Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!
With these words, Christians all over the world will begin the celebration of Easter.
Please read Luke 24:1–12
Most Jews in New Testament times probably believed in resurrection, which is the concept that the dead will rise in their bodies from the grave to have a new life with God. But what they believed in was a general resurrection of all the dead at the end of time. No one expected that for one man the resurrection would happen, not at the end of the world, but right in the middle of human history.
But early on the Sunday morning, on the third day after Jesus was crucified, died and was buried, that's exactly what happened. When it did, nothing would ever be the same again.
In the evangelical tradition, the focus tends to be on the cross rather the resurrection. Yes we believe in the resurrection and we focus on the bodily resurrection in contrast with the liberals who deny it. But I don't think we actually grasp the importance of the resurrection all that well. If we're not careful the resurrection can become merely the happy ending after Good Friday, the evidence that the sacrifice of the cross worked. Yet in New Testament terms the cross and resurrection go together as parts of Christ's saving work.
We need to really take hold of this: Christ's death took our sins away, but Christ's resurrection brings us new life. Salvation in biblical terms is about far more than sin management or sin removal, it is about transformation from what we were to what we will be. For that we need more than pardon or forgiveness, amazing though these blessings are. We need to draw new kind of life, eternal life, from Christ's own resurrection life. That's what happens when enter into a living relationship with the risen Christ. When we believe in him, we enter into union with him, so that his death becomes ours and takes our sins away, and his resurrection life becomes ours as well. When that life flows into us, it begins a process of changing us from the inside out. We start to become the kind of people God always wanted us to be. We need more than for the slate to be wiped clean. We need to replace the slate altogether with a new iPad. And that's what the resurrection means in spiritual terms for us.
Paul wrote in Romans 4:25 (Good News Bible): "Because of our sins he was given over to die, and he was raised to life in order to put us right with God."
Happy Easter to all my readers!
Sunday, 21 April 2019
Saturday, 20 April 2019
The King's Tomb
Please read Mark 15:42–47
The Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday is very much the forgotten day of Holy Week. In Christian tradition it is usually called either "Holy Saturday," "Easter Eve," or sometimes "Black Saturday." It is the day when the body of Jesus lay in the tomb after his burial late on the Friday afternoon and the earth-shattering events of the Sunday morning.
The Gospels tell us the tomb where Jesus was buried belonged to a wealthy and influential citizen of Jerusalem called Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. He had been a secret disciple of Jesus, yet after Jesus had died, when the other disciples fled, it is Joseph of Arimathea who "comes out" as one of Jesus' followers and he went to Pontius Pilate to take custody of the dead body. Joseph then used the tomb he had presumably purchased for his own use when the time came and laid Jesus to rest in it instead. This in itself is an extraordinary act of service and love that Joseph showed to his Saviour.
The question often asked is what happened to Jesus in between his death and resurrection while his body was in the tomb. What was going on when his body lay in the tomb? The traditional version of the Apostles' Creed says that after being "crucified, dead and buried, He descended into hell." There is no real biblical evidence for this credal statement however. Modern versions of the Creed sometimes change this to "He descended to the dead" or "to the realm of the dead" which ties in with the idea of Hades as simply the place where the dead go, rather than a place where they go to be punished as Hell (or Gehenna) suggests.
This raises the whole question of what theologians call "the intermediate state" between death and resurrection for all of us. It is too big a subject to go into in any detail here, but I think the correct view is that for us when a Christian dies their soul goes at once to a part of heaven and they are consciously in the presence of Jesus. When non-Christians die their souls go to a place usually called Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek. It is not "Hell" as we think of it, but a sort of shadowy waiting place where their souls dwell until the last judgment. Hell, whatever it is, is only entered into after the judgment at the end of time.
But what about Jesus when he died? One biblical piece of evidence is that on the cross, Jesus said the thief, "Today, you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). This would suggest that Jesus went to "Paradise" after he died. So what is Paradise? Well if we look at 2 Corinthians 12 we see that Paul calls the same place "heaven" and "paradise" so it would seem that Paradise is another word for heaven or at least a part of heaven. So after he died, Christ both in a part of heaven and in the realm of the dead, but not hell according to Scripture.
My own view, tentatively held, is that all the dead go to Hades, but part of Hades somehow overlaps with and is touched by heaven and is this place is called Paradise. Only those who are right with God can go there and they are in God's presence there. The word "paradise" comes from the Persian language and means a "walled garden" - which could mean it is both in Hades, but separated from the main part of Hades. If this is the case, then it is possible to affirm both that Christ was in Paradise while he was dead, but also that he descended to the realm of the dead or descended to Hades. He may even have been able to visit all parts of Hades, not just Paradise as 1 Peter 4:6 suggests.
But all this is not something I would be at all dogmatic about!
The important point is that Jesus was really dead, really buried, and really went to the realm where the dead go to show it. But only until the third day came...
The Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday is very much the forgotten day of Holy Week. In Christian tradition it is usually called either "Holy Saturday," "Easter Eve," or sometimes "Black Saturday." It is the day when the body of Jesus lay in the tomb after his burial late on the Friday afternoon and the earth-shattering events of the Sunday morning.
The Gospels tell us the tomb where Jesus was buried belonged to a wealthy and influential citizen of Jerusalem called Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. He had been a secret disciple of Jesus, yet after Jesus had died, when the other disciples fled, it is Joseph of Arimathea who "comes out" as one of Jesus' followers and he went to Pontius Pilate to take custody of the dead body. Joseph then used the tomb he had presumably purchased for his own use when the time came and laid Jesus to rest in it instead. This in itself is an extraordinary act of service and love that Joseph showed to his Saviour.
The question often asked is what happened to Jesus in between his death and resurrection while his body was in the tomb. What was going on when his body lay in the tomb? The traditional version of the Apostles' Creed says that after being "crucified, dead and buried, He descended into hell." There is no real biblical evidence for this credal statement however. Modern versions of the Creed sometimes change this to "He descended to the dead" or "to the realm of the dead" which ties in with the idea of Hades as simply the place where the dead go, rather than a place where they go to be punished as Hell (or Gehenna) suggests.
This raises the whole question of what theologians call "the intermediate state" between death and resurrection for all of us. It is too big a subject to go into in any detail here, but I think the correct view is that for us when a Christian dies their soul goes at once to a part of heaven and they are consciously in the presence of Jesus. When non-Christians die their souls go to a place usually called Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek. It is not "Hell" as we think of it, but a sort of shadowy waiting place where their souls dwell until the last judgment. Hell, whatever it is, is only entered into after the judgment at the end of time.
But what about Jesus when he died? One biblical piece of evidence is that on the cross, Jesus said the thief, "Today, you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). This would suggest that Jesus went to "Paradise" after he died. So what is Paradise? Well if we look at 2 Corinthians 12 we see that Paul calls the same place "heaven" and "paradise" so it would seem that Paradise is another word for heaven or at least a part of heaven. So after he died, Christ both in a part of heaven and in the realm of the dead, but not hell according to Scripture.
My own view, tentatively held, is that all the dead go to Hades, but part of Hades somehow overlaps with and is touched by heaven and is this place is called Paradise. Only those who are right with God can go there and they are in God's presence there. The word "paradise" comes from the Persian language and means a "walled garden" - which could mean it is both in Hades, but separated from the main part of Hades. If this is the case, then it is possible to affirm both that Christ was in Paradise while he was dead, but also that he descended to the realm of the dead or descended to Hades. He may even have been able to visit all parts of Hades, not just Paradise as 1 Peter 4:6 suggests.
But all this is not something I would be at all dogmatic about!
The important point is that Jesus was really dead, really buried, and really went to the realm where the dead go to show it. But only until the third day came...
Friday, 19 April 2019
The King Dies
Please read Matthew 27:33–53
Today is Good Friday, the most solemn day in the Christian year when we mark the crucifixion and death of Jesus. At a purely human level, the cross remains a shocking and sad event. The death of a young man, murdered by his powerful enemies, convicted of a crime he didn't commit, tortured to death, an idealist who paid the ultimate price for this principles of love, justice and freedom. Because of all this I hesitated to say that Christians "celebrate" Good Friday. We commemorate it and we are profoundly moved by it, but it is hard to celebrate a man's bloody and brutal murder. These are what we might call the "human interest" elements to the story and they tend to be the focus of dramatic treatments of Christ's death whether in paintings or in cinema.
Yet the Bible's focus is not so much on the human interest elements as on the theological meaning of the death of Jesus. It is in the profound spiritual truths of what Christ's death accomplished as atonement or reconciliation with God, expiation of sin, propitiation of wrath, redemption from slavery, victory over Satan, release from punishment and deliverance from death (to name just some things that the New Testament says the cross of Jesus Christ has done for us) that the death of Jesus finds its true meaning. It is because of what the cross means for broken and guilty humanity that it is transformed from the waste of a good life to the greatest use of a good life that has ever or could ever happen.
