Could we trust God's justice? Can we really take up our crosses, carry them to Golgotha, and die for those who hate us?
I think the answer is yes, but the path is narrow, rocky, and uphill both ways. We have to literally care more about God than anything else. We must be more concerned about connecting others with him than with defending our interests or reputations. Ultimately, we must look to the cross not only as a one-time gift for OUR forgiveness, but as a call and an example for us to imitate for the benefit of others. We have to put away our sense of justice and trust the Judge of all.
If we can live our lives in this manner, our beliefs will no longer just be propositional statements about who God is. Instead, our beliefs and our theology and the story of our Savior will become OUR LIFE and OUR STORY.
I'll leave you with the entirety 1 Peter 2:21-25: "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." This is the result of Jesus' suffering. What might be the results of yours and mine?
-Matt
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Paul's Gospel
What does Paul mean by "his Gospel." Look at Galatians 1. It seems as if there are different Gospels, and only Paul's is right and acceptable. So what is Paul's Gospel? Without being exhaustive, it seems the simplest way to describe Paul's Gospel is by using his most direct statements about it.
1 Corinthians 15 tells us that Paul's Gospel includes some very important historical events: Christ died (in line with the OT understanding of atonement/propitiation); he was buried; he was raised on the 3rd day; he appeared to many. Furthermore, Paul cannot imagine the Gospel without hope in a future resurrection for all in Christ as Jesus subjects even death to himself. Then, he will submit to God, who will be glorified as "all in all." Paul reiterates the historicity of the Gospel in 2 Tim 2:8, where he describes his own Gospel as 1) Jesus' resurrection from death and 2) his messianic heritage as a descendant of David. So, the Gospel is rooted in history.
In Rom 1:16, Paul calls the Gospel the power of God into (resulting in) salvation to all who believe. It presumes the reality of a future judgment at which Christians will be saved, according to Rom 2:16. Galatians is almost certainly one big explanation of the Gospel in light of Paul's opponents. If I may summarize Galatians, the Gospel is the work of Christ within a life, transforming it from the inside out. The Gospel is bold, mysterious, true, and inextricably intertwined with grace. The Spirit accompanies the proclamation of the Gospel and instigates transformation. Paul assumes the Gospel necessarily produces virtuous behavior. (Again, remember I'm just focusing on Paul's most simple statements about the Gospel, like "The Gospel is…")
In conclusion, Paul's Gospel is rooted in the historical Jesus, who died a sacrificial death as the Jewish messiah for the sin of mankind, resulting in both present and future salvation. The Father raised Jesus to life, guaranteeing a future resurrection and eschatological (ie, at the end times) salvation for all who believe. The Spirit accompanies belief in the Gospel, resulting in transformed, virtuous lives. For Paul, all these components line up with the work of God in the OT. Furthermore, he does not feel the need to directly command what his life proves to be true: the Gospel message must be proclaimed in word and deed.
Keep in mind, this is how Paul presents the Gospel. He did not intend to be exhaustive in his presentation. Thus, when you read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you'll see more of a relationship between the Gospel and healing, ministering to the poor, and performing miracles. In Acts, you'll see evangelism and church life as it relates to the Gospel. Paul probably assumed many of these elements. Or, maybe he taught them so well that he did not feel the need to write about them. Whatever the case, this is an examination of Paul's most direct descriptions of the Gospel.
-Matt
1 Corinthians 15 tells us that Paul's Gospel includes some very important historical events: Christ died (in line with the OT understanding of atonement/propitiation); he was buried; he was raised on the 3rd day; he appeared to many. Furthermore, Paul cannot imagine the Gospel without hope in a future resurrection for all in Christ as Jesus subjects even death to himself. Then, he will submit to God, who will be glorified as "all in all." Paul reiterates the historicity of the Gospel in 2 Tim 2:8, where he describes his own Gospel as 1) Jesus' resurrection from death and 2) his messianic heritage as a descendant of David. So, the Gospel is rooted in history.
In Rom 1:16, Paul calls the Gospel the power of God into (resulting in) salvation to all who believe. It presumes the reality of a future judgment at which Christians will be saved, according to Rom 2:16. Galatians is almost certainly one big explanation of the Gospel in light of Paul's opponents. If I may summarize Galatians, the Gospel is the work of Christ within a life, transforming it from the inside out. The Gospel is bold, mysterious, true, and inextricably intertwined with grace. The Spirit accompanies the proclamation of the Gospel and instigates transformation. Paul assumes the Gospel necessarily produces virtuous behavior. (Again, remember I'm just focusing on Paul's most simple statements about the Gospel, like "The Gospel is…")
In conclusion, Paul's Gospel is rooted in the historical Jesus, who died a sacrificial death as the Jewish messiah for the sin of mankind, resulting in both present and future salvation. The Father raised Jesus to life, guaranteeing a future resurrection and eschatological (ie, at the end times) salvation for all who believe. The Spirit accompanies belief in the Gospel, resulting in transformed, virtuous lives. For Paul, all these components line up with the work of God in the OT. Furthermore, he does not feel the need to directly command what his life proves to be true: the Gospel message must be proclaimed in word and deed.
Keep in mind, this is how Paul presents the Gospel. He did not intend to be exhaustive in his presentation. Thus, when you read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you'll see more of a relationship between the Gospel and healing, ministering to the poor, and performing miracles. In Acts, you'll see evangelism and church life as it relates to the Gospel. Paul probably assumed many of these elements. Or, maybe he taught them so well that he did not feel the need to write about them. Whatever the case, this is an examination of Paul's most direct descriptions of the Gospel.
-Matt
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Resurrection of the Dead
Here's the conclusion of the paper I've been working on. It's written as a sermon manuscript with an "interesting" opening and all. Hope it makes sense...
Fortune telling and Psychic readings are huge industries throughout the world. For a price, you can have your palm read, learn your future from tarot cards, or discover astrological signs concerning upcoming events. Today, I want to tell you your future for free. Actually, I will let the apostle Paul describe the glorious future of all who have a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ. So, let us read 1 Corinthians 15:12-28 together.
One of the least enjoyable aspects of pastoral ministry is watching people suffer, especially when they have lost a loved one. Death is painful because the separation seems as if it will last forever. Death is also scary since we do not know what lies beyond. On the other hand, there can be some very positive responses to death if the person knows Jesus. Loved ones can reflect on the truth that the departed no longer experiences pain or sorrow. More importantly, the one who has died gets to see Jesus face-to-face and worship him fully. What a joy! When we consider these important truths, we cannot help but think that Heaven is the end. What could be better than Heaven?
Yet, Paul reminded the Corinthian church of something we all need to remember today. The resurrection of the dead is fundamental. Look at v. 12 with me. Paul asks a rhetorical question that tells us that some people in the Corinthian church must have denied that the dead would rise again. In the society in which the Corinthians lived, this belief would not have been as uncommon as it may seem to some of us.
