were you there when they rolled the stone away?

JESUS iS iNEXHAUSTiBLE

Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

Brethren, there is an abiding fullness of truth in Christ. After you have heard it for fifty years, you see more of its fullness than you did at first. Other truths weary the ear. I will defy any man to hold together a large congregation, year after year, with any other subject but Christ Jesus. He might do it for a time; he might charm the ear with the discoveries of science, or with the beauties of poetry, and his oratory might be of so high an order that he might attract the multitudes who have itching ears, but they would in time turn away and say, “This is no longer to be endured. We know it all.”

All music becomes wearisome but that of heaven; but oh! if the minstrel doth but strike this celestial harp, though he keepeth his fingers always among its golden strings, and be but poor and unskilled upon an instrument so divine, yet the melody of Jesus’ name, and the sweet harmony of all his acts and attributes, will hold his listeners by the ears and thrill their hearts as nought beside can do. The theme of Jesus’ love is inexhaustible, though preachers may have dwelt upon it century after century, a freshness and fullness still remain.

JESUS' EMPiRE

Napoleon:

I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him.

Augustine:

I have read in Plato and Cicero sayings that are very wise and very beautiful; but I never read in either of them: "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden."

Word of the Day

The Hebrew word hesed is one of the most pregnant and potent words in the Old Testament. Psalm 136 repeats it in a refrain in each of its 26 verses: "His hesed endures forever." Notice how different translations often render this term:

"unfailing love" [NIV]

"lovingkindness" [NASB]

"steadfast love" [ESV and NRSV]

"mercy" [KJV, NKJV]

"faithful love" [NLT]

One my favorite theological books of all time, The Jesus Storybook Bible, hints at the idea of hesed when it frequently refers to "God's Never Stopping, Never Giving Up, Unbreaking, Always and Forever Love."

This idea of hesed is the ultimate sentiment between YHWH and His covenant people. The meaning of hesed is bound to YHWH's covenant promises to Abraham. It is not mere love or emotive adoration. Hesed includes and implies covenantal favor, love, mercy, fidelity, and kindness. The word almost tells a story in itself.

We can rejoice with the prophet Micah when he says, "Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression? You do not retain Your anger forever, because You delight to show hesed."

[for more word studies on hesed, read here, here, here, and here]

ROMANS iNTRO [1.1-7]

From Paul

• [a slave of Christ Jesus]
• [called as an apostle]
• [set apart for the gospel]

For the Gospel

• [which God promised beforehand]
• [which God promised through His the prophets in the Scriptures]
• [which concerns His Son]

The Gospel about God's Son, Jesus

• [who descended from David]
• [who was declared the Son of God in power, through the Spirit, by His resurrection]
• [who is our Lord]
• [through whom we have grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among the nations]

To all those in Rome

• [called to belong to Jesus]
• [who are loved by God]
• [called to be saints]
• [grace and peace to you all from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ]

Why I Still Appreciate Mark Driscoll

Wine/Alcohol in the Bible

It's quite unique to note the way that the biblical writers talk about wine/alcohol. There are primarily two ways that it is referred to.

First, it is seen negatively as that which, because of irresponsibility, should incur judgment and wrath. This negative view of alcohol can be symbolic or literal. Paul says to not be drunk with wine. This is irresponsible and cannot yield living life rightly. On the other hand, Isaiah and the Apostle John write of the the wine press of the wrath of God. See Prov 20.1, Is 51.17-23, Jer 25.15-29, Job 21.17-20, Rev 14.9-10, Eph 5.18, Is 5.11-12, and Rev 16.19.

Secondly, wine/alcohol in the Bible is seen as something celebratory, joyous, or satisfactory. The fact that God gives wine for man to enjoy is grounds for praise for the psalmist. Before you arrive at the end of chapter 12, some of the only snapshots of fulfillment in Ecclesiastes are when Solomon says that we should eat, drink, and be merry. Shockingly, this is not a reference to Welch's. Jesus even kept a wedding fiesta going by making 120 gallons of tasty wine. Conservatively, this is about 2,500 glasses. See Ps 104.14-15, Ecc 5.18, Ecc 9.7, Is 55.1, Mt 26.26-29, Mk 14.22-25, Lk 22.14-20, and Jn 2.1-11.