Today is Good Friday, the most solemn day in the Christian year when we mark the crucifixion and death of Jesus. At a purely human level, the cross remains a shocking and sad event. The death of a young man, murdered by his powerful enemies, convicted of a crime he didn't commit, tortured to death, an idealist who paid the ultimate price for this principles of love, justice and freedom. Because of all this I hesitated to say that Christians "celebrate" Good Friday. We commemorate it and we are profoundly moved by it, but it is hard to celebrate a man's bloody and brutal murder. These are what we might call the "human interest" elements to the story and they tend to be the focus of dramatic treatments of Christ's death whether in paintings or in cinema.
Yet the Bible's focus is not so much on the human interest elements as on the theological meaning of the death of Jesus. It is in the profound spiritual truths of what Christ's death accomplished as atonement or reconciliation with God, expiation of sin, propitiation of wrath, redemption from slavery, victory over Satan, release from punishment and deliverance from death (to name just some things that the New Testament says the cross of Jesus Christ has done for us) that the death of Jesus finds its true meaning. It is because of what the cross means for broken and guilty humanity that it is transformed from the waste of a good life to the greatest use of a good life that has ever or could ever happen.
He died that we might be forgiven,The question the death of Jesus poses to you today is this: will his death have been in vain for you or not? Because the true meaning of the death of Jesus can only be fulfilled in the lives of those who are in spiritual union with him, and the benefits of what Christ has achieved on the cross are only shared with those who want them. Do you want forgiveness for your past and transformation for your future? Do you want a relationship with God through Jesus? That's what Christ is even now offering you through the cross. To accept it he only looks for you to trust and follow him in faith. This Good Friday, let the King's death change your life forever.
He died to make us good,
That we might go at last to heaven,
Saved by His precious blood.
Thursday, 18 April 2019
The King's Feast
Please read Mark 14:12–26
The Thursday of Holy Week is often known as "Maundy Thursday." Maundy is an old word for the ritual of footwashing. It was on the Thursday of Jesus' last week that he washed the disciples feet to show the need for Christians to serve each other. Some Christian traditions still have footwashing as a ritual to show our humility and duty of service to others, especially our duty to the poor. (This is the origin of the monarch distributing "Maundy Money" today.)
But this post is about another rite that Christ introduced on the same day; one which is observed by almost all Christians - the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, also known as the Eucharist (Thanksgiving) or Holy Communion, or as we might also call it "The King's Feast."
Imagine the scene in the upper room that Thursday night. The disciples have gathered with Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal, just as they had every year since boyhood. They had probably eaten this special meal twenty, thirty or forty times before on previous Passovers. It's as traditional to them as Christmas dinner is to us. Then, in the middle of the meal, Jesus does something totally new and unexpected. He switches from commemorating, through the meal of roast lamb, the exodus from Egypt in Moses' time and now looks forward to a new exodus - a new deliverance for God's people - through his own death as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
The meal is as simple as possible. Bread and wine. Bread symbolising Christ's body broken for us on the cross; wine symbolising Christ's red blood poured out to seal a new covenant between God and his people. The eating and drinking of the bread and wine symbolising the living relationship of faith and obedience that depends on Christ and draws on Christ for spiritual nourishment and life. And the sharing of the loaf and cup with fellow believers symbolising our unity and comradeship as Christian pilgrims on the Way together.
A simple meal of bread and wine and yet the greatest feast this world affords and the foretaste of the great King's feast to come when Christ returns in glory.
The Thursday of Holy Week is often known as "Maundy Thursday." Maundy is an old word for the ritual of footwashing. It was on the Thursday of Jesus' last week that he washed the disciples feet to show the need for Christians to serve each other. Some Christian traditions still have footwashing as a ritual to show our humility and duty of service to others, especially our duty to the poor. (This is the origin of the monarch distributing "Maundy Money" today.)
But this post is about another rite that Christ introduced on the same day; one which is observed by almost all Christians - the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, also known as the Eucharist (Thanksgiving) or Holy Communion, or as we might also call it "The King's Feast."
Imagine the scene in the upper room that Thursday night. The disciples have gathered with Jesus to celebrate the Passover meal, just as they had every year since boyhood. They had probably eaten this special meal twenty, thirty or forty times before on previous Passovers. It's as traditional to them as Christmas dinner is to us. Then, in the middle of the meal, Jesus does something totally new and unexpected. He switches from commemorating, through the meal of roast lamb, the exodus from Egypt in Moses' time and now looks forward to a new exodus - a new deliverance for God's people - through his own death as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
The meal is as simple as possible. Bread and wine. Bread symbolising Christ's body broken for us on the cross; wine symbolising Christ's red blood poured out to seal a new covenant between God and his people. The eating and drinking of the bread and wine symbolising the living relationship of faith and obedience that depends on Christ and draws on Christ for spiritual nourishment and life. And the sharing of the loaf and cup with fellow believers symbolising our unity and comradeship as Christian pilgrims on the Way together.
A simple meal of bread and wine and yet the greatest feast this world affords and the foretaste of the great King's feast to come when Christ returns in glory.
Wednesday, 17 April 2019
The King's Enemies
Please read Luke 22:1–6
The Wednesday of Holy Week is sometimes known as "Spy Wednesday" in the Christian calendar because it probably on this day that Judas Iscariot went in secret to the Sanhedrin to begin the dark negotiations that would lead to him agreeing to betray Jesus the next night to them for thirty pieces of silver.
We may never know what motivated Judas to do what he did. Perhaps it was that by his actions Judas realised Jesus was not going to conform to his image of what the Messiah should be? Judas may have felt betrayed himself because he expected Jesus to lead an armed rebellion against Rome and could not come to terms with his master's message of peace and non-violence? Whatever the reason, the time is now right for Judas to make his move and try to salvage something for his time "wasted" with Jesus and he agrees to give Jesus up for a payoff of thirty pieces of silver, which was roughly four month's wages at that time. A large amount of money, but by no means a fortune in return for selling out a close friend.
What is obvious is that Jesus was surrounded by enemies by this point. Not only the temple leadership but also the Pharisees are all looking for a way to have Jesus killed. Yet behind them all is Christ's archenemy, Satan himself. It was this enemy - the devil - that Christ came to earth to defeat and destroy as prophesied all the way back in Genesis 3:15. And it was this enemy that Christ did crush in the victory of the cross and the triumph of the resurrection.
The Wednesday of Holy Week is sometimes known as "Spy Wednesday" in the Christian calendar because it probably on this day that Judas Iscariot went in secret to the Sanhedrin to begin the dark negotiations that would lead to him agreeing to betray Jesus the next night to them for thirty pieces of silver.
We may never know what motivated Judas to do what he did. Perhaps it was that by his actions Judas realised Jesus was not going to conform to his image of what the Messiah should be? Judas may have felt betrayed himself because he expected Jesus to lead an armed rebellion against Rome and could not come to terms with his master's message of peace and non-violence? Whatever the reason, the time is now right for Judas to make his move and try to salvage something for his time "wasted" with Jesus and he agrees to give Jesus up for a payoff of thirty pieces of silver, which was roughly four month's wages at that time. A large amount of money, but by no means a fortune in return for selling out a close friend.
What is obvious is that Jesus was surrounded by enemies by this point. Not only the temple leadership but also the Pharisees are all looking for a way to have Jesus killed. Yet behind them all is Christ's archenemy, Satan himself. It was this enemy - the devil - that Christ came to earth to defeat and destroy as prophesied all the way back in Genesis 3:15. And it was this enemy that Christ did crush in the victory of the cross and the triumph of the resurrection.
Tuesday, 16 April 2019
The King's Wisdom
Please read Luke 20:1–8
The Tuesday of Holy Week is sometimes known as the day of questions because the Gospels record a number of questions that people asked Jesus on that day and the replies Jesus gave.
The questions were mainly hostile on that day. There were questions about who he was, what he was doing and what his authority was for doing them. As ever, Jesus’ answers are striking and supremely wise. When the questioner is trying to trap him he doesn't avoid answering but gives answers that can be interpreted in more than one way. He also turns the tables on the questioners and leaves them looking foolish. That tends to be the way when people come to Christ without faith and with hostility.
The situation is very different if we come with genuine, honest questions. If we come with the attitude of "I believe, help Thou my unbelief" then Christ is very patient and compassionate with us.
Paul wrote that Christ is the very wisdom of God. He gives the answers to life's most fundamental questions about who we are, what we're here for, and where are we going. Christ can answer all the questions in your heart. He asks you only one question in return: "Will you trust and follow me?"
The Tuesday of Holy Week is sometimes known as the day of questions because the Gospels record a number of questions that people asked Jesus on that day and the replies Jesus gave.