Those who have spent some time studying their Bibles probably would consent that the future resurrection of the dead is a sound Christian doctrine. Yet, I would suggest to you that our struggle today is not that we deny it outright, but that many Christians ignore the future resurrection, treating it as irrelevant. Paul’s response in v. 13 is telling. He correlates Christ’s resurrection with our future resurrections, suggesting that to deny one is to deny the other. The point, then, is that even though the resurrection of the dead in Christ may seem like an irrelevant doctrine, we must hold to it as an irreplaceable feature of the Gospel message
The truth is, many of us would be more comfortable with Christianity if we were allowed to pick-and-choose what aspects of the Gospel we wanted to believe. Unfortunately, some actually do so. But, in vv. 14-19, Paul argues that to deny any aspect of the Gospel, specifically the future resurrection of the dead in Paul’s context, is to bring about drastic consequences. Paul lists seven consequences. First, all preaching is useless if the Gospel is not entirely true and reliable. Second, belief does nothing for the Believer. Just as believing that I will win a million dollars does me no good if it is untrue, so also belief in the Gospel is pointless if parts of the Gospel are false. Third, Christians are liars, especially if they knowingly proclaim falsehood to others. Fourth, faith is pointless if the object of faith is unreliable or untrue. Fifth, if faith is pointless, we are still under God’s wrath, trapped in our sins with no hope of salvation. The veracity of the Gospel is the foundation of our salvation, and the whole house crumbles if the foundation falls apart. Sixth, the dead are gone forever. Logically, if there is no salvation, then this life is the end for everyone. There is no hope of life after death. And Paul’s final drastic consequence for those who deny part of the Gospel message is that the world will see that Christians are fools, and they will pity us. A little later, beginning in v. 30, Paul says that all people who spend their life working for the Gospel are foolish if part of the Gospel they preach is false. The world will recognize it if the truth is that we have wasted our lives proclaiming a falsehood, and they will realize how pathetic we truly are.
What should be clear is that Paul takes the gospel very seriously. It is all or nothing, including the apparently strange belief in the resurrection of people who are already in heaven. However, in the next nine verses, Paul gives support for why the resurrection of the dead is inevitable and then describes why it is vital. Beginning in vv. 20-23, he gives three reasons why our resurrection is inevitable. In v. 20, he notes that at this very moment, Christ reigns as someone who was raised from the dead. Paul’s point is that it is silly to argue that resurrection is impossible when it has already occurred once. Paul even uses an analogy that Jesus is the first crop of a harvest that is sure to follow. No farmer picks the first ripe ear of corn and then presumes that there will be no more. Rather, he has a down payment of a future harvest of corn. Second, in comparison with the results of Adam’s sin, it is certain that Christ’s resurrection guarantees ours. To our finite minds, it is often difficult to understand how we are guilty for Adam’s sin. Yet, we know that Adam’s sin brought death for all who identify with Adam, meaning all of humanity. In the same way, everyone who identifies with Jesus receive the result of his resurrection, which is their own future resurrection. Third, in v. 23, Paul describes Jesus as a military commander who leads his troops. Where the commander goes, his troops will definitely follow. Since Christ was resurrected first, our resurrection will undoubtedly follow as the second stage of the end times progression.
So, Paul has told us that the resurrection of the dead in Christ is a fundamental element of the Gospel message, and he has proven that there are at least three good reasons to believe that our resurrection is guaranteed. Therefore, in the final four verses, Paul will share why our resurrection is vital. First, Christ must defeat all of his enemies in the end, as vv. 24, 25, and 27 make clear. These enemies are all the things that stand in the way of God’s glory. Christ will defeat Satan, his demons, sin, the effects of the fall, and even human lives that oppose Christ. He will subject everything to his autonomous authority including tornados, famine, disease, and all the horrible things we read about in the newspapers every day.
However, in addition to all these evils, there will be one final enemy that Christ will defeat as his ultimate act of power, as Paul describes in v. 26. The greatest enemy Christ will defeat is death, who will be destroyed by our resurrection. This is why the resurrection of the dead is so important. How else can Christ establish that he has absolute authority over death? Obviously, Christ rose from the dead, which means the beginning of the end for death. That is why Paul can already mock death, asking where its sting is. Yet, we actually still experience the sting of death every time we read the obituaries or attend a funeral. Paul’s point, though, is that death will one day truly have no more sting. When Christ raises his people from the dead, he will extinguish the consequences of death once-and-for-all.
Still, the destruction of death is not the end of the story. Paul goes on to describe that God’s glory is the purpose of all these events. Following Christ’s victory over all that opposes God, Jesus will submit himself to the Father so that God can reign as “all in all.” There is not time to discuss the relationships between members of the Trinity. What is clear from Scripture, though, is that no member of the Trinity is inferior to the others. All three are equally God. Yet, they play different roles. Thus, Jesus functions in submission to the Father even though he is equal. This should tell us a lot about our marriage relationships, by the way. The point is that Jesus will complete his role, submitting all authority to the Father in the way that Adam and Eve should have in the beginning. They chose to try and be “like God” even though they never could. Conversely, Jesus will submit to the Father even though he is equal. This will be the end of “the End.” Therefore, God will reign for the rest of time as “all in all.”
What is clear is that the timeline of creation is moving toward a certain end, and the final piece of the puzzle is God’s unchallenged glory. Since this is true, the purpose of our lives should be the same. The events of our lives should move toward the glory and praise of God. We should praise Him knowing that he will eventually rid creation of those things that cause us such pain and suffering. We should praise Him knowing that victory is Christ’s, and we have nothing to fear. We should praise Him knowing that in addition to the wonderful glory of Heaven, there will be a genuine resurrection of all who have died, rendering death incapacitated. This is the future according to the Bible, which is infinitely more reliable than any psychic could ever hope to be. And since all these things are true, we can trust in the veracity of the Gospel message as we take it to those who do not yet know the truth.
-Matt
Fortune telling and Psychic readings are huge industries throughout the world. For a price, you can have your palm read, learn your future from tarot cards, or discover astrological signs concerning upcoming events. Today, I want to tell you your future for free. Actually, I will let the apostle Paul describe the glorious future of all who have a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ. So, let us read 1 Corinthians 15:12-28 together.
One of the least enjoyable aspects of pastoral ministry is watching people suffer, especially when they have lost a loved one. Death is painful because the separation seems as if it will last forever. Death is also scary since we do not know what lies beyond. On the other hand, there can be some very positive responses to death if the person knows Jesus. Loved ones can reflect on the truth that the departed no longer experiences pain or sorrow. More importantly, the one who has died gets to see Jesus face-to-face and worship him fully. What a joy! When we consider these important truths, we cannot help but think that Heaven is the end. What could be better than Heaven?
Yet, Paul reminded the Corinthian church of something we all need to remember today. The resurrection of the dead is fundamental. Look at v. 12 with me. Paul asks a rhetorical question that tells us that some people in the Corinthian church must have denied that the dead would rise again. In the society in which the Corinthians lived, this belief would not have been as uncommon as it may seem to some of us.
Those who have spent some time studying their Bibles probably would consent that the future resurrection of the dead is a sound Christian doctrine. Yet, I would suggest to you that our struggle today is not that we deny it outright, but that many Christians ignore the future resurrection, treating it as irrelevant. Paul’s response in v. 13 is telling. He correlates Christ’s resurrection with our future resurrections, suggesting that to deny one is to deny the other. The point, then, is that even though the resurrection of the dead in Christ may seem like an irrelevant doctrine, we must hold to it as an irreplaceable feature of the Gospel message
The truth is, many of us would be more comfortable with Christianity if we were allowed to pick-and-choose what aspects of the Gospel we wanted to believe. Unfortunately, some actually do so. But, in vv. 14-19, Paul argues that to deny any aspect of the Gospel, specifically the future resurrection of the dead in Paul’s context, is to bring about drastic consequences. Paul lists seven consequences. First, all preaching is useless if the Gospel is not entirely true and reliable. Second, belief does nothing for the Believer. Just as believing that I will win a million dollars does me no good if it is untrue, so also belief in the Gospel is pointless if parts of the Gospel are false. Third, Christians are liars, especially if they knowingly proclaim falsehood to others. Fourth, faith is pointless if the object of faith is unreliable or untrue. Fifth, if faith is pointless, we are still under God’s wrath, trapped in our sins with no hope of salvation. The veracity of the Gospel is the foundation of our salvation, and the whole house crumbles if the foundation falls apart. Sixth, the dead are gone forever. Logically, if there is no salvation, then this life is the end for everyone. There is no hope of life after death. And Paul’s final drastic consequence for those who deny part of the Gospel message is that the world will see that Christians are fools, and they will pity us. A little later, beginning in v. 30, Paul says that all people who spend their life working for the Gospel are foolish if part of the Gospel they preach is false. The world will recognize it if the truth is that we have wasted our lives proclaiming a falsehood, and they will realize how pathetic we truly are.