Maybe, just maybe, balance is the key to many things. Here's the point though: The emphasis on wine in the NT is that it serves as a two-fold eschatological metaphor.

In Revelation, John writes several times about the cup of wine of the fierce wrath of God. This is the negative.

Conversely, in each synoptic gospel, Jesus holds forth hope to His disciples by telling them that He will one day drink New Covenant wine with them in the Kingdom. This is the positive. And I'm looking forward to it.

JESUS is so important that i ran out of room.

By Him all things were created. He is before all things were created and in Him all things hold together.

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sin, according to the riches of His grace.

In Him was life and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overpower it.

He became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption.

In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge... For in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.

He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason, God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

He abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

He is the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things things by the word of His power.

He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him because He always lives to make intercession for them.

He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

He is worthy to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.

His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems... He is clothed in robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "King of kings, and Lord of lords."

He loves us and released us from our sins by His blood and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to God and Father - to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

[see Col 1, Eph 1, Jn 1, 1 Cor 1, Col 2, Phil 2, 2 Tim 1, Heb 1, Heb 7, 1 Pe, Rev 5, Rev 19, and Rev 1]

WHAT DOES "THE iMAGE OF GOD" MEAN?

I've heard scores of answers to this. We have moral sensitivity. We have relational capacities. We have communicative abilities. We have a will and the ability to reason.

I agree with all of these. However, I think the primary thing that God's image means in Gn 1.26-28 is that humanity was created to have dominion [1.26, 1.28]. Go read it. It's clear. And dominion is not for mere citizens or peasants. Dominion is for royalty. We were made, in some sense, to be "kings." This says something about our Creator and not necessarily our innate worth.

All of this is not mere conjecture or attempted exegetical insight. It's clearly what God's image means. Here's why:

If we read the end of the book, to what are we restored? In what way are we "co-heirs" with Christ [Rom 8.17]? Revelation 19-22 says that we will be raised to reign with Him, world without end. That is our lot in Christ - the full restoration of God's image and all that that entails. This is also why our Lord, who flawlessly bore the Father's image on earth, preached that "the kingdom is here" [Mt 4.17, Mk 1.15].

God's plan to fix the marred image could not have been accomplished by any other means except by the full image-bearer [Col 1.15, 1.19], the Second Adam [Rom 5.12-21].

A THEOLOGY OF FATHERHOOD [part 3]

There's no doubt I love my boy like crazy. I love him when he stinks to high heaven. I love him when he shows off his sprinkler skills and urinates on me and/or himself. I love him when he is sleeping. I love him when we take walks in the morning when it is crisp outside.

What I love about my love for my son is that it puts the sloppy, stupid, worldly definition of love to shame. The spirit of our culture generally defines love as sex and tolerance. It paints love to be a thing that acts in view of what it will receive for its action. But the unconditionality of much of the love I have for Little Mr James puts this selfish nonsense to shame.

I also understand Jesus a little more when he said,

I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

In this text, I do not think our Lord is necessarily getting at simplicity, immaturity, neediness, or innocence. What he is getting at is dependence. James is totally and completely dependent on Sara and me for cleanliness, food, safety, care, and so much more. He is still not even a month old. I can only imagine how this list will grow in the future. Let's put it this way: you are never fully conscious of the breadth and depth of your dependence. This is a good thing.

Sometimes there will be no poop or pee in the diaper, he will have just fed, he will have just burped and farted, but he will still not be calm. He still wants to show us the back of his throat and see how big of a red-faced scream he can give us. His cool, little, vibrating chair will not fix it. Talking in high pitch psuedo-baby speak won't do. Changing the ol' diaper for good measure doesn't cut it. However, it is quite often fixed by just holding him near and taking a walk. There is something about the nearness of the dependent that seems to bring peace. David understood this.

