Have I committed the unforgivable sin?

Jumping to application, failure to explain current fulfillment and too many points. Though I am not able to make all of the corrective changes, I thank Gajanan and MJ for their insightful, useful and helpful critique on True Believers from Isaiah 19: I “jumped to practical application” before adequate hermeneutics and exegesis, and I did not explain how the prophecy regarding Egypt is being fulfilled. TBT, I did not because I do not know! MJ and her sister also pointed out that my preached sermon last Sunday had too many points, since I do not like to leave anything out. I want to seriously consider these critiques and be conscious of them, though, to be honest, I will likely continue to fail!

God’s people ignoring reality as though everything is fine. This is my paraphrase of what Isaiah says is the unforgivable sin. The day of God’s judgment is coming upon Jerusalem (Isa 22:5). God calls for them “to weep and to wail, to tear out your hair and put on sackcloth” (Isa 22:12). God desires that they seriously consider the error of their ways. But instead, “there is joy and revelry, slaughtering of cattle and killing of sheep, eating of meat and drinking of wine! ‘Let us eat and drink,’ you say, ‘for tomorrow we die!’” (Isa 22:13) As a result of their nonchalance, the Lord Almighty revealed to Isaiah, saying, “Till your dying day this sin will not be atoned for” (Isa 22:14). This is surely the worst statement that anyone can possibly hear from God. Interestingly, this was not declared to all the godless nations around Judah (Philistia to the west, Moab to the east, Syria to the north, Egypt to the south, or even to arrogant Babylon and Assyria), but to God’s very own chosen people in Jerusalem!

Seemingly not that hard to do. It was rather surprising to me to realize that it is not that difficult to commit the unatonable, unpardonable and unforgivable sin, even by God’s own chosen people: Just ignore the reality and live as though everything is fine!

Isn’t it too easy to just ignore or refuse to face reality? I used to think that only non-Christians commit the unforgivable sin. Thus, we Christians are “not that bad” and basically OK. But are we, really? Don’t we also have offensive and glaring blind spots? Aren’t we also self-righteous, proud and condescending toward others? Aren’t we also defensive and refuse to be accountable when our errors and sins are pointed out? Don’t we also ignore reality with blinders on as though everything is just fine?

Jesus words are harsh and direct “You hypocrites!” The second point here is that Jesus realizes the stakes are high and reserves no harsh words, and compromises nothing when dealing with this fall teaching. The disciples even question this asking “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” But Jesus’ response is twofold: first, that judgment will come (verse 13) and since it will come we cannot afford to have the blind leading the long. Jesus often rebukes his disciples, but he reserves his harshest critics for teachers, because they spread teachings and therefore represent true danger. The early church would often put down groups, not because they hated them- but because they wagered that it was better to have a group eradicated than to have the gospel messaged changed and distorted amongst the body of Christ. Although their methods were at times harsh, their aim was the same as Jesus’ in this passage. Right beliefs preclude right action, on the other hand wrong beliefs preclude wrong action. Jesus concludes by teaching both the Pharisees and the disciples the right belief, that our heart is what determines our holiness. He concludes that the ritual does nothing to determine a person’s faith. Righteousness comes by faith, and adherence to any tradition in and of itself is meaningless (Gal 2:21). I have heard people in UBF go so far as to out rightly claim that a person’s spiritual maturity is based on adherence to their traditions. It is fanaticism in its truest. It’s wrong through and through.

A specific tradition may be invaluable to a particular person at a particular time, but it takes a special type of evil to unilaterally decide that that’s the way it ought to be for all. When I think of myself I have to be very careful myself not to fall into this trap. It is easy enough for a person to fall into, but I find the danger only grows with time. Perhaps there is a certain maturity I have yet to reach where I take all of this with the right amount of levity, but I find that I have the same tendency to asset my religiousness over others. The gospels seem clear to me that this is a problem to be fixed, not a feature to be upheld and enshrined.

Forestsfailyou

Group Bible Study
The high light of the conference for me was group bible study. For some very bizarre reason I was the “bible teacher” for a group that included 2 seminary professors, 2 UBF missionaries that had been Christians longer than I have been alive, and a missionary from South East Asia. I had mixed feelings about this, since on one hand I could do what I wanted, on the other hand I felt like Dr. Augustine or Dr. John Yoon should lead the bible study. I made it clear we wouldn’t be using the bible study questionnaire and things went very well. My friend Ivan said after this he would give Jesus another chance and I really felt that the Holy Spirit guide the conversation. At times certain people would occupy the conversation for a long time but then others would speak and overall it was one of the better (if not the best) group bible study I have had.