The questions were mainly hostile on that day. There were questions about who he was, what he was doing and what his authority was for doing them. As ever, Jesus’ answers are striking and supremely wise. When the questioner is trying to trap him he doesn't avoid answering but gives answers that can be interpreted in more than one way. He also turns the tables on the questioners and leaves them looking foolish. That tends to be the way when people come to Christ without faith and with hostility.
The situation is very different if we come with genuine, honest questions. If we come with the attitude of "I believe, help Thou my unbelief" then Christ is very patient and compassionate with us.
Paul wrote that Christ is the very wisdom of God. He gives the answers to life's most fundamental questions about who we are, what we're here for, and where are we going. Christ can answer all the questions in your heart. He asks you only one question in return: "Will you trust and follow me?"
Monday, 15 April 2019
The King Visits
Please read Matthew 21:12–17
The Monday of Holy Week is often used as a day to reflect on Christ's visit to the temple in Jerusalem. The Gospels tell us that when Jesus saw all the merchants and money-changers doing business in the temple courts he was angry. Jesus' words are sharp and to the point. "My Father's house will be called a house of prayer but you have turned it into a den of thieves."
Doing business in the temple this way was symptomatic of the corruption of the whole temple system that had crept in over the years. The area where the traders met was called the court of the Gentiles. It was an area that symbolised Israel's responsibility to draw the Gentile nations into covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Instead it had been turned into a holy market place.
But not only was Israel failing in its calling to be the light for the world, the traders themselves were exploiting temple worshippers. Most people coming to the temple would come to make some kind of sacrifice in accordance with the Torah laid down in the first five books of the Bible. The traders sold animals that were acceptable for use, without blemish, but they sold them at inflated prices. They also operated currency changing facilities as only temple currency could be used in the temple (not Roman coinage). Again, sharp exchange rates operated to rip off worshippers and pilgrims.
It is this kind of "religion" where people are exploited and robbed of money that makes Jesus angry. One can only wonder what he would make of TV evangelists and certain Christian "ministries" in our day who seem to be more interested in the financial giving of people above all else.
In our churches we need to be constantly on our guard that no corruption enters into our practice and more likely perhaps that we do not put up needless barriers that stop people coming to worship God or enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ.
The Monday of Holy Week is often used as a day to reflect on Christ's visit to the temple in Jerusalem. The Gospels tell us that when Jesus saw all the merchants and money-changers doing business in the temple courts he was angry. Jesus' words are sharp and to the point. "My Father's house will be called a house of prayer but you have turned it into a den of thieves."
Doing business in the temple this way was symptomatic of the corruption of the whole temple system that had crept in over the years. The area where the traders met was called the court of the Gentiles. It was an area that symbolised Israel's responsibility to draw the Gentile nations into covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Instead it had been turned into a holy market place.
But not only was Israel failing in its calling to be the light for the world, the traders themselves were exploiting temple worshippers. Most people coming to the temple would come to make some kind of sacrifice in accordance with the Torah laid down in the first five books of the Bible. The traders sold animals that were acceptable for use, without blemish, but they sold them at inflated prices. They also operated currency changing facilities as only temple currency could be used in the temple (not Roman coinage). Again, sharp exchange rates operated to rip off worshippers and pilgrims.
It is this kind of "religion" where people are exploited and robbed of money that makes Jesus angry. One can only wonder what he would make of TV evangelists and certain Christian "ministries" in our day who seem to be more interested in the financial giving of people above all else.
In our churches we need to be constantly on our guard that no corruption enters into our practice and more likely perhaps that we do not put up needless barriers that stop people coming to worship God or enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Sunday, 14 April 2019
The King Arrives
As we approach Easter, I plan to post a short reflection each day about the events in Christ's life during the final "holy week" before his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection.
Please read Matthew 21:1–11
Today is Palm Sunday, marking the beginning of Holy Week in the Christian calendar. The Gospels tell us that it was on the equivalent Sunday in about AD 30 that Jesus of Nazareth began the last week of his earthly life and the culmination of the three years of his public ministry as an itinerant rabbi in Palestine. On that day, Jesus rode into Jerusalem, riding on a donkey and receiving the acclaim of a large crowd of thousands of people as the long awaited King of Israel, the Messiah.
As he rode into the holy city, the crowd threw down their cloaks and waved palm branches in praise to God (hence the name Palm Sunday). Children as well as adults sang his praises. For many people this was going to be the beginning of a holy revolution that would throw the occupying Romans out of Palestine and restore the nation of Israel to its former glory. It was the dawning realisation that Jesus wasn't going to be that kind of Messiah that led to the crowds turning against him and demanding his death only five days later.
What Christ's mission involved was far greater than defeating the Roman armies. Christ rode into Jerusalem knowing he was coming to die. And so courageously and resolutely he rode into the jaws of hell to win salvation for sinners. He was a victorious Messiah, but the enemies he defeated were sin, death and the devil. And rescued not just one nation but the whole world. He came as God's king to set up the Kingdom of God, but he came to do that through making peace, not through hatred and war. He was a king utterly unlike any before or since. He is a king who does not create subjects by force or by political guile; his "subjects" are regarded as his friends and their loyalty is won only by the king's love for them and their trust and love for him in return.
Please read Matthew 21:1–11
Today is Palm Sunday, marking the beginning of Holy Week in the Christian calendar. The Gospels tell us that it was on the equivalent Sunday in about AD 30 that Jesus of Nazareth began the last week of his earthly life and the culmination of the three years of his public ministry as an itinerant rabbi in Palestine. On that day, Jesus rode into Jerusalem, riding on a donkey and receiving the acclaim of a large crowd of thousands of people as the long awaited King of Israel, the Messiah.
As he rode into the holy city, the crowd threw down their cloaks and waved palm branches in praise to God (hence the name Palm Sunday). Children as well as adults sang his praises. For many people this was going to be the beginning of a holy revolution that would throw the occupying Romans out of Palestine and restore the nation of Israel to its former glory. It was the dawning realisation that Jesus wasn't going to be that kind of Messiah that led to the crowds turning against him and demanding his death only five days later.
What Christ's mission involved was far greater than defeating the Roman armies. Christ rode into Jerusalem knowing he was coming to die. And so courageously and resolutely he rode into the jaws of hell to win salvation for sinners. He was a victorious Messiah, but the enemies he defeated were sin, death and the devil. And rescued not just one nation but the whole world. He came as God's king to set up the Kingdom of God, but he came to do that through making peace, not through hatred and war. He was a king utterly unlike any before or since. He is a king who does not create subjects by force or by political guile; his "subjects" are regarded as his friends and their loyalty is won only by the king's love for them and their trust and love for him in return.
Friday, 29 March 2019
The Creator of Evil or the Author of Sin?
Scripture contains many apparent contradictions. And let's be frank, it is these apparent contradictions that give rise to many of the theological differences and disputes among evangelical Christians.
To give just two examples. Firstly, there is an apparent contradiction between John 3:16 where God is said to "love the world" and Psalm 5:5 where God is said to "hate all who do wrong". Secondly, there is an apparent contradiction between Daniel 4:35 which indicates God is absolutely sovereign over all things: "He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'" and verses like Luke 7:30 where "The Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves" or Matthew 23:37 where Christ says over the city of Jerusalem: "How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Whatever way you look at it, these are at least apparent contradictions.
Now, for liberal scholarship, apparent contradictions do not represent much of a problem. The answer of liberal scholarship is that the contradictions are real since the Bible is more-or-less deemed to be the product of merely human writers each with their own ideas and views of God, humanity and the world. Liberal scholarship has no problem with the fact that Isaiah's and Ezekiel's or Paul's and Peter's theology contradict each other. It's no less surprising for liberal theology that two biblical authors should disagree than it is for Calvin and Arminius or Wright and Piper to disagree. However, for evangelical scholarship, apparent contradictions represent a real problem whenever we seek to interpret Scripture. Because we believe that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and therefore behind the different human authors is the voice of the one divine author, we evangelicals have to accept that any contradictions in Scripture are only apparent not real.
In this post we are going to look at one such example and see how we might go about resolving the apparent difficulties.
Isaiah 45:7 reads in the NIV (with God speaking): "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The word translated "prosperity" is the rich Hebrew word shalom, often translated as "peace" though it can also mean wholeness, well-being, health. More significantly for our discussion, the word translated as "disaster" is the Hebrew word ra which is often translated as "evil" or "wickedness". In the King James Version, the verse reads: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
A number of translations have perhaps sought to soften Isaiah's words by indicating that the "evil" concerned is what might be called "natural evil" and so the NIV has "disaster". Other translations have "woe" or "calamity" here, suggesting that the evil is not moral evil or wickedness. I am not arguing against this view. The context might well point in that direction.
However, many Calvinists believe Isaiah 45:7 is a proof text that God is in total, meticulous and sovereign control of everything that happens whether it be good or evil in all senses of the words. I was quite surprised to find Bruce Ware doing this in his book God's Greater Glory. Ware argues quite strongly that to deny God's providential hand in all things including evil (and not just in the sense of allowing evil or merely permitting it) is to deny the plain meaning of a text like Isaiah 45:7. He even points out how the same word for "create" (bara) that is used solely for God's activity in creation (e.g. Genesis 1:1) is used here of evil. For Ware the "evil" of Isaiah 45:7 is definitely something God creates.
