13 posts tagged “theology”
Throughout the Gospel of John, there are seven I AM statements made by Jesus. Since in the Jewish scriptures, known as the Old Testament of the Bible, God identifies himself as the I AM (Exodus 3:14), these statements by Jesus are proclamations of Jesus' diety. Although John was writing this book to a primarily Greek audience, it is clear that he was so impacted by these statements that he could not afford to leave them out of his account of Jesus' life and ministry. While the first I AM statement appears in John 6:35, the proper context for this statement must be established.
Feeding the Five Thousand
The context for Jesus declaring himself as the bread of life is set by him giving five thousand men (not including women and children) a meal of barley loaves and fish. This miracle was set to the backdrop of the Passover feast (6:4), and prompted the people to declare, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." (v. 14) While the context of the Passover is important in understanding this, as they remembered the deliverance of the Jewish people from the yoke of slavery and looked forward to the final deliverance from oppression, this speculation that Jesus was the Prophet is based on a passage from Deuteronomy, which declares, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him." (Deuteronomy 18:15) In recalling this passage to memory, they speculated on the possibility that Jesus was the promised prophet, the man God promised that "I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him." (18:18b) This is why they were so eager to find him the next day, for they wanted the instruction of the promised Prophet of God. And so they search, and find him in Capernaum.
"I AM the Bread of Life"
When the people find Jesus at the other side of the water, he realizes why they are there. Then he gives them a very interesting admonition: "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you." The reference to work here is an allusion to the curse passed down because of Original Sin, when God declares in Genesis 3:17, "through painful toil you will eat of it [the earth]." He addresses the curse of Original Sin, and then speaks of a time when that curse has been lifted, or taken by another (indeed, he will take upon the curse when he dies on a tree, a cursed way to die according to Jewish tradition and Levitical law).
After he gives them this admontion, they ask the question they have been saving for the Prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18: "What must we do to do the works God requires?" (John 6:28) Essentially, they want to know the starting point. Because if we try to simply do the works God requires, we fail miserably. And so how can we put ourselves in a position to do good? Jesus' answer is this: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." He focuses on this as the beginning and end. And it truly is. The word here "to believe" is actually pisteuo in the greek, which is a derivative of pistis, the greek word for faith. And so we refer to Romans 1:17 "The righteous shall live by faith." Like a good Reformed theologian, I cannot emphasize this enough. We are saved by faith alone, through grace alone, IN CHRIST ALONE. Believing in Jesus is the easiest and hardest thing to do. It looks quite simple on paper; but if we truly believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Savior, we must acknowledge our sin, and his supremacy and sovereignty over our lives.
After Jesus commands belief in him as the work of God, the Jewish people retort, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you?" This is the ultimate irony, because Jesus declares four verses earlier, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw
miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill." He had already given them a miraculous sign, but being hard of heart, they demanded another one. This has an important application: too many times we set our belief on God on the condition that he "show himself to us." The irony is that he has revealed himself to the whole world (Romans 1), and in asking for a sign we are being hard of heart.
Later on in this conversation, the Jewish people say, "give us this bread [the bread of life]." He then says, "I am the bread of life." This is very multidimensional. First, it alludes to the tree of life, which sat in the center of Eden. The great tragedy of mankind is that in choosing between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life, we chose Knowledge over Life. I am not saying that knowledge is bad; I am simply saying that when you can have life, why eat anything else?