What should be clear is that Paul takes the gospel very seriously. It is all or nothing, including the apparently strange belief in the resurrection of people who are already in heaven. However, in the next nine verses, Paul gives support for why the resurrection of the dead is inevitable and then describes why it is vital. Beginning in vv. 20-23, he gives three reasons why our resurrection is inevitable. In v. 20, he notes that at this very moment, Christ reigns as someone who was raised from the dead. Paul’s point is that it is silly to argue that resurrection is impossible when it has already occurred once. Paul even uses an analogy that Jesus is the first crop of a harvest that is sure to follow. No farmer picks the first ripe ear of corn and then presumes that there will be no more. Rather, he has a down payment of a future harvest of corn. Second, in comparison with the results of Adam’s sin, it is certain that Christ’s resurrection guarantees ours. To our finite minds, it is often difficult to understand how we are guilty for Adam’s sin. Yet, we know that Adam’s sin brought death for all who identify with Adam, meaning all of humanity. In the same way, everyone who identifies with Jesus receive the result of his resurrection, which is their own future resurrection. Third, in v. 23, Paul describes Jesus as a military commander who leads his troops. Where the commander goes, his troops will definitely follow. Since Christ was resurrected first, our resurrection will undoubtedly follow as the second stage of the end times progression.
So, Paul has told us that the resurrection of the dead in Christ is a fundamental element of the Gospel message, and he has proven that there are at least three good reasons to believe that our resurrection is guaranteed. Therefore, in the final four verses, Paul will share why our resurrection is vital. First, Christ must defeat all of his enemies in the end, as vv. 24, 25, and 27 make clear. These enemies are all the things that stand in the way of God’s glory. Christ will defeat Satan, his demons, sin, the effects of the fall, and even human lives that oppose Christ. He will subject everything to his autonomous authority including tornados, famine, disease, and all the horrible things we read about in the newspapers every day.
However, in addition to all these evils, there will be one final enemy that Christ will defeat as his ultimate act of power, as Paul describes in v. 26. The greatest enemy Christ will defeat is death, who will be destroyed by our resurrection. This is why the resurrection of the dead is so important. How else can Christ establish that he has absolute authority over death? Obviously, Christ rose from the dead, which means the beginning of the end for death. That is why Paul can already mock death, asking where its sting is. Yet, we actually still experience the sting of death every time we read the obituaries or attend a funeral. Paul’s point, though, is that death will one day truly have no more sting. When Christ raises his people from the dead, he will extinguish the consequences of death once-and-for-all.
Still, the destruction of death is not the end of the story. Paul goes on to describe that God’s glory is the purpose of all these events. Following Christ’s victory over all that opposes God, Jesus will submit himself to the Father so that God can reign as “all in all.” There is not time to discuss the relationships between members of the Trinity. What is clear from Scripture, though, is that no member of the Trinity is inferior to the others. All three are equally God. Yet, they play different roles. Thus, Jesus functions in submission to the Father even though he is equal. This should tell us a lot about our marriage relationships, by the way. The point is that Jesus will complete his role, submitting all authority to the Father in the way that Adam and Eve should have in the beginning. They chose to try and be “like God” even though they never could. Conversely, Jesus will submit to the Father even though he is equal. This will be the end of “the End.” Therefore, God will reign for the rest of time as “all in all.”
What is clear is that the timeline of creation is moving toward a certain end, and the final piece of the puzzle is God’s unchallenged glory. Since this is true, the purpose of our lives should be the same. The events of our lives should move toward the glory and praise of God. We should praise Him knowing that he will eventually rid creation of those things that cause us such pain and suffering. We should praise Him knowing that victory is Christ’s, and we have nothing to fear. We should praise Him knowing that in addition to the wonderful glory of Heaven, there will be a genuine resurrection of all who have died, rendering death incapacitated. This is the future according to the Bible, which is infinitely more reliable than any psychic could ever hope to be. And since all these things are true, we can trust in the veracity of the Gospel message as we take it to those who do not yet know the truth.
-Matt
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Weird Night
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20110702/NEWS01/107020376/Moviegoers-evacuated-safely-after-smoke-brings-crews-Campbell-16?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CSpecial%20Reports%7Cp
We were at the Campbell 16 and had watched half of Xmen when the power went out. They definitely told us to stay put. We waited about 15 minutes and finally left. They gave us free tickets for another time, and as we were leaving, we passed about a dozen fire trucks.
We were at the Campbell 16 and had watched half of Xmen when the power went out. They definitely told us to stay put. We waited about 15 minutes and finally left. They gave us free tickets for another time, and as we were leaving, we passed about a dozen fire trucks.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
My 1 Cor 1:26-31 Translation (The MKT)
Hey, some of you know that I'm preaching this Sunday. The hardest part about putting together a sermon or lesson is that you have to leave out most of what you learn so that your main point shines through. In high school media, we called it killing puppies (a reference to a situation where a student had a really cute shot of puppies, but the shot did not really contribute to the news story. So, the puppies shot had to be left out.) You guys know that I'm a Greek nerd, and there are numerous great insights that I would love to include in the sermon. But, I decided that the most beneficial thing to do would be to write my own translation that reflects some of those insights. That way, I'm sharing what I've learned without having to go into great detail. So, here is my translation of 1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Christians, think about your election. Few of you were naturally wise, in positions of power, or in the upper class. But, out of everyone in the world, God chose the dumb people so the wise would be ashamed. And, he chose the powerless to shame the powerful. Out of everyone on earth, God chose lower-class people, those treated as worthless, the "nobodies" so that the "somebodies" might lose their advantages.
His purpose was that no one would be prideful before Him. Only because of God are you in Christ Jesus, who is our God-given source of wise things such as righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Therefore, just as the Scripture says, "The person who boasts in the Lord should boast!"
-Matt
Christians, think about your election. Few of you were naturally wise, in positions of power, or in the upper class. But, out of everyone in the world, God chose the dumb people so the wise would be ashamed. And, he chose the powerless to shame the powerful. Out of everyone on earth, God chose lower-class people, those treated as worthless, the "nobodies" so that the "somebodies" might lose their advantages.
His purpose was that no one would be prideful before Him. Only because of God are you in Christ Jesus, who is our God-given source of wise things such as righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Therefore, just as the Scripture says, "The person who boasts in the Lord should boast!"
-Matt
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Fun Fact
I have been using the Springfield Greene County Library's new language program, Mango (found at thelibrary.org), to work on my conversational Hebrew. They include cultural facts within the lessons, which are very interactive by the way. One of the facts was that in 1903 they attempted to establish the state of Israel within Uganda, Africa. Of course, that was rejected and the independent state of Israel was founded in 1948.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Good (Thursday night and) Friday
I've been working on writing some curriculum to hopefully use in some type of class someday. Anyway, I'm working on a section about salvation and just got done with my narrative about the death of Jesus. My whole point, as should be obvious, is to stress that Jesus truly suffered. I think about all these people who have been killed in Joplin by the tornado. It's somehow comforting to know that most of those who died died quickly. The same, however, cannot be said about Jesus. His torture lasted for hours and included everything from excruciating physical suffering to extreme emotional humiliation. I'm sure you're looking forward to reading this now... but here it is anyway.