Testimonies
In contrast the testimonies were by and large boring and tiring. It was beyond obvious that they had been carefully scripted and edited. Of course when this is brought up it is denied but for everyone who has ears let them hear that nothing that was spoken from a stage this weekend wasn’t preapproved and checked. The Pauline Three Part testimony was in literally everything, from messages to mission reports, from reflections in the small group to the presider’s introductions. It led to a dry and tiring experience at best, at worst it implied that Jesus always works the same way in everyone, turning absolute terrible excuses for people with no redeeming qualities into people ready to throw their dreams and goals away for world mission. Some of these were truly moving, like John Peace and Philip Brown but when they were good it was because they broke the mold. Ivan (who later commented that he liked this conference) walked out on literally every single one of these.

Presiding
This leads me to my last point. I was asked to preside and was emailed with instructions to give a short life testimony and a description of where I was with God. As I started to read my testimony I was strongly convicted that this was the wrong thing to do. Although there are a lot of good things that have happened in my life, I simply did not want to share them. My life has been checkered in parts and as I looked at what was written I realized that it would create in many people a feeling of pity, pity that I did not want. If this makes me proud so be it, but simply couldn’t bring myself to say all those things to a group of strangers who would not be able to relate nor fathom what I was saying- to a group of people who (as I have experienced) do not understand how mental illness works.  I am not a product of my mother’s condition, and I felt like I did not trust people enough to tell them of my past. I was very sparse with details and when I gave where I was with Christ I chose not to simply say a list of activities I was involved in. For me this is not what following Jesus means. “If righteousness could be attained from the law Christ died for nothing.” At best these things are a glimpse at what Jesus was doing in me, and so I shared my true feelings- that I struggled how to be fearlessly humble. I struggle with loving my enemy as myself and how to love those who disagree with me.
Who was this conference for?
There was a claim that this conference was for new people. I realize now that there are different definitions of this word. Ivan was by anyone’s definition “new” but my pastor asked if he had a Christian background. When he said yes my pastor was relieved because “otherwise it may have been awkward.” This conference was not for “new people”. It was for people like me. “New” in the sense that they have been in UBF for a few years. It was a chance for them to show how they were “growing” in Christ by giving them tasks at this conference. It was evident from all that was testified, in the nearly singled minded emphasis on “making a confession of faith.” If a college student with no knowledge of Jesus had been taken off the street they would have left knowing they should follow Jesus and that they would have life, but no idea of who he is, what he is (beyond “The Lord”), why he is. They would know that following him leads to eternal life, but not why this is to be desired. They would know nothing of his great commands, nothing of the resurrection. They would know nothing of the Holy Spirit. So in that sense I feel that these (to give our conference creators the benefit of the doubt) were assumed to be known, and so this conference was for those who were given roles in the conference.

In closing, I had a fun time with lots of friends. I really loved the songs and music. I loved seeing my friends and the bible study was very inspiring. I am not sure if I will go again, especially since the next one is in Colorado. But I don’t regret going, as with all things it could have been better.

Forestsfailyou

I plan to continue sharing each summary. Feel free to jump in at any time. I hope to share my reactions to questions posed to me from time to time by people of the non-affirming conscience. Whenever I say “God is love”, the response is often, “But God is holy.” The non-affirming conscience rightly concerns about the holiness of God. Are we disobeying God? What is God up to? Is there any possibility that God could be doing a new thing among gender and sexual minorities?

How do Christians navigate any change or issue?

When faced with new realities and cultural shifts, Christians begin and end with the gospel. Christians live as citizens of the kingdom of God. Christians face the facts of new realities with hope and compassion for the marginalized, and a passion for justice.

Christians look not only to the Bible but at least 2 other sources. Christians consider the prompting of the Holy Spirit, the lessons from Tradition, the human testimony of experience, and also sound, logical reasoning.

For example, how does a church react when an elderly couple asks to be blessed with the sacrament of marriage? Do they quote verses about “be fruitful”? Do they demand celibacy for the couple? For most churches, the answer is no, the couple would be allowed to marry even though there is no chance of children being born.