Jesus finishes his testimony with the most boggling of declarations: "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." What could he possibly mean, to eat and drink his flesh and blood? I cannot add anything to the Commentary of Matthew Henry, and so I will simply cite his text on this verbatim:
"What is meant by eating this flesh and drinking this blood, which is so necessary and beneficial; it is certain that is means neither more nor less than believing in Christ. As we partake of meat and drink by eating and drinking, so we partake of Christ and his benefits by faith: and believing in Christ includes these four things, which eating and drinking do:—First, It implies an appetite to Christ. This spiritual eating and drinking begins with hungering and thirsting (Matthew 5:6)["Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied"], earnest and importunate desires after Christ, not willing to take up with any thing short of an interest in him: "Give me Christ or else I die." Secondly, An application of Christ to ourselves. Meat looked upon will not nourish us, but meat fed upon, and so made our own, and as it were one with us. We must so accept of Christ as to appropriate him to ourselves: my Lord, and my God, John 20:28. Thirdly, A delight in Christ and his salvation. The doctrine of Christ crucified must be meat and drink to us, most pleasant and delightful. We must feast upon the dainties of the New Testament in the blood of Christ, taking as great a complacency in the methods which Infinite Wisdom has taken to redeem and save us as ever we did in the most needful supplies or grateful delights of nature. Fourthly, A derivation of nourishment from him and a dependence upon him for the support and comfort of our spiritual life, and the strength, growth, and vigour of the new man. To feed upon Christ is to do all in his name, in union with him, and by virtue drawn from him; it is to live upon him as we do upon our meat. How our bodies are nourished by our food we cannot describe, but that they are so we know and find; so it is with this spiritual nourishment."
Therefore, let us partake of Christ, to be so intimate with him that it is as if we are eating his very flesh. Let us participate in his suffering. And let us know, that He is the bread of life. Let us not work needlessly for things that perish, but let us partake in that which Christ gives us, the salvation of our very souls.
Today, on one of my many visits to my favorite bookstore downtown, I came across a book titled How Good Do We Have to Be?. It caught my eye, mostly because I am a theology nerd and it was on sale. But upon further inspection, all I could do was slap my head. I fully realize I am in semi-rant mood. But I'm sorry. I can't sit idly by on this one.
The book's title gave away most of its purpose. It was focused on morality, and the question itself implies that we ought to settle for something lower. It is born out of a true frustration: religion that simply makes everyone feel guilty and bad. But if you are doing bad things, then you ought to feel guilty. If you don't, you are a sadist.
I thumbed through the book and looked at the chapter titles, which just made me frustrated. The first chapter was titled, "God Loves You Anyway." Which is true. But also dangerous. The theology that God will love you no matter what always seems to leave out the fact that love sometimes requires punishment. This doctrine has more people sitting in front of their TV's praising God with Joel Osteen and thinking that they are very strong Christians, not remembering that Christ calls us to STOP SINNING. Forgiveness is the first step. We are saved TO good works. Not because of, but to. The thought that "God loves you anyway" breeds a complacence that is one of the central reasons that the Church in America is declining. There are as many Christians in China, where it is illegal, as in the United States. We are complacent, because we think that just because God loves us, we are free to do whatever we want. I have said this before on this blog: God's love is fierce. He loves us and calls us to change. It is not the senile love of a grandmother who always bakes you cookies, even after you gave your brother a bloody nose. This is a fierce God.
I continued on in the book. The next chapter was titled "I Thought I Had to Be Perfect." Which is another great lie. Whenever we try really hard to be good, we get depressed. Because WE can't do it. WE are bad. But God is Good, all the time. And so its not that we have to be perfect, but that we have to let God be perfect through us. Whenever we try to be merely moral, it is like we are "dirty rags" in front of God (Isaiah 64:6). The Hebrew literally means rags used for menstration. We are THAT dirty, when we try to be moral. Because we spurn the goodness of God. We tell God we can do it on our own, when God knows that we can never do anything on our own. So let us not think that we have to be perfect by our own doing. But that we must be perfect because of God. For from him and through him and to him are all things.
And so I continue to the last chapter title, "Choosing happiness over righteousness." The premise was that when we make righteousness our primary goal, we are always unhappy, because we realize that we are unrighteous. Which is true. But that hardly means that we ought to then decide to become hedonists. The truth is that if we choose ANYTHING over God, it becomes a demon. This is why the humble plumber is more holy than the pious poet, and the contrite electrician more holy than the proud priest. We must choose God. If we choose righteousness before God, we are not really choosing righteousness. We are mistaking the essence for the being. If we choose happiness before God, we will receive quite the opposite: eternal suffering. That is why God continued to say I AM GOD. Because nothing else can take his place. And if anything does, it becomes less of itself.