Okay, so on that basis, if God creates evil - and it is not just hurricanes and floods we are talking about here - then we have a real problem, don't we? We have a glaring apparent contradiction with other verses in Scripture.
If God in a sense creates evil how does this square with a cardinal point of Reformed (and indeed all reputable evangelical theologies) that God is in no way the author of sin? The Westminster Confession of Faith is typical of Reformed creeds in stating: "God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin." (WCF 5.4)
That God cannot be the author of sin is abundantly clear in Scripture, not only in all the verses that speak of his all-good, all-loving and all-holy character, but many times quite explicitly as well.
1 John 1:5 reads: "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."
Habakkuk 1:13 speaks to God thus: "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing."
The Psalmist notes in Psalm 5:4 (NKJV): "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You."
And James 1:13 is very clear: "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone."
Finally 1 John 2:16 states: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."
So then how do we resolve the problem of Isaiah saying that God creates moral evil and these other verses showing that God cannot tolerate sin, far less be the author of sin, which is of course moral evil?
The most common way is to adopt the view we've looked at already that the evil spoken of in Isaiah 45:7 is not moral evil or sin but natural "evil" in the sense of natural disasters, fatal diseases, etc. This would seem to me to be a reasonable approach and it taken by many Calvinists, such as John MacArthur. But for other Calvinists, like Bruce Ware and Gordon Clark, such an approach is unacceptable because they hold the view that everything that occurs is God's will (is part of God's purpose or plan). The idea that moral evil is totally outside the scope of what God creates, or is outside the scope of God's plans or purposes in any sense (even by only allowing it), is a non-starter for Christian theology.
But let us assume Ware is correct that Isaiah 45:7 is talking about all kinds of evil, moral as well as natural. Personally I actually think he is correct in this and the King James Version translates it accurately. I think Isaiah's high doctrine of divine sovereignty displayed throughout chapters 40-48 would indicate he meant that God is sovereign over all kinds of evil. If this is so, then how can we harmonise this verse's teaching that God somehow "creates" evil though Scripture is clear that he is in no sense the author of sin?
The only alternative I can see is to recognise the biblical concept that God, as Creator and Ruler of the universe, is regarded as taking a sovereign's responsibility for events that happen in his domain (in God's case, the universe), including evil events, even though he is not directly responsible for any evil. In the ancient world the concept was well-recognised that a king or potentate, as leader of a nation, bore some kind of official responsibility for the actions of those under his rule.
In this sense God is the "creator of evil" because he is the Creator of the universe including beings to whom he gave the ability to choose good or evil (and who consistently choose evil since the Fall). And even when he permits evil to occur, in his wisdom he can make use of evil to bring about good.
So here are two viable models for how to reconcile how God can create "evil" yet not be the "author of sin." First, it is possible that the "evil" referred to in Isaiah 45:7 concerns natural disasters and calamities rather than sin or wickedness. Second, even if the "evil" of Isaiah 45:7 does include sin and wickedness, God would only be the "creator" of such in the indirect sense in which he is creator of creatures he permits to commit sins, who are then solely morally responsible for those sins and wickedness. As ruler of the domain where those creatures carry out their actions "under his watch" so to speak and for his providential purposes, which are always and only good.
To give just two examples. Firstly, there is an apparent contradiction between John 3:16 where God is said to "love the world" and Psalm 5:5 where God is said to "hate all who do wrong". Secondly, there is an apparent contradiction between Daniel 4:35 which indicates God is absolutely sovereign over all things: "He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'" and verses like Luke 7:30 where "The Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves" or Matthew 23:37 where Christ says over the city of Jerusalem: "How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." Whatever way you look at it, these are at least apparent contradictions.
Now, for liberal scholarship, apparent contradictions do not represent much of a problem. The answer of liberal scholarship is that the contradictions are real since the Bible is more-or-less deemed to be the product of merely human writers each with their own ideas and views of God, humanity and the world. Liberal scholarship has no problem with the fact that Isaiah's and Ezekiel's or Paul's and Peter's theology contradict each other. It's no less surprising for liberal theology that two biblical authors should disagree than it is for Calvin and Arminius or Wright and Piper to disagree. However, for evangelical scholarship, apparent contradictions represent a real problem whenever we seek to interpret Scripture. Because we believe that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and therefore behind the different human authors is the voice of the one divine author, we evangelicals have to accept that any contradictions in Scripture are only apparent not real.
In this post we are going to look at one such example and see how we might go about resolving the apparent difficulties.
Isaiah 45:7 reads in the NIV (with God speaking): "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The word translated "prosperity" is the rich Hebrew word shalom, often translated as "peace" though it can also mean wholeness, well-being, health. More significantly for our discussion, the word translated as "disaster" is the Hebrew word ra which is often translated as "evil" or "wickedness". In the King James Version, the verse reads: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
A number of translations have perhaps sought to soften Isaiah's words by indicating that the "evil" concerned is what might be called "natural evil" and so the NIV has "disaster". Other translations have "woe" or "calamity" here, suggesting that the evil is not moral evil or wickedness. I am not arguing against this view. The context might well point in that direction.
However, many Calvinists believe Isaiah 45:7 is a proof text that God is in total, meticulous and sovereign control of everything that happens whether it be good or evil in all senses of the words. I was quite surprised to find Bruce Ware doing this in his book God's Greater Glory. Ware argues quite strongly that to deny God's providential hand in all things including evil (and not just in the sense of allowing evil or merely permitting it) is to deny the plain meaning of a text like Isaiah 45:7. He even points out how the same word for "create" (bara) that is used solely for God's activity in creation (e.g. Genesis 1:1) is used here of evil. For Ware the "evil" of Isaiah 45:7 is definitely something God creates.
Okay, so on that basis, if God creates evil - and it is not just hurricanes and floods we are talking about here - then we have a real problem, don't we? We have a glaring apparent contradiction with other verses in Scripture.
If God in a sense creates evil how does this square with a cardinal point of Reformed (and indeed all reputable evangelical theologies) that God is in no way the author of sin? The Westminster Confession of Faith is typical of Reformed creeds in stating: "God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin." (WCF 5.4)
That God cannot be the author of sin is abundantly clear in Scripture, not only in all the verses that speak of his all-good, all-loving and all-holy character, but many times quite explicitly as well.
1 John 1:5 reads: "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."
Habakkuk 1:13 speaks to God thus: "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing."
The Psalmist notes in Psalm 5:4 (NKJV): "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You."
And James 1:13 is very clear: "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone."
Finally 1 John 2:16 states: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."
So then how do we resolve the problem of Isaiah saying that God creates moral evil and these other verses showing that God cannot tolerate sin, far less be the author of sin, which is of course moral evil?
The most common way is to adopt the view we've looked at already that the evil spoken of in Isaiah 45:7 is not moral evil or sin but natural "evil" in the sense of natural disasters, fatal diseases, etc. This would seem to me to be a reasonable approach and it taken by many Calvinists, such as John MacArthur. But for other Calvinists, like Bruce Ware and Gordon Clark, such an approach is unacceptable because they hold the view that everything that occurs is God's will (is part of God's purpose or plan). The idea that moral evil is totally outside the scope of what God creates, or is outside the scope of God's plans or purposes in any sense (even by only allowing it), is a non-starter for Christian theology.
But let us assume Ware is correct that Isaiah 45:7 is talking about all kinds of evil, moral as well as natural. Personally I actually think he is correct in this and the King James Version translates it accurately. I think Isaiah's high doctrine of divine sovereignty displayed throughout chapters 40-48 would indicate he meant that God is sovereign over all kinds of evil. If this is so, then how can we harmonise this verse's teaching that God somehow "creates" evil though Scripture is clear that he is in no sense the author of sin?
The only alternative I can see is to recognise the biblical concept that God, as Creator and Ruler of the universe, is regarded as taking a sovereign's responsibility for events that happen in his domain (in God's case, the universe), including evil events, even though he is not directly responsible for any evil. In the ancient world the concept was well-recognised that a king or potentate, as leader of a nation, bore some kind of official responsibility for the actions of those under his rule.
In this sense God is the "creator of evil" because he is the Creator of the universe including beings to whom he gave the ability to choose good or evil (and who consistently choose evil since the Fall). And even when he permits evil to occur, in his wisdom he can make use of evil to bring about good.
So here are two viable models for how to reconcile how God can create "evil" yet not be the "author of sin." First, it is possible that the "evil" referred to in Isaiah 45:7 concerns natural disasters and calamities rather than sin or wickedness. Second, even if the "evil" of Isaiah 45:7 does include sin and wickedness, God would only be the "creator" of such in the indirect sense in which he is creator of creatures he permits to commit sins, who are then solely morally responsible for those sins and wickedness. As ruler of the domain where those creatures carry out their actions "under his watch" so to speak and for his providential purposes, which are always and only good.