A word about holiness and obedience

To be holy is a valid Christian concern. To be holy is to be “set apart”. I would ask us to consider what we are set apart for? I contend that the holiness Jesus taught is very different from the holiness the Pharisees taught. Holiness is no longer about obeying a holiness code.

To be holy means to be willingly contaminated with the physical world, trusting that our heart and soul are kept pure by the hand of God.

Who is the most holy person you can think of? Mother Theresa is a common answer. She died September 5, 1997 in Kolkata, India. She is the one who lived her life in the contamination of the world, surrounded by the outcast. We seem to be so afraid of being physically or socially or spiritually contaminated that we avoid the very places that would strengthen our holiness and help bring about redemption to those around us. Jesus ate and drank with prostitutes. Does our idea of holiness allow us to do the same?

What new reality are we seeing?

Some have claimed we are seeing waves of sin and immorality and disobedience. Others claim we are in the end-times apocalypse. My contention is that we are seeing the kingdom of God coming to earth in a new wine fashion. I contend that we are seeing three reformations:

-The disarming of religious authorities
-The unleashing of freedom (break every enslavement)
-The deconstruction of male-dominated patriarchy

The “male and female” thread in the Bible

I contend further that we are seeing the binary wineskin of “male and female” bursting in society around us. People tend to quote Genesis 5:2 and point out that God created “male and female” in the beginning. I agree. I would point out that the end of the “male and female” thread in the Bible is Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” NIV.

Questions for discussion

Why is everything outside of “male and female” considered broken or disordered?

What does the bible condemn in regard to our modern, non-male/female term “homosexuality”?

In light of the male/female binary fading away, might we revisit the meaning of marriage?

How can we sustain “hate the sin, love the sinner”?

Should the church be the safest place to work this out?

How can we say that practicing homosexuality is any different from the desire of homosexuality?

Why I am fully affirming

Please note that I am NOT affirming gay sex orgies or immorality. I am ONLY affirming same-sex marriage. My claim is that sex is no longer sin in the confines of marriage.

I see three corrections gender and sexual minorities are already bringing to the church. This is the subject of my Lambhearted Lion book:

A more robust understanding of the gospel
-Move beyond atonement toward reconciliation
-Revisit Scripture without “male and female”

A restoration to the purpose of the church
-Are we sin police? Who is King? Who is Lord?

An excitement about philosophy and theology of life
-A gay Christian inspired me to return to church!

I also see three gifts gender and sexual minorities are already bringing to the church. This is the subject of my New Wine book:

The gift of heart
-Move toward courage, hope, compassion

The gift of holiness
-Deeper understanding of unity, conscience and purity

The gift of celebration
-All-surpassing joy of hospitality, marriage, celibacy

In this passage our Lord is brought a man who is paralyzed. After proclaiming his sins are healed Jewish leaders accuse him of blasphemy. At this Jesus heals the man and sends him away. The second part is on the calling of Matthew.

The Paralyzed Man healed

What can be said about this passage? First and foremost Jesus has authority to forgive sins. Jesus has authority to forgive sins because it was given to him by the father. Beyond this his death and sacrifice for our sins allow us to live. When Jesus forgives the man the religious leaders become indignant. The religious leaders understood that only God could forgive sins, and they also understood this was done though the law, which they were the sole interpreters and keepers thereof. God would forgive them, they reasoned, but only through the means that have been given to them through the covenant of Abraham. Jesus knew all of this, yet he says “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?”. This means that there was something beyond them just being mistaken and not knowing the plan of the father for this is no sin. No, Jesus calls their thoughts evil because they were more concerned about someone stepping on their toes than their offense to God. This is a common theme in all of the gospels. Jesus goes on to challenge them with “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”- pointing out that they should know how to act but are not acting in the way God desires and commands after he is mocked by the leaders while eating with known sinners. How many of us are sinners? All of us, and so Jesus comes to all, but he is least accepted by those who are least without excuse. When Jesus heals the man he says “Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?” This is an example of a Jewish qal wahomer (“how much more”) argument: if God gives Jesus authority to heal the visible effects of humanity’s fallenness, why would he not send him to combat that cause of that fall? This is why social justice, mercy, and alms giving is so important for the Christian life. It proclaims the gospel.