Essentially, the book's tragic error was that it focused on the self. Everything is confusing when we are focused on self. Let us not think of what we can do, but what God can do. For he alone is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, the supreme in every way. Let us love God first, and then through that learn how to love others.
About a year and a half ago, my pastor back home gave a sermon about having a big, hairy, audacious dream, hereon referred to as a BHAD. For almost a year, I have been searching for my mission on this college campus, as I try to figure out what I am supposed to do. I have felt helpless much of the time. I have felt apathetic. Guilty for not loving people. But God has given me a mission in spite of my idiocy. I know this is a theology blog. But this is theology in action. And theology without action is cheap talk.
My mission and my dream is this: There is an unused chapel on the south side of campus. It is used once a month for Taize prayer, which is cool, but the word of the most powerful God is not preached there. And a church where the Word is not preached is not a church. It is a building. The holiness is not inate to the building, but inate to God. And if God is not invited into a church, it is no longer holy.
I want to start a church on this campus. Its a big dream. Its an uphill climb. I don't have the time for such a thing, so I am approaching the leadership at my church for help. They are a really big church with a vision for this city. And I have a vision for this city as well. But it is goingto be really hard.
First, the woman who is in charge of who gets to use the building is quite protective of it. Apparently, she does not even let people get married in it. And so, brothers and sisters reading this, pray for me. That God would soften her heart to our mission on this campus. And that God would give me the words, words like that of Nehimiah when he approached the king.
Second, this campus is ranked high on the list of colleges most likely to ignore God. We have a very miniscule Christian population. But I truly believe that there are some here who were called before the foundation of the earth to be saved by God. If we can preach like Armenians and sleep like Calvinists, I believe that we can bring the gospel to this campus.
Third, I have kind of been on the outside of the core community on this campus. I need a connection to that culture, and I need an understanding of it. What their needs are, what they long for. Pray that God would provide these things.
Finally, we do not have a lot of Christian leaders on campus. Pray that God would raise up strong men and godly women of the faith. And that Christianity would be truly revolutionary.
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
I seem to remember promising to break down God's wrath and propitiation (Jesus' atonement for God's wrath) at some point, so I wanted to get that out of the way now that I have some time. Here goes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, the attribute to describe God the most is holy. In Leviticus alone, it is used 123 times, usually in the refrain, "be holy, as I am holy." (i.e. Leveticus 11:44) This means that God is sacred, and cannot be in the presence of sin. He is holy.
But the problem is that we sin. This requires a response from God. It is not just that we sin, but that we reject God altogether (Romans 1:21), refusing to give him the worship that he deserves. Truly, anytime we sin, we sin against God. (Psalm 51:4) Being holy and righteous, God hates sin, as Psalm 5:5 says, "The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong." Sin as an affront to God's holiness is justly condemned, for God is also a just God (Deuteronomy 32:4). God's just response to this affront of God's character and God's creation is wrath.
While not dealt with much in most mainstream churches, it is dealt with quite prominently in the Bible. Actually, God's wrath is mentioned over 600 times using 20 different words in the Old Testament, while it appears prominently, but less frequently, in the new testament. Most often in the Old Testament, anger and wrath are used jointly, such as in Deuteronomy 9:19, 29:28, and Psalm 2:5. Some people see God as a God of wrath only in the Old Testament, but God does not change. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, and he has wrath today as well. Prominent examples in the Old Testament are 2 Chronicles 28:13b, which says, "Do you intend to add to our sin and guilt? For our guilt is already great, and his fierce anger rests on Israel." Also, the prophetic book of Nahum opens up with a description of God, saying, "The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies." (Nahum 1:2) Too often we read these passages and make a mental list of all the people who are God's enemies. But if we sin, against God especially, we are God's enemies. I just realized I have been throwing around this term wrath without really defining it, so allow me to provide the defenition that John Piper gave in his sermon on Romans 1:18-32. "The wrath of God is the settled anger toward sin expressed in repayment of suitable vengance on guilty sinners."