One of the reasons the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did was because of their law enforcement. They knew how to burn gruesome images into the minds of potentially rebellious people, demonstrating the punishment the peoples' insurgence would warrant. By the first century A.D., the Roman army had hundreds of years worth of practice crucifying the worst of criminals and rebels, honing the agonizing form of execution into an art form. It was not unheard of for the Romans to line vast stretches of highway with the crosses of thousands of dissenters. Then, as people traveled, they were given a horrifying picture of the potential fate awaiting those with similar defiant ambitions.
On a Thursday night toward the beginning of the Spring of A.D. 33, one of Jesus' long time students led the temple police to Jesus' place of prayer. Though his other students were prepared to go to war on Jesus' behalf, their master chose to go peacefully with mob. He was dragged before the religious leaders as a criminal and was given a hasty trial. They rendered a guilty verdict and immediately began punishing him, placing a blindfold over his eyes and beating him. It was unlikely that Jesus got any sleep that night.
Then, early in the morning, he was dragged before the governor of the region, Pilate, who quickly passed him off to another bureaucrat. When Pilate regained control of the unusual prisoner, he suggested to the crowd and religious leaders that Jesus had committed no crime worthy of death. But the growing mob of rowdy Jews would not take "no" for an answer. They shouted for Jesus to be crucified and began to work themselves into a riot. Eventually, the Roman governor saw that he had no other option, so he consented. Jesus was flogged with a whip that would have contained shards of bone and glass designed to rip the skin from his back and legs. Just to maintain consciousness amidst the pain would have required Jesus to exert every ounce of energy he had.
Next, the soldiers, who were beginning the most nerve-racking time of year in Jerusalem, dragged Jesus away to use as stress relief. They decided to have some fun with Jesus, stripping him naked only to redress him as a parody of the king he claimed to be. The crown they smashed into his scalp was composed of long, sharp thorns that would have contributed to significant blood-loss from Jesus' head. The soldiers spit all over him and humiliated him beyond what any human should have to experience.
After such a degrading experience, Jesus was required to carry his own crossbeam across the city. Yet, due to his weakened state, Jesus could not bear the hundred pound wooden beam, so a bystander was forced to lug it through the narrow city streets. They took him to a place called the Skull, probably named so because of skull-shaped sections of rock, just outside the city walls. The soldiers offered Jesus wine mixed with some medicine to act as a painkiller. However, he refused, apparently wishing to suffer the full extent of his pain. Then, they laid his crossbeam on the ground, stretched his arms against it, and nailed large spikes into his wrists. The nerves they cut and severed must have created excruciating pain, while his destroyed arteries produced a steady flow of blood.
As the soldiers lifted Jesus into place, all of his weight would have become centered on the nails in his wrists, tearing at his muscles and ligaments. Most likely, a large nail was also driven through his ankles so that he could use his legs to lift himself to breathe, otherwise he would have died quickly. But, the true horror of crucifixion was that it could last days. Accordingly, crucifixion is considered by many to be the most painful and horrendous way a person can die. Jesus' crucifixion likely lasted over six hours during which he forgave those crucifying him, ministered to a criminal who was also being crucified, reassured his mother, cried out to God, watched as onlookers ridiculed him, and finally died. To be sure he had died, the soldiers drove a spear up into Jesus' heart, which released a flow of blood and fluid guaranteeing the obvious. The Son of God was dead.
-Matt
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Creation, pt 7
What should be clear so far is that God created all things, physical and spiritual, and he made them good and orderly, though not divine. In the midst of this discussion, the purpose of creation has becomes apparent, though it deserves a more thorough examination.
Scholars have proposed several models to try and understand why God created. Emanationists describe creation as an overflow of the God’s nature. He did not make an intentional choice to create; rather, it flowed forth from his being in the same way that a joyful person tends to spread that joy to others. Unfortunately, the emanationist tends to leave the will and personality of God out of the process, making creation little more than a glorious accident.
Others, who highlight God’s personality and relational nature, suggest that God created so that he could give expression to the attributes of his goodness that require a recipient. In other words, God needed man so that he could demonstrate grace because, even within the Trinity, there would be no one who needed undeserved forgiveness. This view has two problems, however. First, God seems to be incomplete. In Acts 17, Paul asserts that God is unlike the pagan gods because he needs nothing from man. Thus, while creation certainly allowed God to express previously unexpressed qualities, it is dangerous to assert that he needed man to complete him. Second, such a view glorifies sin. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they did not need forgiveness. Therefore, God must have been waiting and hoping for their failure, so that he could finally demonstrate his grace. Yet, if God longed for man to sin, would this not limit his holiness in some sense?
The best model, then, may be that of a novelist who writes for his own pleasure. Like a novelist, God creates something from nothing, using nothing more than his own artistic creativity. God, like the novelist, is outside of his creation and can do with it as he pleases. Creation does not complete God but is simply an expression of his artistry. Yet, creation does not freely flow from his nature; instead, it is the intentional act of a personal God. Thus, God could have chosen to never create the world because it was not a necessity for him to do so.
Nevertheless, no model of creation is complete because the fullness of the transcendent God’s purpose for creation remains unknowable. Thus, Deuteronomy 4:32 says, “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and inquire from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything been done like this great thing, or has anything been heard like it?” The answer is certainly a resounding, “No!” There is no adequate analogy or model that expresses the greatness of God’s work in creation.
For the blog readers, this may be a frustrating conclusion to a section seeking to understand a "why?" question. Yet, in a way, it can hopefully be encouraging as well. As a young child, you don't want a parent who is on your level of very limited knowledge and understanding. No, you want a parent who is much wiser, even if it means you can't understand all that they do. Likewise, if we could fully wrap our heads around the purposes of God, then He would not be much of a God. Keep in mind, of course, that this does not eliminate the need for and value in putting some mental elbow grease into deep theology like this. It may seem irrelevant to think through why God created, but I promise that it will shape your whole theology of life's purpose, sin, and grace (especially if you get Creation wrong). Furthermore, it's a pretty obvious question that a lost person might want to ask you someday. "So, you're telling me God made all things, but why exactly did he create?" Then you can say, "Well, it's not because he needed to or accidentally created. Actually, He just thought it would be a really good thing for him do so, and the great part is how much he loves all that he created."
-Matt
Scholars have proposed several models to try and understand why God created. Emanationists describe creation as an overflow of the God’s nature. He did not make an intentional choice to create; rather, it flowed forth from his being in the same way that a joyful person tends to spread that joy to others. Unfortunately, the emanationist tends to leave the will and personality of God out of the process, making creation little more than a glorious accident.
Others, who highlight God’s personality and relational nature, suggest that God created so that he could give expression to the attributes of his goodness that require a recipient. In other words, God needed man so that he could demonstrate grace because, even within the Trinity, there would be no one who needed undeserved forgiveness. This view has two problems, however. First, God seems to be incomplete. In Acts 17, Paul asserts that God is unlike the pagan gods because he needs nothing from man. Thus, while creation certainly allowed God to express previously unexpressed qualities, it is dangerous to assert that he needed man to complete him. Second, such a view glorifies sin. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they did not need forgiveness. Therefore, God must have been waiting and hoping for their failure, so that he could finally demonstrate his grace. Yet, if God longed for man to sin, would this not limit his holiness in some sense?