The Calling of Matthew

Matthew’s calling displays that Jesus loves us in spite of us. I have often wondered why tax collector is such a “sinful” job. After all the entire bible gives a high view of taxes. Historically the tax levied to Rome was an occupier’s fee. The Jews were being charged for their occupation, and since their nation was seen as instituted under and by God; since it was a “kingdom of priests and holy nation”- being a Jewish tax collector would have been seen as traitorous and against God. Being a tax collector would have been seen as a betrayer of his culture, God, and people. So Jesus coming to the tax collector is a bold statement. Our sin is betrayal of God and yet this is who Jesus comes to. He comes to those who have betrayed him, “rebellious people, deceitful children, children unwilling to listen to the LORD’s instruction.” His action suggests that if God is willing to come to worst, is his not willing to come to all? And this is what he says “For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” The Pharisees self-righteousness he seeks to correct, but at this time they are unreceptive of him, as are all people who think they are so good as to be free from any sin. I often suspect that one can be so proud that they are beyond all save divine intervention. God must often break people like the Pharisees with painful trials so they can understand their condition.

These are my thoughts on the passage. If anyone has anything else to add please leave it in the comments.

“It seems as if I’ve been transformed from a caterpillar into a butterfly! Specifically, one big change has been in the way I read Scripture. The way I understand how to interpret, how to apply and how to derive a message from Scripture is new and completely revamped due to my surrender to the grace of God. It is important to point out that my transformation, which was later spurred on by the gay debates, began with reading about the transformation of Charles H. Spurgeon, dubbed the Prince of Preachers by many. Reading about how he came to church one snowy day when the normal preacher was not able to preach was magnificent. Spurgeon’s sermon on grace is foundational in transforming my theology.

Since I began taking some pre-seminary cohort classes, I have begun to understand the value of exegesis, hermeneutics and homiletics. Exegesis is the process of deriving meaning of a text within the context in which it was written. Hermeneutics is the concept of applying the meaning of a text with a broader lens and applying teachings in our current context. Homiletics is the concept of putting together a message or exhortation based on the meaning and application of a text.

What is the meaning? How do we read the Bible? The word exegesis means to draw out. It is a process of finding a critical explanation of a text. Some have said that such a process is just as much of an art as it is a science, especially when we are not dealing with our native language. Often, we just don’t know what was in the author’s mind or what precise meaning was meant to be conveyed. At such a moment, it is better to say “I don’t know” than to introduce a concept foreign to the text. Portraying a foreign idea onto a text is called “eisegesis” and often leads to disastrous results.

When determining the meaning of a passage, we ask questions about grammar, terminology and literary constructs. Are we dealing with a historical text or poetry? Who are the characters in the text? What is the significance of the location or timing of the events? Most importantly, with the Bible in particular, we seek out other passages that give meaning or insight into the passage. In a text such as John 4, we might derive meaning by asking why was the woman drawing water at the well by herself? What does Isaiah say about the work the Messiah would be doing? How might John 4 be an example of that work of the Messiah?

What is the application? How is this meaning relevant in other situations? The word hermeneutics means interpretation. It refers to the method we use to take some meaning of a text and interpret that meaning in various other situations that may not be specifically mentioned in the text. It is hermeneutics that often causes so much discord in the church.

When interpreting the meaning of a text and applying that meaning to a situation, we ask questions about the underlying beliefs and theories at play. Do we believe the Bible is inerrant or inspired? What has the church traditionally said about this passage? How did church fathers such as Augustine interpret the text? In the John 4 text, we might seek to apply Jesus’ methods of interacting with the immoral woman to our present day interactions, and discover how to be more civil and charitable with each other.

What message does our meaning and application send? How is what we say going to be received by various audiences? Homiletics is the study of conversation, specifically the conversation that happens between a preacher and the audience. How is our message being delivered? It is said that when you give a speech, you must “know your audience”. This is valuable advice for every student and preacher of the Bible.

When considering the message or homily we are communicating, we ask questions about perception, clarity and tone. Who will be in our audience? Are we invoking unnecessary or excessive feelings of guilt and anxiety? What actions or behaviors do our words motivate people toward? Is our message consistent with the qualities we value most? In the case of John 4, we might try to see our message from the perspective of a divorced single mother and adjust if necessary.