Monday, 25 March 2019
The Simplicity and Complexity of the Golden Rule
Sometimes in the teachings of Jesus what appears to be very simple when we first think about it turns out to be immensely complex and challenging once we consider it more carefully. This is nowhere more true than in Christ's teaching of what is often called "the Golden Rule" (because it is considered the highest and most important of ethical rules - the rule of rules if you like).
We find Christ's teaching on this in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:12 (CEV): "Treat others as you want them to treat you. This is what the Law and the Prophets are all about."
The same teaching is repeated in Luke 6:31 (CEV): "Treat others just as you want to be treated."
This seems so straightforward does it not? We might think (and I have sometimes heard this said) that the problem is not with understanding Christ's command here, but with finding the moral strength and courage to obey it. There is much truth in this. For fallen human beings, doing the right thing is more often than not something we find more difficult than doing the wrong thing. Certainly that is true in my case at least.
Yet I want to come at the Golden Rule from a slightly different angle and suggest that although the words are admirably simple and clear, it is a bit more difficult to understand what the Golden Rule actually requires of us than we might think.
The easier part of the equation is that how we treat others is to be the same as we want them to treat us. There is not much that is hard to understand about that.
However, the difficulty comes when we try to decide whether we apply a subjective or an objective test to determine what we would want if we put ourselves in the other person's shoes. Does it refer to what we would actually want if we were that other person (subjective test) or does it refer to what we think that other person should or ought to want in the situation (objective test)?
The difference between these two ways of looking at what we would want someone to do for us can give entirely different answers to what we should do in order to follow the Golden Rule.
Let's look at a very realistic everyday example. Suppose we come across someone begging in the street who asks us for money. Does the Golden Rule suggest we should give them some cash or not?
The answer that many Christians would give to this situation is that we should not give them money but rather offer to help them in some other way, such as buy them something to eat or a hot cup of tea or coffee. The reasoning for this is along the lines that many beggars are addicted to drugs or alcohol and giving them money might only give them the means to feed their addiction rather than do them any good.
This answer is clearly deciding the issue on an objective basis. We are deciding that if we were that person asking for money what we would want is what we should want in our judgment (nourishment for our bodies) rather than what we very well would really want (subjectively) if we were that person (money to buy a beer we have decided).
Yet, I don't think the issue is as straightforward as this, and I'm not sure Christ intended us to interpret the Golden Rule this way.
For one thing, applying an objective test forces us try to look behind the person's desires (or what our desires would be if we were that person) to a moral standard that may or may not be accurately applied to the situation. But we can never really do that accurately. Who are we to decide that the person asking for money is going to use it to buy drink or drugs?
What if we really were that beggar, and we needed the money to put dinner on our children's table that night or buy a bus ticket so we could visit our sick mother in hospital? Would we want someone to disbelieve us and buy us a cup of tea instead? Would we want someone to disbelieve us and mistrust our motives? I cannot think so. We would want someone to believe us, so we should believe other people, it seems to me.
I believe that Christ would have us take people at their word when they ask for help, unless they are very obviously lying. If they are deceiving us then that is not on our conscience but on theirs and we can leave it to God to deal with that.
In other words, I am (tentatively) suggesting that we should be looking at a subjective test for what we would want in the other person's shoes, because in reality, without perfect knowledge which only God has, a truly objective test is impossible anyway.
Yet this creates its own problems. If someone says they are not interested in hearing the gospel message, should we respect their wishes and leave them alone because that is how we would want to be treated if someone tried to convert us to another religion and we told them we weren't interested? Or should we persevere with them even though they don't seem interested, because we consider that if only they knew that the gospel really was true then they would want us to persevere in trying to get the message across? The first approach applies a subjective test, the second approach is an objective one. I think different Christians would probably take different approaches here, though I'm not sure both are valid applications of the Golden Rule.
Finally, consider politics for a moment (as most of us in the UK are doing right now in the middle of a general election campaign). Should Christians try to create a society where everyone has to accept Christian morality on issues like euthanasia or traditional marriage even though many citizens take a different view of these issues than most Christians do, and even though any harm anyone does by taking a different view is only to themselves (before God as we see it)? Should we seek to make certain things unlawful and punishable because we view them as great sins in the nation? Should we seek to treat people who do things we do not approve of as criminals if we can get a majority to get it through Parliament?
Does the Golden Rule offer any guidance? If we were the minority, would we want others to maybe criminalise what we consider to be right and good? If not, should we not do the same to others when we are the majority? This would be the subjective application of the Golden Rule. Or should we conclude that if a form of behaviour is sinful, we should want people to use the criminal law to try to dissuade us from that action? This would be an objective application of the Golden Rule.
The problem is that people cannot agree on what is the objective truth. For a Christian, banning other religions might be considered an objective good (and it has been done often enough in the history of Christian nations). But for a Muslim, banning Christianity might be considered an objective good (and is essentially what has happened in a number of Islamic countries).
Two sides each applying the Golden Rule in what they consider to be an objective way is a recipe only for conflict and strife between people. I find it hard to accept that the Prince of Peace would want this.
The only way the Golden Rule can lead to peaceful co-existence between people who disagree with each other is to apply it subjectively. Doing so would mean that we would not seek to ban another religion because we would not want our religion banned if we were in the minority facing a majority intent on outlawing our faith.
If this approach is correct, then rather than seeking to use politics to force people who are not Christians to live as if they were, the Golden Rule might suggest we take a more libertarian approach rather than an authoritarian one, allowing people to make up their own minds about a number of moral hot topics rather than have a view they disagree with forced on them by us, because we would never want non-Christian views forced on us if someone were to have the power to do so.
This would still leave us free to try to persuade others that the Christian way is the best way to live in the hope that opponents will one day be allies and that more and more people will live within the parameters of Christian ethics because they want to and never just because the law says they will be punished if they don't. The freedom to persuade others that Christianity is right comes at a price however. The price is a free society where others are also free to persuade that Christianity is wrong. Since we are convinced that Christianity is true, surely it is a small price to pay for such great opportunities for the gospel? We might even argue that a free society is the most important instance of the Golden Rule being put into practice in the history of humanity.
We find Christ's teaching on this in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:12 (CEV): "Treat others as you want them to treat you. This is what the Law and the Prophets are all about."
The same teaching is repeated in Luke 6:31 (CEV): "Treat others just as you want to be treated."
This seems so straightforward does it not? We might think (and I have sometimes heard this said) that the problem is not with understanding Christ's command here, but with finding the moral strength and courage to obey it. There is much truth in this. For fallen human beings, doing the right thing is more often than not something we find more difficult than doing the wrong thing. Certainly that is true in my case at least.
Yet I want to come at the Golden Rule from a slightly different angle and suggest that although the words are admirably simple and clear, it is a bit more difficult to understand what the Golden Rule actually requires of us than we might think.
The easier part of the equation is that how we treat others is to be the same as we want them to treat us. There is not much that is hard to understand about that.
However, the difficulty comes when we try to decide whether we apply a subjective or an objective test to determine what we would want if we put ourselves in the other person's shoes. Does it refer to what we would actually want if we were that other person (subjective test) or does it refer to what we think that other person should or ought to want in the situation (objective test)?
The difference between these two ways of looking at what we would want someone to do for us can give entirely different answers to what we should do in order to follow the Golden Rule.
Let's look at a very realistic everyday example. Suppose we come across someone begging in the street who asks us for money. Does the Golden Rule suggest we should give them some cash or not?
The answer that many Christians would give to this situation is that we should not give them money but rather offer to help them in some other way, such as buy them something to eat or a hot cup of tea or coffee. The reasoning for this is along the lines that many beggars are addicted to drugs or alcohol and giving them money might only give them the means to feed their addiction rather than do them any good.
This answer is clearly deciding the issue on an objective basis. We are deciding that if we were that person asking for money what we would want is what we should want in our judgment (nourishment for our bodies) rather than what we very well would really want (subjectively) if we were that person (money to buy a beer we have decided).
Yet, I don't think the issue is as straightforward as this, and I'm not sure Christ intended us to interpret the Golden Rule this way.
For one thing, applying an objective test forces us try to look behind the person's desires (or what our desires would be if we were that person) to a moral standard that may or may not be accurately applied to the situation. But we can never really do that accurately. Who are we to decide that the person asking for money is going to use it to buy drink or drugs?
What if we really were that beggar, and we needed the money to put dinner on our children's table that night or buy a bus ticket so we could visit our sick mother in hospital? Would we want someone to disbelieve us and buy us a cup of tea instead? Would we want someone to disbelieve us and mistrust our motives? I cannot think so. We would want someone to believe us, so we should believe other people, it seems to me.