My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever... The nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord God my refuge that I may tell of all Your works.

fellowship and division?

What are issues that should cause a break in Christian fellowship? At what point can a local congregation no longer work together in unity for the kingdom moving forward through the gospel?

Is it strictly a matter of the issue on the table? Baptism? Lord's Supper? Deity of Christ? The Millennium? Justification? Bodily resurrection? Six literal days of creation? Literal, eternal hell?

Is there any litmus test to these issues that will show which ones are ok to disagree on? I've got two thoughts on this that have proved helpful to me. Here goes nothing.

FIRST, I'm blessed to teach Redemptive History and Systematic Theology. I love explaining the difference to my students. I tell them that RH is the story of God creating and calling a people to be with Him, like Him, and for Him. This is experiential, relational, and more subjective. It is based more on chronology and progressive revelation. A simple way to put it is that RH is about reading the Bible like this:

ST, on the other hand, is asking the question, "What does the Bible say about __________?" Anything can go in the blank: free will, faith, predestination, baptism, etc. ST seeks to grasp what God has revealed about a certain issue throughout the whole of Scripture. ST cannot be done without RH and it is often done flippantly and without regard for the context of how the Spirit breathed out the Scriptures. So, the cute and helpful diagram for how ST reads the Bible is:

Here's the point. If we read the Bible as though we are only and simply in the story of God [RH], we turn into doctrinally spineless loose-nuts who water down the Scriptures and believe that theology damns people and turns them away. Or, if we only read the Bible as a book of doctrines or truths [ST], then everybody else will be wrong except you and your three friends who take Ezekiel out of context and think the Bible's subtitle is "Doctrines You Better Believe."

Some think the tension here is problematic. I think it's perfect. This is a slim part of the reason why Jesus was described as being full of GRACE and TRUTH. So, all I'm saying is that if believers pursue reading the Scriptures correctly, many of the issues that oft divide will find their quirky niche.

This still may not be satisfactory. So,

SECOND, I do believe that there should be a rigid and tenacious contending [Jude 3] for those truths that directly relate to and involve the person and work of Jesus. This doesn't solve everything, but I believe gives us the most wise and safe starting point for juggling these issues. For example,

• the virgin birth
• the historical/bodily resurrection
• the deity of Jesus
• the bodily second coming of Jesus
• the sufficiency of the atonement

These are things to be staunchly defended. There is a centrality to the person and the work of Jesus that cannot be over-articulated and over-delighted in if we are His New Covenant people being His ambassadors in this present, passing age.

There is still plenty of grey room for which we need wisdom. But these two thoughts have helped me see those grey areas as opportunities for humility and not avenues for having to be right.

Hope it helps.

JESUS AND TOMORROW'S WORLD

By Tom Wright. Download here.

The Lord's Prayer [part 1]

There are 18 Benedictions in Judaism, recited 3x daily. These blessings/prayers were developed between 5th century BC and the 2nd century AD, strangely straddling the life of Jesus. They are also known as the Amidah and/or the Shmonah Esreh. Listen carefully to several of them.

#1 is a prayer/praise for YHWH being the Father of the biblical patriarchs [Abe, Isaac, Jake].

#3 ascribes worth to God because of His holiness.

#5 is a petition for God to guide His people in the ways of Torah.

#6 is a petition/praise concerning forgiveness.

#7 pleads for God to "look upon our affliction; fight our fight; redeem us speedily."

#10 asks God to restore the exiles back to the land.

#12 desires for God to execute justice on the enemies of His people.

#14 asks God to restore Jerusalem.

#15 cries out for God to usher in a Davidic/Kingly Messiah.

#17 asks God to restore Temple services and sacrifices. 

#18 requests that God would grant peace, mercy, and covenant love to His people, Israel.