I realize I often had my approach to the Bible completely backward. On my own, I tried to build a homiletic and then jumped into hermeneutics. I started with an idea I wanted to tell people, and then looked for Bible verses that seemed applicable to my idea. When I found such Bible verses, I then tried to find some meaning from them that was consistent with my idea. This approach often left me confused, but it did bolster my ego. I felt that my ideas were justified by the Bible text, and thus God was surely on my “side.” Now I am no longer on a “side;” I am on a journey.

(quoted from “The New Wine“, pg 9-11)

Thoughts? Reactions? Criticisms? Challenges? Ideas?

This sermon was delivered on April 26th, 2015 at West Loop UBF.

Introduction

A bit of disclosure is in order here: Since September of last year, I haven’t been attending church on a weekly basis. I’ve attended Catholic Mass a few times and have taken communion and have also had ongoing conversations about the Bible and life with others and have done my own personal study on biblical topics, but nothing like being plugged into a faith community on a regular basis. To some this may be disconcerting or off-putting, like who takes a half a year off of church and then preaches a sermon? But I thank Rhoel for reaching out to me and befriending and simply talking to me on a human-to-human level. One thing that I really appreciate about the West Loop community is you all’s desire to understand and practice the gospel in a loving manner. So I thank you all for accepting me and giving me the privilege to speak here today. I don’t take this lightly and I don’t want to waste your time, but instead I want to hopefully communicate an important point about the gospel that I think we, including myself, often miss. I’ll attempt to make my point in thirty minutes or less and end with a nice cherry on top which is an example from my own life.

What Does it Mean to be “Spiritual” Anyway?

I mentioned how I’ve been taking some time away from organized religion. I felt as though I needed to do this because I was growing increasingly weary of experiencing this disconnect, that I observed, which exists between the concepts of spirituality or “otherness”, that is something beyond our physical world, and the very material reality that we live in today. To put it bluntly (and with an example to follow), I got tired of sitting in church week after week and hearing things that sounded lofty and spiritual, but were not portable to my everyday life. And believe you me; this was not the fault of the church per se, because if anyone knows me, I love lofty ideas. This is more of an internal battle or beef within me.

At some point last year, the big question that I asked myself was what impact does spirituality have on us on a daily basis, that is, how does this line up with our present-day, physical reality in an impactful way? The form of Christianity that I was largely familiar with was one in which that aforementioned disconnect reached a tipping point on some key issues for me. For instance, in Western Evangelicalism, we are often taught as of first importance, that Jesus has forgiven us of our sins once and for all. Now, I don’t dispute this at all and it’s something that I certainly rejoice in. But a type of thought pattern which was pervasive in my own life was this idea that as believers, we are forgiven largely as individuals and as long as we individually are forgiven, then we are right with God and all is well with the universe. The problem with this is that we don’t sin in a vacuum; often times, we wound each other through our sins and if we are honest with ourselves it’s not enough, that when we sin against someone, to say “you know what, Jesus has forgiven me of my sins, so let’s leave it at that and move on”. On one level that’s true, but on another don’t we actually need to seek reconciliation with the other person; isn’t forgiveness at the cross meant to be an entryway into new relationships built on honesty and repentance? Or on the flip side, if I or someone else is wounded by another, we may often think to ourselves, “Jesus alone will heal me of my wounds by way of his sacrifice on the cross”. We tend to both diagnose and treat our wounds in this way; we overly-spiritualize and try to superstitiously wish away our real hurt and pain. And some wounds are spiritual, but there is also the very real, nitty-gritty task of processing our human emotions.  And still the task of reconciliation, and in some cases seeking restitution from the one that wounded us, remains. Don’t you think? But like I said, there is often this disconnect in Christianity where we are encouraged to see ourselves as these spiritual beings who only need spiritual solutions to our very real problems.

I also thought about what David said in Psalm 51:4, where he says “Against you, you only, have I sinned…” While it is true that all sin is, in a sense, against God there is a very real human dimension to what David did. After all, Nathan spells out what he did very bluntly: He killed Uriah the Hittite with sword and stole his wife. Furthermore, David wasn’t even man enough to murder Uriah himself, but indirectly used the Ammonites to do so. Nathan doesn’t pull any punches in regard to the very real people that David hurt; he doesn’t put a spiritual spin on the situation in any way, shape or form.