The best model, then, may be that of a novelist who writes for his own pleasure. Like a novelist, God creates something from nothing, using nothing more than his own artistic creativity. God, like the novelist, is outside of his creation and can do with it as he pleases. Creation does not complete God but is simply an expression of his artistry. Yet, creation does not freely flow from his nature; instead, it is the intentional act of a personal God. Thus, God could have chosen to never create the world because it was not a necessity for him to do so.
Nevertheless, no model of creation is complete because the fullness of the transcendent God’s purpose for creation remains unknowable. Thus, Deuteronomy 4:32 says, “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and inquire from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything been done like this great thing, or has anything been heard like it?” The answer is certainly a resounding, “No!” There is no adequate analogy or model that expresses the greatness of God’s work in creation.
For the blog readers, this may be a frustrating conclusion to a section seeking to understand a "why?" question. Yet, in a way, it can hopefully be encouraging as well. As a young child, you don't want a parent who is on your level of very limited knowledge and understanding. No, you want a parent who is much wiser, even if it means you can't understand all that they do. Likewise, if we could fully wrap our heads around the purposes of God, then He would not be much of a God. Keep in mind, of course, that this does not eliminate the need for and value in putting some mental elbow grease into deep theology like this. It may seem irrelevant to think through why God created, but I promise that it will shape your whole theology of life's purpose, sin, and grace (especially if you get Creation wrong). Furthermore, it's a pretty obvious question that a lost person might want to ask you someday. "So, you're telling me God made all things, but why exactly did he create?" Then you can say, "Well, it's not because he needed to or accidentally created. Actually, He just thought it would be a really good thing for him do so, and the great part is how much he loves all that he created."
-Matt
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Free Will vs. Determinism
I saw an article by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22tier.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2) about the impact a belief in either Free Will or Determinism has upon a person's morals. Free will, of course, means that human beings are genuinely able to make either a right or wrong choice. Determinism, on the other hand, is a system in which any supposed choice is predetermined either by God (among Calvinists) or by world forces beyond our control like destiny (for non-Christian determinists). This article does not deal with Christian issues; thus, it is simply a question of whether or not the great Force (yes, think Star Wars here) causes you to make a decision or not.
To put flesh on these terms, imagine a man who walks up to a police officer on a sidewalk and punches him in the face. Free Will-ists would say that the man certainly could have chosen NOT to punch the cop. Determinists would suggest that the man was coerced by the Force to the extent that he really had no choice in the matter.
So, the study concluded that a majority of people believe "a hypothetical person in a hypothetically deterministic world would not be responsible for his sins." Restated, if all people's decisions are determined to occur a certain way before they supposedly choose, then they should not be held accountable for seemingly bad choices. It would be like if you took a child's hand and forced him to slap his sister, the boy would not be to blame. Any sin, then, should not be held against the sinner because he had no real choice in the matter.
Therefore, the article suggests that those who believe their own choices are predetermined have much lower morals than those who understand that they have free will. I would be interested to see a study concerning the morality of Calvinists vs. Arminians. Do these trends hold true if the Holy God is understood as the one determining things? If Arminians have better morals, is it because they live in constant fear of "losing" their salvation?
Whatever the results of such a study might be, it's clear that Scripture commands God's people to act in certain ways. We are to be holy as God is holy, for we are made in His image and should reflect His glory. Also, James 1 makes it clear that God is not the author of sin. Rather our own desires entice us into making ourselves or other created things objects of worship above God (my def. of sin). Therefore, the hardcore Christian determinist must find some philosophical/theological way to get God off the hook for causing human sin if the determinist wishes to still have a God worthy of worship. On the other hand, those of us who believe in free will have to find some way to include God's sovereignty in the matter. These are heady issues. The best and brightest minds have not come to definite conclusions on these questions over the full 2000 years of Christian history. Thus, it is often the PROCESS of wrestling with such issues that provides great value in our lives more so than the eventual conclusions.
-Matt
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Creation, pt 6
What follows are the last few paragraphs about the "nature" of creation, here dealing with that fact that it is different from God. To most of us, this is obvious. But, for ancient pantheists and some types of modern humanists, God IS the tree and the tree IS God. We would say that God is everywhere, including in the tree. Yet, if we destory the tree, it does not destroy any of God. Anyway, that's a little intro:
A final element descriptive of the nature of creation is that it is distinct from its Creator. As stated above, natural theology maintains that man can learn something of the Creator by examining his creation. Still, God is wholly distinct and different from any created thing, therefore limiting the degree to which man can find God in nature.
The attribute of distinctness, often referred to as transcendence, is another truth assumed throughout Scripture. Yet, the Bible makes clear that, because God is transcendent, he cannot be limited by his creation. Thus, through Jeremiah, God says, “Can a man hide himself in hiding places, so I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD.” Here, God reminds Judah that he is not limited by the laws of time and space that govern created things. Instead, he may be found simultaneously in all places, a confession of his omniscience. The author of Hebrews states more clearly, “And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” Again, the emphasis is on God’s omniscience, though it is expressed in the fact that he is not limited by creation in any way.
Another important distinction between God and creation is that God is holy. His holiness means that he is entirely other, separate both by his general transcendence and by his inability to relate to sin. Isaiah 6 is a great example of God’s holiness and its effect upon man. Verses 1-4 illustrate the holiness of God, to which Isaiah responded in verse five with a confession that the combination of God’s holiness and Isaiah’s sinfulness would ruin the prophet. Not until God, through the agent of his angel, cleanses Isaiah’s sin does God begin to speak to Isaiah. The reader’s conclusion is that God is holy both in his general qualities and in his sinlessness.
The implications of God’s holiness and transcendence are very important throughout the Bible. Because of the social setting of the ancient world, God stressed that no creation possesses divinity. “God has a unique status, so that he alone is to be worshiped.” God’s people, then, should not imitate other nations who worship creation as if it is divine. When God gives the Ten Commandments to Moses, he says, “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” In other words, God does not want man to put creation, whether natural or man-made, on the same level as God. Thus, David expresses in Psalm 19:1, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.” Creation should not be considered deity because its proper role is to reflect the glory of God. Only when creation functions in this way is it enjoyed as the wonderful workmanship God made it to be.
In the next section of the paper, I deal with the big "Why?" question. In case you're wondering, it gets a little more applicable from here forth, so let that be an encouragement if you care enough to keep reading.
-Matt
A final element descriptive of the nature of creation is that it is distinct from its Creator. As stated above, natural theology maintains that man can learn something of the Creator by examining his creation. Still, God is wholly distinct and different from any created thing, therefore limiting the degree to which man can find God in nature.
The attribute of distinctness, often referred to as transcendence, is another truth assumed throughout Scripture. Yet, the Bible makes clear that, because God is transcendent, he cannot be limited by his creation. Thus, through Jeremiah, God says, “Can a man hide himself in hiding places, so I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD.” Here, God reminds Judah that he is not limited by the laws of time and space that govern created things. Instead, he may be found simultaneously in all places, a confession of his omniscience. The author of Hebrews states more clearly, “And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” Again, the emphasis is on God’s omniscience, though it is expressed in the fact that he is not limited by creation in any way.
Another important distinction between God and creation is that God is holy. His holiness means that he is entirely other, separate both by his general transcendence and by his inability to relate to sin. Isaiah 6 is a great example of God’s holiness and its effect upon man. Verses 1-4 illustrate the holiness of God, to which Isaiah responded in verse five with a confession that the combination of God’s holiness and Isaiah’s sinfulness would ruin the prophet. Not until God, through the agent of his angel, cleanses Isaiah’s sin does God begin to speak to Isaiah. The reader’s conclusion is that God is holy both in his general qualities and in his sinlessness.