I believe that Christ would have us take people at their word when they ask for help, unless they are very obviously lying. If they are deceiving us then that is not on our conscience but on theirs and we can leave it to God to deal with that.
In other words, I am (tentatively) suggesting that we should be looking at a subjective test for what we would want in the other person's shoes, because in reality, without perfect knowledge which only God has, a truly objective test is impossible anyway.
Yet this creates its own problems. If someone says they are not interested in hearing the gospel message, should we respect their wishes and leave them alone because that is how we would want to be treated if someone tried to convert us to another religion and we told them we weren't interested? Or should we persevere with them even though they don't seem interested, because we consider that if only they knew that the gospel really was true then they would want us to persevere in trying to get the message across? The first approach applies a subjective test, the second approach is an objective one. I think different Christians would probably take different approaches here, though I'm not sure both are valid applications of the Golden Rule.
Finally, consider politics for a moment (as most of us in the UK are doing right now in the middle of a general election campaign). Should Christians try to create a society where everyone has to accept Christian morality on issues like euthanasia or traditional marriage even though many citizens take a different view of these issues than most Christians do, and even though any harm anyone does by taking a different view is only to themselves (before God as we see it)? Should we seek to make certain things unlawful and punishable because we view them as great sins in the nation? Should we seek to treat people who do things we do not approve of as criminals if we can get a majority to get it through Parliament?
Does the Golden Rule offer any guidance? If we were the minority, would we want others to maybe criminalise what we consider to be right and good? If not, should we not do the same to others when we are the majority? This would be the subjective application of the Golden Rule. Or should we conclude that if a form of behaviour is sinful, we should want people to use the criminal law to try to dissuade us from that action? This would be an objective application of the Golden Rule.
The problem is that people cannot agree on what is the objective truth. For a Christian, banning other religions might be considered an objective good (and it has been done often enough in the history of Christian nations). But for a Muslim, banning Christianity might be considered an objective good (and is essentially what has happened in a number of Islamic countries).
Two sides each applying the Golden Rule in what they consider to be an objective way is a recipe only for conflict and strife between people. I find it hard to accept that the Prince of Peace would want this.
The only way the Golden Rule can lead to peaceful co-existence between people who disagree with each other is to apply it subjectively. Doing so would mean that we would not seek to ban another religion because we would not want our religion banned if we were in the minority facing a majority intent on outlawing our faith.
If this approach is correct, then rather than seeking to use politics to force people who are not Christians to live as if they were, the Golden Rule might suggest we take a more libertarian approach rather than an authoritarian one, allowing people to make up their own minds about a number of moral hot topics rather than have a view they disagree with forced on them by us, because we would never want non-Christian views forced on us if someone were to have the power to do so.
This would still leave us free to try to persuade others that the Christian way is the best way to live in the hope that opponents will one day be allies and that more and more people will live within the parameters of Christian ethics because they want to and never just because the law says they will be punished if they don't. The freedom to persuade others that Christianity is right comes at a price however. The price is a free society where others are also free to persuade that Christianity is wrong. Since we are convinced that Christianity is true, surely it is a small price to pay for such great opportunities for the gospel? We might even argue that a free society is the most important instance of the Golden Rule being put into practice in the history of humanity.
Wednesday, 20 March 2019
Tuesday, 19 March 2019
Man's Questions and God's Answers
For me, this is the greatest evangelistic tract I have ever read. It was written by Dr A. Gordon MacLennan of Philadelphia, and was included in a series of small booklets for the troops during the Second World War. Why the greatest? Not because it is necessarily the best, or the most eloquent, or the clearest, or the easiest to read, though I do not find it deficient in any of these respects, but because the Lord used it to save me when I first read it just before Christmas 1987.
I have only edited it slightly where one or two illustrations for the 1940s are now obscure or misleading.
Man is constantly asking questions. One of the most hopeful and encouraging signs in the mental development of a boy or girl is the habit of asking questions. The person who really succeeds in this world in material things is the one who is constantly, inquisitively, and persistently asking questions. The one who takes everything for granted, and receives it just as it comes will generally move along in that type of life all his days, but the person who wants to know the why and wherefore of everything is the one who makes the most of the circumstances which surround him in life.
So our subject is one which concerns every man; and I do feel that the topic, as I have noted it, is one that is particularly applicable to the man who has not yet satisfied himself regarding the great facts of the spiritual life and the spiritual experience.
To each of the questions which I want to bring to you, there is a simple form of answer, all of which are absolutely definite, simple, and easy to understand. They are not obscure questions of the hour, but are entirely practical for you and me, and altogether important, because they have to do with a man's eternal destiny, and a man's experience in all the ages yet to be.
The first is one which every man who believes that there is a God, infinite, eternal, and unchanging, must necessarily stop and ask:
Am I Accountable to God?
Must I answer to Him? Is there a day coming -- and I insist that we keep the question practical -- when you and I in a very real manner shall stand before God and give an account?
This is the fundamental question; this is an important question, and one well worth considering and thinking over: Am I accountable to God? We like to boast of our independence, and we like to say we are not answerable to anyone; but are we definitely, personally accountable to God? Listen to the answer from Romans 14.12: "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."
Your question and my question is a definite one: Shall we give an account to God? God answers it just as definitely: "Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." That settles the matter! It is a statement on the authority of God Himself. And it is just as foolish to try to escape the dawning of a day as it is to escape giving an account to God.
The second question:
Does God Know All About Me?
This one, too, is important. Aye, on the basis of the first, it is tremendously important! Now that I have to give an account to Him, does God know all about me?
Those I associate with see merely the outside. They hear what I say; they see my actions, but the inner man they know not. My thoughts are veiled and hidden from the knowledge of my friends. Does God know all about me? God gives answer to this question in Hebrews 4.13: "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do."
Notice the third question:
Does God Charge Me With Sin?
This becomes more and more important upon the basis of the preceding two questions and their answers. I shall give an account of God, and God knows all about me. (Let us keep it simple and practical.) Does God, to whom I am to give an account and who knows all about me, charge me with sin? It is all recorded against me? It does not matter how well I can excuse myself to some other person. It does not matter how other people regard me. Here is the important question: Does God charge me with sin?
Let me merely read the answer from Galatians 3.22: "But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin." And again, from Romans 3.23: "For ALL have sinned." This is God's charge: "All have sinned." It is an utter impossibility for any man or woman to escape the all-inclusiveness of that little word of three letters, A-L-L. From the prince in the palace to the waif in the street, from the highest to the lowest, from the east to the west -- "all have sinned."
And it does seem as if it would be wise for any man, if these answers are true and correct, to sit down and face them as he would face any question of his daily life or his business life.
The fourth question:
Will God Punish Sin?
Now God's answer to the question just preceding this is that you and I are charged with sin. Therefore, will God punish sin? I realise that there are those who say that God is too good to punish sin. But, notice, this statement originated with men, and not with God. There is no place in all the revealed Word of God where it says He will not punish sin. All the way through God says that He will punish sin.
The answer to that question is found in Ezekiel 18.4: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Notice, also, Romans 6.23: "For the wages of sin is death." It is not mere physical death, the death of the body; it is eternal death, the second death.
The fifth question, following naturally after this is:
Need I Perish?
Is there no way I can escape the punishment and judgment for my sins? I am accountable to God. He knows all about me. He does charge me with sin. He will punish sin. But need I perish for my sins?
Let me read God's answer in 2 Peter 3.9: "The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
The sixth:
How Can I Escape?
There is running through the midnight darkness of the coming judgment a ray of hope. God is not willing that I should perish. How then can I escape? How can I get away from the coming judgment on sin? That, too, is a practical question.
The answer that God gives is just as plain and definite as the question. In Acts 16.31 we read: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
The Gospel is the most simple thing in all the world. There is, first of all, the great, stupendous, inescapable fact of sin, and that we are linked with it. Then there is the fact of Christ, and salvation through Christ. Is it not simple? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
Notice the seventh question:
Is He Able to Save Me?
God says, in answer to the question as to how I can escape, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." The thing I am concerned about next is whether He is able to save me. Has He the power, has He the ability to rescue me from the punishment of sin and the judgment to come? You will find God's answer in Hebrews 7.25: "He is able to save them to the uttermost that unto God by Him."
Now that we know on God's own authority that He is able to save, the question, the eighth, would be:
Is He Willing to Save Me?
Oh, how many of us are able to do things, but we are not willing! We are face to face with the great facts of sin and judgment. We have discovered on God's authority, in answer to our questions, that He is not willing that we should perish; that He has provided a way of escape by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ; and that Jesus Christ is able to save. Is He willing to save now? The answer is in 1 Timothy 1.15: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."
When you think of the Babe in the manger of Bethlehem, of the dying form of the Son of God on the Cross of Calvary, and of the empty tomb, dare you ask, "Is He willing?" He undertook the journey to earth from Glory, and went through all the anguish and suffering on Calvary's Cross, the guilty to save. Then He is willing: He is willing!