At first glance, this doctrine of God's wrath seems in conflict with His love. But if we reject God's personal wrath towards us, we also must reject his personal love towards us. A loving God's response to the destruction of his creation is wrath, for he not only loves the destroyer, but the destroyed, and therefore is wrathful at its defilement. Too often, we picture God as one of senile benevolence; but God's love is a fierce love, and He is wrathful when His creation, which He loves, is being destroyed.
Furthermore, God's anger and wrath are expressed in the New Testament as well. For if Jesus was not wrathful, and Jesus was God incarnate, then truly God cannot be wrathful. But in Mark 3:5, it says that Jesus was truly angry. Additionally, Jesus is described as wrathful in Revelation 6:16, when a chorus of voices cried out, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!" Also, God's wrath is described in Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6, and throughout much of the earlier part of Romans. Additionally, Romans 3:5-6 reports that God's wrath is deserved. It is described in Matthew 25:41-46 as an unquenchable fire, and as eternal in Mark 9:43.
If this is where we stand, under God's wrath and just condemnation, how shall we be saved? Where is the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Indeed, if I simply had told you that Jesus died for you, without showing you why that was so significant, you would not have listened. It would not have been good news, simply ok or apathetic news. But we are under God's wrath, and at this point, Jesus steps in and takes God's wrath on himself, in our place. This doctrine, known as penal substitutionary atonement, is the good news.. Many people want to reject this doctrine because of certain philosophical presuppositions that they carry with them. But you reject this, and it is no longer fully the gospel. This is the most beautiful part of the gospel.
In Romans, Paul writes, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (Romans 3:23-25, NASB) The word "propitiation" literally means a satisfaction of God's wrath, a clearing of his response, as Jesus bore God's wrath in our place.
Jesus' propiatory sacrifice atoned for our sins, allowing the possibility for us to be at one with God. But that is not the end of this process. You must believe in Jesus Christ, and follow him and obey him. Jesus proclaimed in John 3:36 that, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." In order to participate in the riches of God's grace, you must believe in Jesus. The death, burial, and ressurection of Jesus. No other religion or ideology. Jesus. You might tell me I am narrow-minded. But I am just as narrow-minded as Jesus was, no more, no less.
Do not be fooled. Do not think that this is a free ticket out. That everyone is cleared just because Jesus died. Some might say that this is errant, but "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient." (Ephesians 5:6) Also, "for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." (Romans 2:8)
Truly God is holy. Truly God is just. And truly God is merciful. He has extended to us a way out, in Jesus and his death on the cross. But we must not stop there. It requires action on our part, a turning towards Jesus and away from sin. A.W. Tozer notes that "the hope that God will not carry out his wrath because he is merciful is a deadly opiate to many people" (Paraphrase of Knowledge of the Holy). Do not be lulled in thinking that God's wrath will not be carried out because his love trumps all. Instead, let us fall to our knees, and proclaim:
O God, truly, you are holy, and just, and mighty, and merciful and loving. And we thank you for your good news, and for giving us a second chance. Truly salvation is of the Lord, and we thank you. O Praise Him, who sacrificed himself for us, so that we might be reconciled to God. Amen. So be it. Amen.
I was trying to nap...but I started thinking about this blog, and so I was compelled to write it. I don't think I can sleep unless I get this down.
About a month and half ago, there was a hypnotist that visited my college. It got me thinking about all kinds of things, such as how to interact and address the very reality of a hypnotist, and the spiritual realm in which they sometimes dwell. As a general rule, I am not a fan of hypnotists, because it is quite shady. Although this might not be true of all hypnotists, at least some are very clearly connected to demonic activity. The testimony of trustworthy people has taught me that. Now I could just rail on hypnotists and how evil they are, but I want to address the relationship between Satan and God, and the power that both wield.
During the promotional gambit at lunch in the dining hall, the hypnotist got up on a chair and showed everyone how he could make two forks act like they were strongly magnetic, one hanging from the other. He did this to establish his repitoire, and his power and abilities. But he wasn't showing anything crazy or completely out of the ordinary...these were cheap tricks.