The implications of God’s holiness and transcendence are very important throughout the Bible. Because of the social setting of the ancient world, God stressed that no creation possesses divinity. “God has a unique status, so that he alone is to be worshiped.” God’s people, then, should not imitate other nations who worship creation as if it is divine. When God gives the Ten Commandments to Moses, he says, “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” In other words, God does not want man to put creation, whether natural or man-made, on the same level as God. Thus, David expresses in Psalm 19:1, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.” Creation should not be considered deity because its proper role is to reflect the glory of God. Only when creation functions in this way is it enjoyed as the wonderful workmanship God made it to be.
In the next section of the paper, I deal with the big "Why?" question. In case you're wondering, it gets a little more applicable from here forth, so let that be an encouragement if you care enough to keep reading.
-Matt
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Creation, pt 5
This entry will address the nature of creation as both physical and spiritual. These elements are not opposed (good vs. bad) nor are they separable. Rather, they are quite intertwined, just as the human is not a loosely connected body and soul but a united being of spiritual and physical makeup.
As the orderliness of creation distinguished Jewish cosmology from that of other nations, so the early Christian insistence upon the goodness of Creation differentiated orthodoxy from heresy. In opposition to Marcion and the Gnostics, early Christians stressed that the physical world is good because God created it. In other words, “nothing made is intrinsically evil.” When Paul’s protégé Timothy was confronted with Christian ascetics, the apostle reminded the younger pastor, “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude.” Yet, Paul’s views were not original, for both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes contend that God created physical pleasures, whether food and drink or sexual satisfaction, to be enjoyed. Generally speaking, God’s conclusion at the end of his period of creating was that creation was very good. Consequently, there is no room for dualism either in ancient Judaism or early Christianity.
Conversely, however, is the understanding that in addition to creating all of nature, God’s creation included the spiritual realm. The substance of God’s creation is not limited to the physical world. Most ancient people would have been polytheists who worshiped nature to some extent, but who also attributed its existence to a number of gods. In modern times, though, humanists often claim that nature is the only truth man can know. Thus, anything man cannot observe within nature must not exist. Yet, the Bible asserts that God created both the natural and the supernatural worlds. For example, the author of Nehemiah 9:6 writes, “You alone are the LORD. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.” The heaven of heavens likely refers to the spiritual realm, while the heavenly host is certainly an army of angels. In accordance with his Jewish assumptions, Nehemiah posits that all created things, whether spiritual or physical, are the direct results of God’s creative activity.
For my (two) blog readers, it's incredibly important that we not forget the spiritual realm. Unfortunately, we are children of the enlightment, rationalism, and the scientific method. Therefore, if something cannot be tested or deduced logically, it must not be true. (Of course, the rationalist cannot prove that there is NOT, in fact, a spiritual realm.) The truth is, though, that even we committed, Bible-reading Christians cannot help but scoff at the idea of spiritual forces impacting our lives. We want to be in complete control of all circumstances, so we don't like the idea of an unseeable realm of influence. Yet, the Bible places great emphasis on spiritual forces, both the negatives ones and those who serve God. What, then, should we do? How can we impact the spiritual realm? Most simply... pray. It seems crazy, but it's a good strategy. Most of all, don't ignore the possibility of spiritual forces.
-Matt
As the orderliness of creation distinguished Jewish cosmology from that of other nations, so the early Christian insistence upon the goodness of Creation differentiated orthodoxy from heresy. In opposition to Marcion and the Gnostics, early Christians stressed that the physical world is good because God created it. In other words, “nothing made is intrinsically evil.” When Paul’s protégé Timothy was confronted with Christian ascetics, the apostle reminded the younger pastor, “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude.” Yet, Paul’s views were not original, for both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes contend that God created physical pleasures, whether food and drink or sexual satisfaction, to be enjoyed. Generally speaking, God’s conclusion at the end of his period of creating was that creation was very good. Consequently, there is no room for dualism either in ancient Judaism or early Christianity.
Conversely, however, is the understanding that in addition to creating all of nature, God’s creation included the spiritual realm. The substance of God’s creation is not limited to the physical world. Most ancient people would have been polytheists who worshiped nature to some extent, but who also attributed its existence to a number of gods. In modern times, though, humanists often claim that nature is the only truth man can know. Thus, anything man cannot observe within nature must not exist. Yet, the Bible asserts that God created both the natural and the supernatural worlds. For example, the author of Nehemiah 9:6 writes, “You alone are the LORD. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.” The heaven of heavens likely refers to the spiritual realm, while the heavenly host is certainly an army of angels. In accordance with his Jewish assumptions, Nehemiah posits that all created things, whether spiritual or physical, are the direct results of God’s creative activity.
For my (two) blog readers, it's incredibly important that we not forget the spiritual realm. Unfortunately, we are children of the enlightment, rationalism, and the scientific method. Therefore, if something cannot be tested or deduced logically, it must not be true. (Of course, the rationalist cannot prove that there is NOT, in fact, a spiritual realm.) The truth is, though, that even we committed, Bible-reading Christians cannot help but scoff at the idea of spiritual forces impacting our lives. We want to be in complete control of all circumstances, so we don't like the idea of an unseeable realm of influence. Yet, the Bible places great emphasis on spiritual forces, both the negatives ones and those who serve God. What, then, should we do? How can we impact the spiritual realm? Most simply... pray. It seems crazy, but it's a good strategy. Most of all, don't ignore the possibility of spiritual forces.
-Matt
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Creation, pt 4
This section of my paper contains basically the last bit of "how" God created and the first bit of "what" God created.
Based on the Bible’s testimony, then, the personal God intentionally created all things by the orderly process of speaking creation into existence without the use of preformed materials. Does Scripture offer any more details about the procedure by which God created? Indeed, Proverbs 8:22ff suggests that the personification of wisdom had some role in the creation of the world. Namely, wisdom says she was present before creation began, that she rejoiced over it as it occurred, and delighted in the formation of man.
Many Christian scholars have taken Proverbs 8 as an allusion to the person of Jesus, largely in comparison with the prologue in John 1 and Paul’s Christological hymn in Colossians 1:15ff. In the latter New Testament reference, Paul describes Jesus as the firstborn of creation, the agent of creation, the one for whom all was created, and the one who holds creation together. John 1:2-3 says, “He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” The redundancy of this statement simply adds emphasis to the fact that Jesus is the source of all created beings.
The problem for early Jewish Christians was that the Old Testament did not seem to allow for the work of Christ in creation. Thus, “By identifying Jesus with Wisdom [in Proverbs 8], early Christians were able to express his divine origin, preexistence, role in creation and salvation, and still maintain the uniqueness of Israel’s one God.” However, from an exegetical standpoint, the roles of wisdom as described in Proverbs 8 do not correspond with the roles of Christ in John and Colossians. In fact, woman wisdom is not presented as a deity or creative agent but as someone who observes and delights in what God does. Therefore, it may be best to simply take the New Testament witness for its word, and assume the artistic presence of each person of the Trinity in the creative acts of Genesis 1-2.
The fact, then, that God created all things is clearly established in the Bible and in subsequent millennia of Christian theology. Therefore, this paper will now examine the nature of creation including its orderliness, goodness, substance, and its distinction. In regards to order, the Genesis account is often compared to other ancient cosmogonies. Whereas the other nations begin with a realm of utter chaos, the Biblical account of God’s initial creation describes it as formless, meaning “unproductive and uninhabited.” God begins to separate and create organized boundaries for his creation.