I’ll tell you what’s also an even bigger problem with this over-spiritualization: Jesus never advocated this. Look at what he says (right after the Lord’s Prayer, which is largely seen as a “spiritual” exercise between a believer and God):

“14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” – Matt 6:14, 15

Very interesting that Jesus would say this; in the Lord’s Prayer, forgiveness does not appear to be the primary thrust of the prayer, yet Jesus deems it important enough to add a sternly worded epilogue specifically about forgiveness between God and others.*

And consider Jesus’ words here:

22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

It seems to me that Jesus is connecting these “spiritual” acts of forgiveness and worship between God and man to the human relationships that exist in our everyday lives. It’s as if he’s saying that no matter what our relationship is like with God, if we aren’t treating the real human beings in our everyday lives with integrity and compassion, our spirituality doesn’t really amount to much.  And this makes sense because think about who Jesus is; he is God incarnate or God made flesh. He is the very intersection between this spiritual otherness that we define as God and human beings just like ourselves. It’s as if God is saying in Jesus that our spirituality is inherently tied to our physical world, our own humanity and the communities that we are involved in.

Incarnational Ministry vis a vis Empathetic Communication

This incarnational aspect of God is what I want to “flesh” out through Acts 17. This is one of my favorite passages in the Bible for in this we are given a vivid example of God’s desire to communicate spiritual truths to us on our human level.

This was during Paul’s second missionary journey, which transpired between the years 50-52 A.D., (he did three in total) and before he arrived at Athens, he was driven from first Thessalonica and then Berea (where he famously met the “Noble Bereans”).  He was driven out of those regions by Jews who wanted to destroy his gospel-preaching efforts. For the sake of Paul’s safety, he was escorted to Athens with the hope that Timothy and Silas, his traveling companions, would join him there at a later time.

Upon arriving in Athens, Paul is deeply bothered by all of the idolatrous statues in the city. Surely Paul understood that it was Rome’s practice to subsume the religions of those that they subjugated. It was to keep the idea of Pax Romana (which was really not peace) intact. But in Athens it was overkill; one ancient is quoted as saying that Athens had over 30,000 idols [1]. I’m sure that Paul was alarmed by the fact that the Jews in Athens could possibly be syncretizing with the culture around them and thus missing the message of the gospel contained in the Holy Scriptures. Think about how many times that Isaiah denounces idol-worship. In fact, this is one of the key points of his sermon to the philosophers later on. So Paul takes the initiative to engage the Jews and the Greek converts to Judaism (called God-fearing Greeks) in discussions namely concerning the Messiah using the OT. From what Luke records, the idea of the resurrection of Jesus particularly piqued the interest of some of the Greek philosophers and so they begin debating with him. They probably regard him as some unsophisticated, primitive Jew (because remember, Greek culture at the time was hot and Athens in particular was seen as an intellectual bastion of sorts.) They probably argued, “Hey, we have all sorts of gods who are immortal, but an obscure Jewish guy from Palestine sure ain’t one of ‘em.” But nonetheless some of the people were interested in what Paul had to say (Luke notes that a lot of people were content to simply pontificate about the latest ideas at the time). So they took him to a place called the Areopagus, which functioned as a place of settling matters of jurisprudence.

Paul seizes this opportunity, taking the floor and launching into his gospel message. Notice how he begins his dialogue. “People of Athens! I see that in every way are very religious.” This was actually a commendation, because he affirmed the fact that they were somehow seeking to worship or reach out to God. And also notice the fact that he addressed them as Athenians. He didn’t open up his sermon by saying, “Non-descript people group who I’m preaching to, repent or burn in hell!” Rather he started with a positive affirmation which was actually quite true.

Next, Paul exploits one of their idols, using it as an entry point to introduce his God to them. He says, hey you guys have this inscription to an unknown God, and wouldn’t you know I happen to know something about a God that you guys don’t know about so take a listen to this:

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

This is such a profound message of God’s initiative to reach out to us. He corrects the idea of man’s tendency to make God in his own image, thus fashioning idols and temples and so forth; he turns this notion completely on its head by saying that no, we are in fact made in God’s image. And he’s not dependent on us, endlessly requiring our servitude so that he may be both appeased and sustained. Furthermore, he’s not a vending machine that only blesses us when we do something for him. Rather, out of his own loving initiative, he is the one that ultimately serves us and gives life and provision to us. And look at what Paul is doing; he’s essentially giving the message of the entire OT without using OT quotes or references. He understands that his audience doesn’t have the OT as a reference point, so he communicates biblical truths in a way that they can understand. In fact, he intersperses quotes from their own poets and philosophers. Aratus, a Cilician Stoic philosopher and poet remarked that we are God’s offspring. And the Cretan philosopher Epiminedes wrote that “in him we live and move and have our being.” These are beautiful statements which completely undermine the sentiment that we have come about by happenstance; indeed, God was intimately involved in everything from choosing our skin color and ethnicity to determining where we would be born; God infuses his own image into us so that through interacting with each other, we would come to know him in his fullness (theologically, this is called the variegated or multi-faceted nature of God). So it is no mistake that we are who we are, rather it is God’s perfect wisdom to put us in the optimal position where we could reach out to him and know him.