Similarly, Satan tries to flex his muscles in certain places over certain parts of history. He yells to humanity, "See, I wield power, for I can raise the ocean to flood you and use the winds to destroy you." But God shrugs, simply retorting, "I created it all." Compared with the awesomeness and beauty and majesty of the Lord's creation, everything is a cheap trick. If we stand and say, "look God, I created a building and a family and all this other stuff," we will be shamed, for God's work is infinitely greater. Instead of trying to rival God's creation or thinking that we are on level footing, a belief that will ultimately make us shamed, it is truly said that we stand highest when we bow lowest.
Let us throw ourselves at the feet of the Almighty. For Jesus is the Word through which all things are made. And let us fall in worship, exhalting Him, worshipping him for the beauty of his creation.
When the Apostle John approached the Throne of the Most High God in Revelation 4, he describes the most utmost glory of God with the most insufficient of words. He grasps for words, but there are none. In Revelation 4:3, John writes "And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne." What glory! And then he continues, writing that, "Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal."
Before the throne of God, before the Glory of the most worthy and majestic God, we see ourselves. This is what happened to Job in Job 42. He had been beating the drums of his own righteousness and good deeds the whole book. And then God shows up. And in Job 42, he says, "Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." After a classroom discussion where we tried to unpack this verse, I came back to my room and opened Matthew Henry's Commentary. This is what he says on this verse: "Even good people, that have no gross enormities to repent of, must be greatly afflicted in soul for the workings and breakings out of pride, passion, peevishness, and discontent, and all their hasty unadvised speeches. The more we see of the glory and majesty of God, the more we see of the vileness and odiousness of sin and of ourselves because of sin, the more we shall abase and abhor ourselves for it." This is what Job understood. Finding himself in the presence of the most glorious and glorified God, he threw himself to his face, and repented in dust and ashes.
Why "in dust and ashes"? If we look back to the second chapter of Job, we see that, "he sat among the ashes," after being covered in boils and losing his entire family. Ashes, especially in the Old Testament, are a archetype for mourning. And so Job came in mourning. Also, the phrase "dust and ashes" was a proverbial phrase used to invoke a sense of lowliness and fragility of human nature. The humanity, and the insufficiency of human flesh. This is what Job came carrying. Dragging it to God. Because he knew that God wants "to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes." (Isaiah 61:3)
So let us come to God, repenting, knowing our condition. And he will see us. And take our ashes and mourning away. And give us a crown of beauty. And we will stand in front of the throne of the Most High. And we will look in the crystal lake. And see ourselves. And then look to God, knowing that he is infinitely more amazing and wonderful and glorious than anything else. Especially our sins. And so we can look away from our own depravity, and towards Him who is most worthy. Amen. So help us. Amen.
This last week, I took a chance. I won't go into details, because for this meditation it is not important. The point is that right before I took a chance, I was meditating on Job, because my Bible and Lit class had read the first 14 chapters of that tough book. I noticed that the characters kept referring to God as Almighty, in the Hebrew, El-Shaddai. It was very interesting. Actually, God is referred to as El-Shaddai thirty-one times in the Book of Job. The book where God is seen as the most out of control, Job cries out to the Almighty. That is amazing. I used to be scared of the sovereignty of God. But Job had it right. It is a comfort. Because God is in control. Somehow, in this crazy world, God's hand presses forward with his purpose. He rules as Sovereign, King of kings and Lord of lords. It is amazing.
The use of El-Shaddai is not just in Job. Naomi, when returning to Israel after her life fell apart in Moab, says, "El-Shaddai has made my life bitter." (Ruth 1:20) Naomi knows that God is all powerful. That he is mighty to save.
And so let us dwell in the house of the Lord, and let us walk in the vineyard of El-Shaddai. (Isaiah 5:7)
Let us fall at His feet. Because he will cover us under his wing, and we will be called children of the Most High. Blessed is he who trusts in the Lord. Amen. So help us. Amen.