Now remember, Jesus was a good Jew. He likely knew all of these and so did the people to whom he preached. So, when he says,

Our Father in heaven

Hallowed be your name

Your kingdom come
Your will be done

On earth as it is in heaven

Give us this day our daily bread

And forgive us our debts

As we also have forgiven our debtors
And lead us not into temptation

But deliver us from evil

When he said this, those listening had a specific frame of reference. But what Jesus does is odd. It is especially odd if you read the whole sermon [the one on the mount in Mt 5-7]. He has already spoken poignantly about Torah and he just dished out some painful blows to the super-spiritual regarding their gaudy prayer lives. He now arrives at the "how to" of sincerity in prayer. Kenneth Bailey describes it vividly.

Jesus de-Zionizes the tradition. The Lord's Prayer contains no references to Jerusalem or the Temple, and the disciples are taught to pray for the Kingdom to come on earth, which reflects a global concern for all people. Forgiveness is tied to forgiving others. No attack on outsiders is voiced. And there is no request for God to look on the suffering of His people or for God to fight for them.

Jesus changes it up because he is now the faithful Servant of YHWH who will be a light to the nations [Is 49.6]. He is the Davidic/Kingly Messiah [Mt 1.1, 1.18-23, 4.17]. He is Temple of God [Jn 2, Rev 21]. He is the peace, mercy, and covenant love of YHWH come to His people. He is the only satisfactory sacrifice [Heb 10]. Prayer is now about what God is doing through Jesus.

This angle on the Lord's Prayer is far more potent because it sits comfortably in its own context. Yet, its potency carries with it a kind of contrition that should be evident as well.

For THiNE is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever. Amen.

ECCLESiOLOGY 101

I love cramming Ecclesiology into 3.5 days with my students. We are just hitting the high points. The only thing I want them to see is this: 

If you say that you love Jesus and you don't love the Church, then you don't love Jesus.

That is not for shock value. It means exactly what it says. I could argue this from logic. Meaning, if Jesus gave Himself for the church and that includes me/you, then we must love our brothers and sisters.

Or I could use that text to say that part of walking in the way of Jesus is loving what God loves and hating what God hates. God detests sin, injustice, the work of the enemy. God loves Himself, His world, and His people.

Furthermore, I could send you to John's writings. John often talks about the necessary and righteous love of God to His people, His people to Himself, and His people to themselves. You know, "The world will know that you're My disciples if you have love for one another."   

But none of those options is necessary.

"Peter, do you love Me?" This was Jesus' question. And the answer that makes it a reality is for Peter [and you and me] to love/tend/feed the flock of God.

But why did I say that my one-liner was the "only thing" I wanted them to see? Because that is pure ecclesiology. All of the fine points of ecclesiology [sacraments, church discipline, offices, etc] are merely ironing out that one bigger reality.

I guess I should still define "Church" shouldn't I? I'll save that for another time. But even varying definitions will not matter so much because the Church is about Jesus. That's my whole point!

If you say that you love Jesus and you don't love the Church, then you don't love Jesus.

Seminarian Woes

This is by David Gentino. It has been a fun discussion. Go read.

GOD SPAKE [Heb 1.1-3]

Formerly by the prophets, BUT NOW by His Son.

Then to the fathers, BUT NOW to us.

Then at various times, BUT NOW at the end of times.

Finally, JESUS is here! Grace upon Grace!

I've been teaching Redemptive History since August. Walking in the sandals of our spiritual forefathers has been quite a haul. YHWH continually promises to send someone to fix humankind's stupidity, selfishness, rebellion, and pride [Gn 3.15; Gn 12-17; Gal 3.16; Dt 18.18; 2 Sam 7.12-13; Is 7-12; Is 52-53; Jer 23.5-6; Ezk 34.23; Ezk 37.24; Dan 9; Zech 13-14; Mal 4.2; etc]. My students' test over the return from exile and the intertestamental years is on Tuesday.

And then, He comes [Gal 4.4].

I even feel a sigh of relief typing this. It has only been eight months of teaching for me and I've been waiting for Jesus to get here! John felt the same way, but probably 100x stronger:

For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

Here's what I love about our long-awaited Jesus bringing this grace. The word "upon" is a fine translation. The Greek preposition is "anti." This is the same as when John says "Antichrist." A healthier rendering of this preposition is "in the place of." The Antichrist will attempt to act "in the place of" the true Christ.