Let me take the ninth question. This is one in which so many people seem to become involved, and yet God's answer is very clear and very plain. It is a simple question, a practical question, and an important question:
Am I Saved by Merely Believing?
God's answer is in John 3.36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."
There is no other condition of salvation but faith of Jesus Christ as Saviour. May I use just one illustration.
You remember when Jesus hung on Calvary's Cross there were crucified with Him two thieves, one on the right hand, the other on the left. One thief joined with those around in ridiculing Christ, but the other thief rebuked him for it, and said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom." And Jesus said to him, to the thief who was dying on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." He had no work to do so that he might gain salvation. He only had a criminal record. But on the cross, with his last breath, he believed. He was saved by merely believing on Jesus Christ.
In following the natural line of questionings, the tenth would be:
Can I Be Saved Now?
It is God's answer I am concerned about, and it is God's answer which means everything to you. Listen, then from 2 Corinthians 6.2: "Behold, now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation."
Now is the time to decide. You know not about tomorrow, and yesterday is gone. "Believe (NOW) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Let me take the next question:
Can I Be Saved as I am?
Without preparation, without getting ready, without making myself better in character in appearance? Can I be saved just as I am? With all my sin, with all my stains, with all my filthiness?
Let me read the answer from John 6.37: "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
No matter how filthy your garments, no matter how stained by sin and bruised by many a fall--"Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
The twelfth question:
Shall I Not Fall Away?
If I do come, and if I am saved, what if I shall fall away again?
In Jude 24, God answers: "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling."
The thirteenth question:
If I Have Been Saved, How Should I Live?
If I have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, how should I live now? God's answer is from 2 Corinthians 5.15: "They which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them."
And here is a question which has made strong men tremble, and brave men weak. It the question which has broken down the reserve of many a man as he has stood at the edge of an open grave:
What About Death and Eternity?
Let me give the answer of Jesus Christ himself: "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself: that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14:2-3)
Is it not true that, as I have passed from one question to another, I have touched all the great questions that man has to ask? And is it not equally true that to every question of man's there is the definite, plain answer from God himself?
God's Question
Over against man's questions and God's answers, I want to put the one great final question that God asks of you. And God waits, the angels wait, all heaven waits for your answer! God has answered your questions. What will you do with God's question? How will you answer it? He has one single question to ask. And I challenge any man or woman who has not yet done so to face it, and give answer! This is God's question to you, my friend: "WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH JESUS, WHICH IS CALLED CHRIST?" God has answered all the questions you can ask. How will you answer him? What will you do with Jesus, which is called Christ? Will you say--
"Here and now I accept him as my own and only Saviour?"
I have only edited it slightly where one or two illustrations for the 1940s are now obscure or misleading.
Man is constantly asking questions. One of the most hopeful and encouraging signs in the mental development of a boy or girl is the habit of asking questions. The person who really succeeds in this world in material things is the one who is constantly, inquisitively, and persistently asking questions. The one who takes everything for granted, and receives it just as it comes will generally move along in that type of life all his days, but the person who wants to know the why and wherefore of everything is the one who makes the most of the circumstances which surround him in life.
So our subject is one which concerns every man; and I do feel that the topic, as I have noted it, is one that is particularly applicable to the man who has not yet satisfied himself regarding the great facts of the spiritual life and the spiritual experience.
To each of the questions which I want to bring to you, there is a simple form of answer, all of which are absolutely definite, simple, and easy to understand. They are not obscure questions of the hour, but are entirely practical for you and me, and altogether important, because they have to do with a man's eternal destiny, and a man's experience in all the ages yet to be.
The first is one which every man who believes that there is a God, infinite, eternal, and unchanging, must necessarily stop and ask:
Am I Accountable to God?
Must I answer to Him? Is there a day coming -- and I insist that we keep the question practical -- when you and I in a very real manner shall stand before God and give an account?
This is the fundamental question; this is an important question, and one well worth considering and thinking over: Am I accountable to God? We like to boast of our independence, and we like to say we are not answerable to anyone; but are we definitely, personally accountable to God? Listen to the answer from Romans 14.12: "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."
Your question and my question is a definite one: Shall we give an account to God? God answers it just as definitely: "Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." That settles the matter! It is a statement on the authority of God Himself. And it is just as foolish to try to escape the dawning of a day as it is to escape giving an account to God.
The second question:
Does God Know All About Me?
This one, too, is important. Aye, on the basis of the first, it is tremendously important! Now that I have to give an account to Him, does God know all about me?
Those I associate with see merely the outside. They hear what I say; they see my actions, but the inner man they know not. My thoughts are veiled and hidden from the knowledge of my friends. Does God know all about me? God gives answer to this question in Hebrews 4.13: "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do."
Notice the third question:
Does God Charge Me With Sin?
This becomes more and more important upon the basis of the preceding two questions and their answers. I shall give an account of God, and God knows all about me. (Let us keep it simple and practical.) Does God, to whom I am to give an account and who knows all about me, charge me with sin? It is all recorded against me? It does not matter how well I can excuse myself to some other person. It does not matter how other people regard me. Here is the important question: Does God charge me with sin?
Let me merely read the answer from Galatians 3.22: "But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin." And again, from Romans 3.23: "For ALL have sinned." This is God's charge: "All have sinned." It is an utter impossibility for any man or woman to escape the all-inclusiveness of that little word of three letters, A-L-L. From the prince in the palace to the waif in the street, from the highest to the lowest, from the east to the west -- "all have sinned."
And it does seem as if it would be wise for any man, if these answers are true and correct, to sit down and face them as he would face any question of his daily life or his business life.
The fourth question:
Will God Punish Sin?
Now God's answer to the question just preceding this is that you and I are charged with sin. Therefore, will God punish sin? I realise that there are those who say that God is too good to punish sin. But, notice, this statement originated with men, and not with God. There is no place in all the revealed Word of God where it says He will not punish sin. All the way through God says that He will punish sin.
The answer to that question is found in Ezekiel 18.4: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Notice, also, Romans 6.23: "For the wages of sin is death." It is not mere physical death, the death of the body; it is eternal death, the second death.
The fifth question, following naturally after this is:
Need I Perish?
Is there no way I can escape the punishment and judgment for my sins? I am accountable to God. He knows all about me. He does charge me with sin. He will punish sin. But need I perish for my sins?
Let me read God's answer in 2 Peter 3.9: "The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
The sixth:
How Can I Escape?
There is running through the midnight darkness of the coming judgment a ray of hope. God is not willing that I should perish. How then can I escape? How can I get away from the coming judgment on sin? That, too, is a practical question.
The answer that God gives is just as plain and definite as the question. In Acts 16.31 we read: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
The Gospel is the most simple thing in all the world. There is, first of all, the great, stupendous, inescapable fact of sin, and that we are linked with it. Then there is the fact of Christ, and salvation through Christ. Is it not simple? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
Notice the seventh question:
Is He Able to Save Me?
God says, in answer to the question as to how I can escape, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." The thing I am concerned about next is whether He is able to save me. Has He the power, has He the ability to rescue me from the punishment of sin and the judgment to come? You will find God's answer in Hebrews 7.25: "He is able to save them to the uttermost that unto God by Him."
Now that we know on God's own authority that He is able to save, the question, the eighth, would be:
Is He Willing to Save Me?
Oh, how many of us are able to do things, but we are not willing! We are face to face with the great facts of sin and judgment. We have discovered on God's authority, in answer to our questions, that He is not willing that we should perish; that He has provided a way of escape by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ; and that Jesus Christ is able to save. Is He willing to save now? The answer is in 1 Timothy 1.15: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."
When you think of the Babe in the manger of Bethlehem, of the dying form of the Son of God on the Cross of Calvary, and of the empty tomb, dare you ask, "Is He willing?" He undertook the journey to earth from Glory, and went through all the anguish and suffering on Calvary's Cross, the guilty to save. Then He is willing: He is willing!
Let me take the ninth question. This is one in which so many people seem to become involved, and yet God's answer is very clear and very plain. It is a simple question, a practical question, and an important question:
Am I Saved by Merely Believing?
God's answer is in John 3.36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."
There is no other condition of salvation but faith of Jesus Christ as Saviour. May I use just one illustration.
You remember when Jesus hung on Calvary's Cross there were crucified with Him two thieves, one on the right hand, the other on the left. One thief joined with those around in ridiculing Christ, but the other thief rebuked him for it, and said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom." And Jesus said to him, to the thief who was dying on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." He had no work to do so that he might gain salvation. He only had a criminal record. But on the cross, with his last breath, he believed. He was saved by merely believing on Jesus Christ.
In following the natural line of questionings, the tenth would be:
Can I Be Saved Now?
It is God's answer I am concerned about, and it is God's answer which means everything to you. Listen, then from 2 Corinthians 6.2: "Behold, now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation."