I was recently at a coffee shop catching up with an old friend who has departed from the Christianity of her parents. My heart bleeds for her, and I have a deep pain in seeing her abandon God for a life of death and loneliness. One of the things has stuck with me, as I asked about the situation with her parents. She said it was ok, but that her parents “Wouldn’t accept my lifestyle.” My retort was, “why should they?”
Why should her parents, who love her deeply, accept the destructive life that she has chosen? Can their love allow them to stand on the sidelines and simply hope for the best? Although this story is about just one particular person, it speaks to our entire culture. Cries such as, “That’s just how I am,” and “It’s a natural impulse,” are plentiful, as our culture strives for a limp-wristed love of a grandmother, who never disapproves of anything and bakes you cookies at the day’s end. Too many people live with the false hope that the perm sky-fairy Jesus won’t condemn them, that he lacks the conviction and hopes everyone can stand in a circle and sing Kumbya. This hope will eventually destroy us.
Our hope that the wrath of God is not coming stems from a pithy saying that is quoted even at Bible studies as Scripture. This quote is that “God loves the sinner and hates the sin.” Oddly enough, this does not appear anywhere in the Bible, but instead is from the mouth of Gandhi, not exactly the most biblical of theologians. Its like we are over here, and our sin is over there, and God looks at our sin and says, “I really hate that, but I love you.” This is no new heresy, but began as early as whenever 2 John was penned. At the time, the Gnostics, and later the Armenians and Manicheans, proclaimed that there was an essential divide between soul and body, so that Death Cab for Cutie would have been yelled at for deciding that indeed, “Soul Meets Body.” This allowed them to say that the body was sinful, but since it did not interact with the soul, it is not dirtied by the actions of the body. There are a few problems with this view. Primarily, it views Sin (big S) as a set of actions instead of a condition. Sin as a condition is a separation from God, who alone is our life. And so our soul is dead, and so it matters very little what happens with our body, since our immortal soul is eternally dead. Also, where does our soul reside during our life? In our body. Our body is our tent in this life, where our soul resides, and so the dirtiness of the body dirties the soul. Furthermore, this boils down the an essential distinction. The question is this: whether we are what we do, or do we do what we are? If we are what we do, then by changing actions, we can change our identity. If we do what we are, our bad actions stem from our badness, and there is no hope. Truly, the heart is the wellspring of life (Proverbs 4:23) and so we do what we are, thus we are left hopeless without the cross.
We also think that hate and love are mutually exclusive. But this is only because our definition of love is not sufficient. We think of love as sentimental, where you are in love and you write love poems to each other and that is it. But true love, fierce love, demands amendment of disgusting things. This is the fierce love of a parent: that they do not accept the life they know is bad for their child. This is the fierce love of a spouse: the anger that is experienced when they see their wife or husband sleeping with another person. The burning anger is only present with the burning love. The soft fluffy bunny love of the grandparents that no one has is a horrible heresy. As long as we see Jesus as the guy strolling through the temple tipping over tables and cages, we will never understand the wrath of God. When we see Christ on the cross, we can understand both the love and the wrath of God. That we would not settle for what is our “character,” but instead what God has for us after he has redeemed us. When we stand at the foot of the cross, we know that we are not good enough. Not only should your friends not accept your problems and sins; you shouldn’t accept your problems and sins, but instead turn to Jesus, as he proclaims, “Behold, I am making all things new.”
I received a comment tonight with a few questions that are very necessary to the Christian faith, and so being a theodoulos (slave of god), I gladly will answer them. Thank you poptart for asking them, nothing makes me more happy than answering questions I know have been asked.
- "Why would Christ, who is now God, as many people say, pray to himself?"