So, John says that in Jesus we have "grace in the place of grace." If you get what John is telling us here, you'll know that he could have easily said that we have "grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon grace upon..." 

To those in Christ, the infinite reservoir of grace can never be drained of one drop. If an ounce of grace be usurped because of our sin, there is found in that same place just as much or more grace than there was before!

He has come. The peculiar, yet glorious, marriage of grace and truth has arrived.

A DiALOGUE WiTH DEATH

CHRISTIAN:

Hello, Death, my old enemy. My old slave-master. Have you come to talk to me again? To frighten me? I am not the person you think I am. I am not the one you used to talk to. Something has happened. Let me ask you a question, Death. Where is your sting?

DEATH [sneeringly]:

My sting is your sin.

CHRISTIAN:

I know that, Death. But that’s not what I asked you. I asked, where is your sting? I know what it is. But tell me where it is.

Why are you fidgeting, Death? Why are you looking away? Why are you turning to go? Wait, Death, you have not answered my question. Where is your sting? Where is, my sin?

What? You have no answer?! But, Death, why do you have no answer? How will you terrify me, if you have no answer? O Death, I will tell you the answer. Where is your sting? Where is my sin? It is hanging on that tree. God made Christ to be sin—my sin. When he died, the penalty of my sin was paid. The power of it was broken. I bear it no more.

Farewell, Death. You need not show up here again to frighten me. God will tell you when to come next time. And when you come, you will be his servant. For me, you will have no sting.

O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ [1 Cor 15.55-57].

[unashamedly stolen from here]

EPiSTEMOLOGY, JEWiSH SEX, and ETERNAL LiFE

I know that 2 + 2 = 4.

I know that South Carolina actually had a good snow this past winter.

I know that my wife is pregnant.

I know that Dennis Rodman and I have the same birthday.

What if you could know every fact that has ever been?

What if you knew every sports stat from every team and every player that has ever existed. You knew every touchdown, homerun, tripple-double, hole-in-one, and championship in history. Let's say that you know every war that has ever been fought and the victor in each battle. Let's even say that you knew the names of all of those lost in each battle. Perhaps you could list the birthdays of each president, dictator, ruler, and czar the world has ever seen.

Obviously I could go on forever. Bear with me.

Let's say that you knew all of these things. You would be a human computer. Your friends call you Google Thompson. You can spit out every factual reality possible. Do you then have real "knowledge"? Have you exhausted "knowledge"? Does the epistemological buck stop with you?

Not a chance.

There are several reasons why. FIRST, you may know all possible facts, but what about the motives, intentions, emotions, and ideas behind them? Does knowing that Roberto Clemente died with exactly 3000 hits mean that you can know how he felt? Doubtful. Who cares if you know that the Berlin Wall fell if you don't know how people thought about it? My simple purpose is this... Part of the essence of knowledge is that it is inexhaustible. This means that the essence of knowledge cannot be fact-knowing. Then what is real knowledge? Hmmm?

SECOND, because we are products of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the Scientific Method we have come to think of "knowledge" as observable and tried actuality. This seems to operate under the assumption that objectivity and subjectivity can be divorced. Tis folly, my friends.

THIRD, Adam knew Eve; then came Cain. As is clear, this is far more than informed mindfulness. This is an experiential knowing. The Hebrew word for "know" is "yada." If you continue to trace this idea you will find that "knowing" has historically, theologically, and spiritually transcended awareness to experience, and transcended experience to relationship.

So, when Jesus says, "Depart from me. I never knew you" [Mt 7.23], He is not talking about being cognizant of a person's existence. He is talking about relationship. Or... "All those that God foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus" [Rom 8.29-30]. The point here is that real, right, and true "knowledge" is being intimately bound to someone. This is the source from which fact-knowing springs.

All of this makes Jesus' words in John 17 a little more poignant and fresh.

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

God giving Jesus shows how He desires to be known [Jn 14.6, 6.44]. For me, this ripens the old Christian adage, "Know Him and make known."

sex and gospel