Now is the time to decide. You know not about tomorrow, and yesterday is gone. "Believe (NOW) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Let me take the next question:
Can I Be Saved as I am?
Without preparation, without getting ready, without making myself better in character in appearance? Can I be saved just as I am? With all my sin, with all my stains, with all my filthiness?
Let me read the answer from John 6.37: "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
No matter how filthy your garments, no matter how stained by sin and bruised by many a fall--"Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
The twelfth question:
Shall I Not Fall Away?
If I do come, and if I am saved, what if I shall fall away again?
In Jude 24, God answers: "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling."
The thirteenth question:
If I Have Been Saved, How Should I Live?
If I have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, how should I live now? God's answer is from 2 Corinthians 5.15: "They which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them."
And here is a question which has made strong men tremble, and brave men weak. It the question which has broken down the reserve of many a man as he has stood at the edge of an open grave:
What About Death and Eternity?
Let me give the answer of Jesus Christ himself: "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself: that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14:2-3)
Is it not true that, as I have passed from one question to another, I have touched all the great questions that man has to ask? And is it not equally true that to every question of man's there is the definite, plain answer from God himself?
God's Question
Over against man's questions and God's answers, I want to put the one great final question that God asks of you. And God waits, the angels wait, all heaven waits for your answer! God has answered your questions. What will you do with God's question? How will you answer it? He has one single question to ask. And I challenge any man or woman who has not yet done so to face it, and give answer! This is God's question to you, my friend: "WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH JESUS, WHICH IS CALLED CHRIST?" God has answered all the questions you can ask. How will you answer him? What will you do with Jesus, which is called Christ? Will you say--
"Here and now I accept him as my own and only Saviour?"
Monday, 18 March 2019
Hostility to the Gospel (Re-post)
I first wrote the following piece thirteen years ago, not long after I started this blog. Sad to say, my pessimism was not misplaced and the trend in our society is exactly along the lines I was afraid of back in 2006.
Unless God delivers us, we seem to be heading for dark times in this country. Hard won freedoms of speech and religion are under threat. Political correctness has run mad and it is only a matter of time until the freedom to preach the gospel itself is put under scrutiny and adverse pressure by the State. Serious stuff. Alarmist? Maybe -- for the time being. Five years ago it would have sounded like paranoid nonsense. But I don’t think it is now. There are trends in societies and cultures. History teaches us that. And right now I think we are entering a period where there may be more public, organised hostility towards Biblical Christianity and towards Christians committed to the blessed truths of the Bible than perhaps at any point in the past four centuries.
The trend has been slowly building in momentum for at least 40 years. Since the 1960s onwards the place and role of the Church has increasingly been marginalised in society and Christians more than any group have been fair game for hostility and ridicule from comedians, media commentators, politicians and many others with their own agenda. It is hardly surprising that what starts off as marginalisation and ridicule ends up in demonisation and persecution. And it is happening in 21st century Britain. Churches prevented from spreading the gospel even by intimating its services in any local council premises (premises that we pay for in our taxes). Gideons bibles removed from student halls of residence because they might "offend" students of other faiths or none. Broadcasters who won’t show political cartoons of Mohammed for fear of offending Moslems, but think it acceptable to blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ in so-called "works of art" like Jerry Springer the Opera. Leading scientists talk about religion being a "virus" that infects some human beings and needs to be eradicated. Street preachers are arrested for carrying Bible verses deemed to be offensive to other religions. Christian men and women are questioned by the police for "hate crimes" because they distribute gospel tracts.
So what do we do? Do we knuckle under, keep our heads down, and hope that things will not become as bad as the worst case scenario we might envisage if some of the things that have happened in the past few years are anything to go by? I don’t think so. I think there are two things we must do. Firstly, and most importantly, we must look to God for protection and deliverance, and trust in Him no matter what happens. We must pray that God will not allow things to go down this road towards persecution any further. Our attitude should be like the Psalmist:
"I will say to the LORD, ‘My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust’." (Psalm 91:2).
The second thing we should do is strengthen our resolve to fight against all moves to stifle religious freedom or damage the cause of the gospel. The time is coming – in fact it may already be here – when being committed to Christ marks us out not just for ridicule or pity among unbelievers, but for discrimination and even persecution.
The other day I was reading Hebrews 13:12-13 and it strengthened my resolve:
"So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp, and bear the reproach he endured."
You see the point being made? Just as when the crunch came on Good Friday and Jesus was willing to go "outside the gate" – outside the comfort zone of being accepted by people, of being "one of us", of being "one of the crowd" – to go alone to the cross where he died to save us, so we are called at times to go "outside the camp" – to stand together, or even alone, against the world’s way of doing things, to take a stand against evil dressed up as good, even when it means we will be attacked for doing it. For the Hebrews to whom this was first written that meant being a Jew who was prepared to acknowledge Jesus was the Messiah and face all the approbation that would come from Jewish family, friends and colleagues. For us, it means standing up for Jesus in a society that increasingly thinks we are weirdos or bigots because we are Christians who put God first.
Okay so I’ve painted a deliberately bleak picture. It is only one possible way our society might move in the years ahead. Actually, I do not think God will allow things to descend into the abyss where Christians in the UK will be jailed for speaking the truth. I think we will be protected and preserved by God through all the natural and supernatural means He uses to protect His people. But surely it is a sign of how far things have gone already that in a country like Britain we’re even aware that such things could happen here, lurking as they do down one dark path the future might take.
Unless God delivers us, we seem to be heading for dark times in this country. Hard won freedoms of speech and religion are under threat. Political correctness has run mad and it is only a matter of time until the freedom to preach the gospel itself is put under scrutiny and adverse pressure by the State. Serious stuff. Alarmist? Maybe -- for the time being. Five years ago it would have sounded like paranoid nonsense. But I don’t think it is now. There are trends in societies and cultures. History teaches us that. And right now I think we are entering a period where there may be more public, organised hostility towards Biblical Christianity and towards Christians committed to the blessed truths of the Bible than perhaps at any point in the past four centuries.
The trend has been slowly building in momentum for at least 40 years. Since the 1960s onwards the place and role of the Church has increasingly been marginalised in society and Christians more than any group have been fair game for hostility and ridicule from comedians, media commentators, politicians and many others with their own agenda. It is hardly surprising that what starts off as marginalisation and ridicule ends up in demonisation and persecution. And it is happening in 21st century Britain. Churches prevented from spreading the gospel even by intimating its services in any local council premises (premises that we pay for in our taxes). Gideons bibles removed from student halls of residence because they might "offend" students of other faiths or none. Broadcasters who won’t show political cartoons of Mohammed for fear of offending Moslems, but think it acceptable to blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ in so-called "works of art" like Jerry Springer the Opera. Leading scientists talk about religion being a "virus" that infects some human beings and needs to be eradicated. Street preachers are arrested for carrying Bible verses deemed to be offensive to other religions. Christian men and women are questioned by the police for "hate crimes" because they distribute gospel tracts.
So what do we do? Do we knuckle under, keep our heads down, and hope that things will not become as bad as the worst case scenario we might envisage if some of the things that have happened in the past few years are anything to go by? I don’t think so. I think there are two things we must do. Firstly, and most importantly, we must look to God for protection and deliverance, and trust in Him no matter what happens. We must pray that God will not allow things to go down this road towards persecution any further. Our attitude should be like the Psalmist:
"I will say to the LORD, ‘My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust’." (Psalm 91:2).
The second thing we should do is strengthen our resolve to fight against all moves to stifle religious freedom or damage the cause of the gospel. The time is coming – in fact it may already be here – when being committed to Christ marks us out not just for ridicule or pity among unbelievers, but for discrimination and even persecution.
The other day I was reading Hebrews 13:12-13 and it strengthened my resolve:
"So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp, and bear the reproach he endured."
You see the point being made? Just as when the crunch came on Good Friday and Jesus was willing to go "outside the gate" – outside the comfort zone of being accepted by people, of being "one of us", of being "one of the crowd" – to go alone to the cross where he died to save us, so we are called at times to go "outside the camp" – to stand together, or even alone, against the world’s way of doing things, to take a stand against evil dressed up as good, even when it means we will be attacked for doing it. For the Hebrews to whom this was first written that meant being a Jew who was prepared to acknowledge Jesus was the Messiah and face all the approbation that would come from Jewish family, friends and colleagues. For us, it means standing up for Jesus in a society that increasingly thinks we are weirdos or bigots because we are Christians who put God first.
Okay so I’ve painted a deliberately bleak picture. It is only one possible way our society might move in the years ahead. Actually, I do not think God will allow things to descend into the abyss where Christians in the UK will be jailed for speaking the truth. I think we will be protected and preserved by God through all the natural and supernatural means He uses to protect His people. But surely it is a sign of how far things have gone already that in a country like Britain we’re even aware that such things could happen here, lurking as they do down one dark path the future might take.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)