To understand any answer to this question, we must first understand the nature of God. God lives in community: he exists eternally in three persons as one Godhead- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is very hard to grasp, no matter how long you have been a student and disciple of the faith. The best tactile example I can give you is that of marriage- indeed, in Genesis, it says, "he created them in the image of God." When male and female are united in marriage, this is the closest equivalent to the Trinity we have. They exist "as one flesh." They are two distinct people, but united. Now take this to the next level. Three personalities, three spirits, the Trinity, who are closer than a man and woman can ever be. Indeed, they are so close, that they constitute one person. (Most of the description I used was gleaned from A.W. Tozer's Knowledge of the Holy or C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity)
And so Christ is only on part of the Godhead. Christ is the Son. In the beginning, before Genesis 1:1, there existed God, in three persons, each glorifying the others. And so Christ praying to the Father (which is what he almost always refers to him as, either that or Lord), is nothing out of the ordinary - it is what He has been doing for all eternity. Because prayer is first and foremost a glorification of the object of that prayer.
So Christ, who was always God the Son, prayed not to himself, but to the Father. I hope that is satisfying. If it isn't, push me harder, and I will search for better answers from more learned people (maybe who actually have a degree from a seminary).
- "If he were God, and knew what was to happen, being a God, why not just wipe the slate clean?"
This is a very important question, because if not properly answered, it could call into question God's justice. First of all, let me begin with an analogy - a chess match. If my opponent wants to take back an errant move, and as an easy going person, I let him take it back, that is all well and fine. But imagine if he could take any move back that he wanted. Imagine if I allowed him not only to do this, but to move my pieces if they got in his way. We would no longer have a chess match. It would be nothing. If God had miraculously intervened to offset any effects of the Original Sin, and then did it again and again with each new sin, there would be no choice. There would be a choice for good, and a null choice. And this would not be a freedom of will. This would be tyranny.
Also, if God just wiped the slate clean and said, "its ok, no worries," he would not be just. Bad actions demand punishment. And these actions must be punished. This is where Christ and the third question come into play.
- "What's the need with the blood sacrifice?"
First I want to address the necessity of sacrifice in general. What did Jesus accomplish on the cross? It is impossible to address every single accomplishment of the cross, and so I will focus the propitiation on the cross. For a more detailed overview of the Cross, see Mark Driscoll's series of sermons entitled Christ on the Cross.
I am going to focus on penal substitutionary atonement. Let me lay this out.
First there was God and then creation and paradise. Then we sinned. Because of our sin, God's just response is wrath. In fact, if you piled up the verses about wrath of God and the verses about love of God, you would probably have more about the wrath of God. His just response to our sin and disobedience is wrath. It is not unlike the situation if I was married, and I walked in on my wife sleeping with another man. My first response, and just response, would be wrath. Anger. The same thing has happened- we have been whoring ourselves around with everyone but God. We were meant to be in communion with God. And so he is wrathful, as he ought to be. He is disgusted by sin. Which is why in the Old Testament, there was a copious amount of blood everytime a sin offering had to be performed. It is disgusting. It is meant to be that way. God is trying to demonstrate how much sin disgusts him.
Enter Jesus. He dies on the cross, as a substitute for our sins. Just as a lamb was slaughtered as a substitution in ancient Israel, The Lamb was slain as a substitution for men (Calvin says limited atonement, Jacobus Arminius says unlimited atonement. But we must first choose Jesus). When on the cross, the wrath of God was wiped away. This clearing of the wrath of God is known as propitiation, and it is so important.
So why did there have to be blood sacrifice? - because sin is disgusting, and God wants us to know that. Let us kneel at the foot of the Cross, for surely, the blood of the Lamb will wash away our sins, atoning for our misdeeds, sins of omission and comission. Let us cling to Jesus.
- "Some say he didn't know what was going to happen, that he was a
confused son of man, falliable in such a state, but then... was he
really God, or just a servant?"
There are a lot of issues in this question. First I must say that Jesus was full God and fully man. If he is anything less, he cannot mediate between God and man, and so we have no hope from him. But thanks be to God, for he is, and so he can mediate between man and God, as Job yearned for in Job 9.