At this point, the act of creation becomes “an engagement with and victory over forces of chaos.” In a typical Hebrew poetic style, the author of Psalm 74:13 writes, “You divided the sea by Your strength; You broke the heads of the sea monsters in the waters.” Most interpreters believe that the sea monsters in this passage personify the forces of chaos that God subdued as he created. Order, then, becomes a gift of God, discernible in nature, leading Qohelet to conclude in Ecclesiastes 3:11 that everything is beautiful in its time. In other words, all attitudes and events are meaningful when they fit within the created order of God.
In the next post, I'll address a couple more aspects of the nature of creation, including the goodness of both the physical and spiritual realms.
-Matt
Based on the Bible’s testimony, then, the personal God intentionally created all things by the orderly process of speaking creation into existence without the use of preformed materials. Does Scripture offer any more details about the procedure by which God created? Indeed, Proverbs 8:22ff suggests that the personification of wisdom had some role in the creation of the world. Namely, wisdom says she was present before creation began, that she rejoiced over it as it occurred, and delighted in the formation of man.
Many Christian scholars have taken Proverbs 8 as an allusion to the person of Jesus, largely in comparison with the prologue in John 1 and Paul’s Christological hymn in Colossians 1:15ff. In the latter New Testament reference, Paul describes Jesus as the firstborn of creation, the agent of creation, the one for whom all was created, and the one who holds creation together. John 1:2-3 says, “He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” The redundancy of this statement simply adds emphasis to the fact that Jesus is the source of all created beings.
The problem for early Jewish Christians was that the Old Testament did not seem to allow for the work of Christ in creation. Thus, “By identifying Jesus with Wisdom [in Proverbs 8], early Christians were able to express his divine origin, preexistence, role in creation and salvation, and still maintain the uniqueness of Israel’s one God.” However, from an exegetical standpoint, the roles of wisdom as described in Proverbs 8 do not correspond with the roles of Christ in John and Colossians. In fact, woman wisdom is not presented as a deity or creative agent but as someone who observes and delights in what God does. Therefore, it may be best to simply take the New Testament witness for its word, and assume the artistic presence of each person of the Trinity in the creative acts of Genesis 1-2.
The fact, then, that God created all things is clearly established in the Bible and in subsequent millennia of Christian theology. Therefore, this paper will now examine the nature of creation including its orderliness, goodness, substance, and its distinction. In regards to order, the Genesis account is often compared to other ancient cosmogonies. Whereas the other nations begin with a realm of utter chaos, the Biblical account of God’s initial creation describes it as formless, meaning “unproductive and uninhabited.” God begins to separate and create organized boundaries for his creation.
At this point, the act of creation becomes “an engagement with and victory over forces of chaos.” In a typical Hebrew poetic style, the author of Psalm 74:13 writes, “You divided the sea by Your strength; You broke the heads of the sea monsters in the waters.” Most interpreters believe that the sea monsters in this passage personify the forces of chaos that God subdued as he created. Order, then, becomes a gift of God, discernible in nature, leading Qohelet to conclude in Ecclesiastes 3:11 that everything is beautiful in its time. In other words, all attitudes and events are meaningful when they fit within the created order of God.
In the next post, I'll address a couple more aspects of the nature of creation, including the goodness of both the physical and spiritual realms.
-Matt
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Creation, pt 3
Here's the third installment of my riveting paper on Creation. It deals with the facts that God spoken creation into being and that he used not pre-existing materials to do so. In other words, there was nothing, God spoke, and then there was something. Here we go:
Such a brief survey of the history of creation theology demonstrates that in the midst of much diversity, God’s people have considered Him Creator since the beginning of history. Yet for post-enlightenment theologians, it is necessary to ask how God created the heavens and the earth. The nonspecific answer given by the prophets was that God’s power, wisdom, and knowledge created heaven and earth. Specifically, though, God spoke creation into being. Psalm 33 states, “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host,” and, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Much later, the author of Hebrews wrote, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” Only in comparison with the pagan creation accounts of violence and rampant sexuality does the orderly, intentional, and personal act of speaking creation into being becomes so spectacular. The act of creation is not accidental or chaotic. Instead, it is the artistic work of a personal God who did nothing more than express his will, and it came into being.
If God spoke creation into being, one implication is that he required no preexisting substance. Those who hold that God created out of nothing, or ex nihilo, point to a number of relevant scriptures. Isaiah 48:12-13 links the idea of God’s eternal nature to his act of creation, saying, “"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.” Assumed is the idea that since God existed before all, the heavens and earth are the result of his work. Another important passage is Romans 4:17, where Paul describes that act of creation as God calling into being things that did not exist. God is not a builder using premade materials, nor is he a potter who simply shapes the clay into the form he desires. Rather, the Lord created ex nihilo. A final relevant passage is Hebrews 11:3, quoted above, where the author describes God creating visible things from invisible ones. Grudem argues that the author, whether Jew or Gentile, would not likely have believed that God made use of matter that was invisible. Instead, Hebrews 11:3 expresses the concept of creation ex nihilo.
In spite of these passages, the truth is that the practical nature of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, does not lend itself to develop a substantive theology of creation ex nihilo. Consequently, the early church father Origen gave merit to the doctrine of pre-existent matter. Some Christians might be tempted to believe that this issue is irrelevant and unworthy of clarification on this matter. However, Grudem argues that if God used preexisting matter in creation, “we would have to say that some matter has always existed and that it is eternal like God. This idea would challenge God’s independence, his sovereignty, and the fact that worship is due to him alone; if matter existed apart from God, then what inherent right would God have to rule over it and use it for his glory.” Thus, the process by which God created does matter.
Well, that's it for today. The next entry will be a relatively short one where I address Christ's role in Creation from a Biblical standpoint, namely by examining the relationship between Christ Jesus and the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8. Don't let the anticipation keep you up at night.
-Matt
Such a brief survey of the history of creation theology demonstrates that in the midst of much diversity, God’s people have considered Him Creator since the beginning of history. Yet for post-enlightenment theologians, it is necessary to ask how God created the heavens and the earth. The nonspecific answer given by the prophets was that God’s power, wisdom, and knowledge created heaven and earth. Specifically, though, God spoke creation into being. Psalm 33 states, “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host,” and, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Much later, the author of Hebrews wrote, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” Only in comparison with the pagan creation accounts of violence and rampant sexuality does the orderly, intentional, and personal act of speaking creation into being becomes so spectacular. The act of creation is not accidental or chaotic. Instead, it is the artistic work of a personal God who did nothing more than express his will, and it came into being.
If God spoke creation into being, one implication is that he required no preexisting substance. Those who hold that God created out of nothing, or ex nihilo, point to a number of relevant scriptures. Isaiah 48:12-13 links the idea of God’s eternal nature to his act of creation, saying, “"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.” Assumed is the idea that since God existed before all, the heavens and earth are the result of his work. Another important passage is Romans 4:17, where Paul describes that act of creation as God calling into being things that did not exist. God is not a builder using premade materials, nor is he a potter who simply shapes the clay into the form he desires. Rather, the Lord created ex nihilo. A final relevant passage is Hebrews 11:3, quoted above, where the author describes God creating visible things from invisible ones. Grudem argues that the author, whether Jew or Gentile, would not likely have believed that God made use of matter that was invisible. Instead, Hebrews 11:3 expresses the concept of creation ex nihilo.