The argument that Mark Driscoll makes regarding this is that although Jesus was God, he never leaned heavily into his God character, but instead relied on the Holy Spirit. He was surely not a confused son of man, and proved his sovereignty through his prediction of his betrayal, Peter's denial, among others. Did he know exactly what was going to happen? I don't know. Did he know in the Garden that he was going to be crucified - why else would he be sweating blood? He was under immense stress (which is how one sweats blood), and so he knew how it was going down. We cannot call Christ fallible, for this means that he can be wrong, which he never was - he was the Lamb without spot or blemish. He had no sin. He was mutable (changing), because he had taken on a human body, but not fallible. Finally, he was really God, and also a servant. Because, as I said earlier, his life was a contiual glorification of God the Father, he continually submitted himself to the Father's will, to the point of death on a cross, the most horrible way to die. He was fully God the Son, serving God the Father fully for his entire life.
If there are any more questions, or any clarifications (after all, it is 2am here), I would be more than happy to answer them.
Let us remember to cling to Christ. For hope from Him does not dissapoint us.
I was driving a friend home from a new year's get together tonight when I mentioned a certain denomination's doctirnal error of backing away from the exclusivity of Christianity. We then got into a very intense discussion, of length about 8 blocks of snowy road, about Christ's exclusivity. She brought up the fact that Christ taught that we ought to love everyone and accept everyone. Like any good lie, this is a half-truth. Christ did teach that we ought to love and accept everyone. The problem lies in our modern defenition of love. As C.S. Lewis writes, in one of his books (Four Loves, Mere Christianity or Problem of Pain?), we wish for a senile love, that approves of anything and everything. But this is not the love that we live: if we love a spouse, as Christ loves the Church, we love it as it is, but we also wish its change for the better. In theory, if I was a dad, I would love my kid no matter what when he was trying to learn how to walk. Indeed, I would be delighted at the slightest stumble. But when he is a full grown man...I would be not be satisfied with a son who could not walk. But maybe that is incomplete. Let's consider the far out theory that someone would marry me: now I would love her when she woke up in the morning, with hair that looked ridiculous, kind of like mine does in the morning (because I have long hair). But I would also wish her to comb it. The idea to "love me for what I am" does not apply in the Christian tradition and doctrine: God does not, cannot, love in that manner. He loves, but he loves with the wish to perfect us, to make us better, not that we would stagnate.
Also, a lot of the misunderstanding has to do with the misunderstanding of Christ and his purpose. As Mark Driscoll mentioned in a sermon recently, from the series Vintage Jesus, Jesus came to fulfill three different roles: Prophet, Priest, and King. If we omit Prophet, we lose the condemning message of Jesus. He continually said, "repent." He called people to come to him. His teachings so impacted his disciples that probably only months after he ascended into heaven, Peter spoke in front of the Jewish courts, saying, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Christianity is exclusive. There is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. There are many religions, but one God. If people say that this exclusivity started with the Christian tradition, I would point to the Shemah, a daily Hebrew prayer derived from Deuteronomy 6:4, which says, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." There is only one god. You can go to college and know big words, but Christ rules over all. He died for that exclusivity. When asked if he was the son of God in Matthew 26, he says, "it is as you say." He died for the exclusivity of the gospel. He could have said something trite like "we are all children of God in one way or another," but he instead stood for what is true. Christ was painfully exclusive.
If people say that this is offensive, I never said it wasn't. The cross is offensive. The word of God is offensive, as the prophet Jeremiah says, "The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it." If some people are offended, I know I am doing my job. The cross stands as an affront to the world because it declares to the world, "everything you are doing is not good enough. You need more. You need Christ."
I think the most ridiculous thing is that the world is quite exclusive. Try to not recycle in Seattle - see what happens. Try to smoke in a resturaunt in Denver, Portland, or any number of places - see what happens. We are exclusive, and it is absurd that we insist that only Christianity shouldn't be. We are by nature exclusive.
And so Christ stands exclusively. There is no other name by which men are to be saved. No other name. It doesn't get much more exclusive - and yet anyone is welcome to come through the gate.
Let us lay our crowns at Christs feet at the beginning of this new year. And let us remember this day as the day in which we were restored by God.
Kyrie Elieson. Christe Elieson.