In spite of these passages, the truth is that the practical nature of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, does not lend itself to develop a substantive theology of creation ex nihilo. Consequently, the early church father Origen gave merit to the doctrine of pre-existent matter. Some Christians might be tempted to believe that this issue is irrelevant and unworthy of clarification on this matter. However, Grudem argues that if God used preexisting matter in creation, “we would have to say that some matter has always existed and that it is eternal like God. This idea would challenge God’s independence, his sovereignty, and the fact that worship is due to him alone; if matter existed apart from God, then what inherent right would God have to rule over it and use it for his glory.” Thus, the process by which God created does matter.
Well, that's it for today. The next entry will be a relatively short one where I address Christ's role in Creation from a Biblical standpoint, namely by examining the relationship between Christ Jesus and the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8. Don't let the anticipation keep you up at night.
-Matt
Monday, March 14, 2011
Creation, pt 2
So, we saw from the last post that Judaism had a very firm concept of God as the Creator of all things. But, what did Gentile Christianity add to the equation? And how did those theories continue to develop over time?
Because most people conclude that creation requires a Creator, Paul used natural theology to identify the God about whom he testified to the Gentiles. Thus, in Acts 14:15, Paul responds to those who wish to worship him because he healed a lame man by saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.” Paul’s desire is that the citizens of Lystra cease worshiping created things, rather turning their hearts to the one who created. Paul does not try to describe his God in an abstract or metaphysical way. Instead, the way he distinguishes God from the idols whom these people worshiped is by referring to his role as Creator. Similarly, Paul’s address to the Areopagus council begins by identify the Athenians’ unknown God as the Judeo-Christian God of creation. Natural theology, then, was a great evangelistic tool even in early church missiology.
What is clear is that Judaism and early Christianity assumed that Genesis 1-2 contained a valid account of creation, so they gave primary emphasis to the implications of their theological. However, when Christianity began to spread to those with a background in Greek philosophy, problems quickly arose. Platonism insisted that the spiritual realm was the true world with physical creation being little more than a shadow of reality. Marcion and the proponents of Gnosticism taught that the physical realm is evil and, in the case of Marcion, that the Creator must also be wicked. In response to such claims, Irenaeus wrote of the intrinsic goodness of creation. Tertullian stressed the intentionality of God creating nature in response to the rampant Aristotelianism of his day.
The Council of Nicea and several councils during the middle ages concluded that creation was indeed good. Some later monastic leaders such as Thomas a Kempis held a negative view of the world, suggesting that the only way to true holiness is to deny all worldly pleasures. Replying to their claims, Calvin wrote that although creation should not be equated with God, it is still one of God’s good works. In recent centuries, Matthew Fox and other scholars have written of the goodness of creation and its primary importance in understanding the nature of God, though such scholars tend to devalue mankind in the process. Also, apologetic works abound that defend God as Creator against those in favor of the Big Bang theory and Evolutionary Darwinism.
Next, we'll look at HOW God created all things.
-Matt
Because most people conclude that creation requires a Creator, Paul used natural theology to identify the God about whom he testified to the Gentiles. Thus, in Acts 14:15, Paul responds to those who wish to worship him because he healed a lame man by saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.” Paul’s desire is that the citizens of Lystra cease worshiping created things, rather turning their hearts to the one who created. Paul does not try to describe his God in an abstract or metaphysical way. Instead, the way he distinguishes God from the idols whom these people worshiped is by referring to his role as Creator. Similarly, Paul’s address to the Areopagus council begins by identify the Athenians’ unknown God as the Judeo-Christian God of creation. Natural theology, then, was a great evangelistic tool even in early church missiology.
What is clear is that Judaism and early Christianity assumed that Genesis 1-2 contained a valid account of creation, so they gave primary emphasis to the implications of their theological. However, when Christianity began to spread to those with a background in Greek philosophy, problems quickly arose. Platonism insisted that the spiritual realm was the true world with physical creation being little more than a shadow of reality. Marcion and the proponents of Gnosticism taught that the physical realm is evil and, in the case of Marcion, that the Creator must also be wicked. In response to such claims, Irenaeus wrote of the intrinsic goodness of creation. Tertullian stressed the intentionality of God creating nature in response to the rampant Aristotelianism of his day.
The Council of Nicea and several councils during the middle ages concluded that creation was indeed good. Some later monastic leaders such as Thomas a Kempis held a negative view of the world, suggesting that the only way to true holiness is to deny all worldly pleasures. Replying to their claims, Calvin wrote that although creation should not be equated with God, it is still one of God’s good works. In recent centuries, Matthew Fox and other scholars have written of the goodness of creation and its primary importance in understanding the nature of God, though such scholars tend to devalue mankind in the process. Also, apologetic works abound that defend God as Creator against those in favor of the Big Bang theory and Evolutionary Darwinism.
Next, we'll look at HOW God created all things.
-Matt
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Creation, pt 1
Hey everyone,
It's been a while. Emily pointed out the other day that had not updates my blog since the snow storm, so I thought I'd give you something to chew on that I have been working through in school. Therefore, I'm going to post a paper about Creation in a series of entries (since I know no one would ever read it in its entirety otherwise). So, here it goes:
God’s role as Creator is foundational to every other theological question and belief. It determines one’s understanding of human value, sin, salvation, and resurrection. If God is not the Creator of all things, the implications are vast and problematic on a number of levels. The physical world becomes either a place of pure, unfiltered evil or an unworthy object of worship. For those who refuse to acknowledge God as Creator, man becomes little more than an over-developed creature not unlike several other mammals. Salvation, then, is only gained when man is freed from the confines of his prison of a body, or when he becomes one with the goddess nature. Resurrection, of course, is unheard of, for man’s body simply must degenerate into nothingness after death, often along with his soul or spirit. With these theological repercussions in mind, this paper will use the Bible and Christian scholarship to examine the fact of God creating, along with the nature, purpose, and implications of his work of creation. The first section will survey portions of the Biblical witness concerning creation.
For the Jewish people, the fact of Yahweh creating the heavens and the earth was the beginning point of all theology. The Torah begins with two chapters that describe the way in which Yahweh created. He spends three days creating the setting for all living things, three days filling the world with creatures, and one day in restful celebration. After Genesis 2, the Hebrew people engage in no discussions as to exactly how God created or even why. Thus, with no qualifications, the author of Psalm 90:2 writes, “Before the mountains were born / Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” He does not qualify the analogy of God giving birth to creation even though such an analogy would not likely survive in Christian orthodoxy. In fact, A. J. Conyers argues that one should only speak of God as Father, otherwise it would seem as if God had no control over what he produced. Yet, the Psalmist’s point is simply that the uncreated God formed the world. Likewise, Isaiah 66:2a says, “"For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD.” This statement makes a simple cause and effect correlation: God caused all things to be with the effect that they came into being. Isaiah’s comment does not require any theological parsing for the Hebrew mind, because it simply is true.
On the other hand, it is not enough to assert that God created man, for he is the Creator of all things; therefore, he also owns everything. Deuteronomy 10:14 says, “Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it.” David writes in Psalm 24:1, “The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it.” Also, Psalm 89:11 says, “The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; The world and all it contains, You have founded them.” In the New Testament, Paul continues this theme in 1 Corinthians 11:12 and Ephesians 3:9, the latter of which says, “and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things.” The common belief is that if God created the whole world and its creatures, then he also possesses ownership over all things.
In the next entry, I'll address that impact that Greek philosophy (introduced into early Christianity by those pesky Gentiles) had on the Jewish doctrine of Creation.
-Matt
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