Finally, Paul closes with the revelation of God’s appointed judge, Jesus Christ. He will rule the earth with justice and judge every act; he will put everything in its proper place. A foreshadow of this kind of perfect adjudication is found in the resurrection and thus vindication of his Son; he was unjustly put to death, but God rose him from the dead in effect reversing the edict of guilt showing that he had power over such definitive decrees. Not even the stark reality of death can overcome God’s desire to mete out justice. In fact, Christ is justice personified and that is why he prevails even over death. This is a massive comfort to those who long for justice in this world; those who are involved in combating sex trafficking and tackling civil rights and equality issues. In the person of Christ, we see that mankind’s ultimate trajectory is toward becoming a perfectly just and loving being like him.

Through a comparison of the tenets of Epicureanism and Stoicism (link to ppt slide), we can see specifically how Paul contextualized the gospel to his audience. (The red and blue circled items are tenets which line up with Christianity while the strike-throughs do not) Note a few things here: 1) Paul affirms some of the positive aspects found in each philosophy (namely, free will and determinism). And he corrects some things which are vital to understanding Christianity and knowing the incarnational nature of God. For instance, God is theistic rather than deistic and understanding our existence does not come from abstract wisdom (logos) but rather through knowing God the person in Christ (Logos). Paul has a keen understanding of his audience and out of love, he can empathize with some of their beliefs and make a meaningful connection with them.

How God has Contextualized the Gospel to Me

Several years back I developed something called the Evil Survey, where I simply ask students about the problem of evil. After all, this is an issue that the gospel seeks to rectify and it hits home with everyone, religious or not. So the method is to simply ask questions and understand people’s world views. It doesn’t use any biblical language and avoids asking both leading and loaded questions. Through this, I’ve had many eye-opening conversations with people from all kinds of backgrounds including believers, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, former believers and so forth. Notably, what I’ve come to learn through this process of listening and asking questions is that 1) people genuinely long for someone to listen to and either challenge or affirm their worldviews and 2) I have to respect where people are at in a given moment in their lives. It’s as if God has been evangelizing me or teaching me the gospel through this, making me more human in the process. And this comports with a statement made by the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer,

“The first service that one owes to others in the fellowship consists in listening to them. Just as love to God begins with listening to His Word, so the beginning of love for the brethren is learning to listen to them. It is God’s love for us that He not only gives us His Word but also lends us His ear.

So it is His work that we do for our brother when we learn to listen to him. Christians, especially ministers, so often think they must always contribute something when they are in the company of others, that this is the one service they have to render. They forget that listening can be a greater service than speaking.” [2]

Though he’s speaking about the Christian community here, I believe full and well that we should apply this to those outside of the church. Additionally, I work in a multi-cultural environment where rather than preaching to my colleagues, I have taken the approach of simply seeking to understand where they are coming from. What are their life narratives? For instance, as someone who has migrated from the Middle East, what is it like to now live in America? What are the challenges, what do you like and dislike about it? What do you think about life and spirituality? Again, this process has served to humanize me and it has made me realize that as human beings, we all stand together in a sort of solidarity in that we are trying to make sense of life and seek some kind of meaningful purpose.

Counter-intuitive, Unconditional Love

But the main way that I have come to know the gospel in a contextual manner is through my wife. My wife and I are almost complete opposites. She’s always on time, has a schedule for everything and is detailed oriented to the tee. She doesn’t like to talk much either; she’s a doer. I couldn’t be more annoying to her. I’m always late, I take my time and I’m a lofty thinker and my head is usually stuck in the clouds. Plus, I like to talk. A. Lot. I always ask her, “What’s on your mind?” and I want to engage her in some kind of theological discussion, to which I receive the proverbial eye roll and sigh from her.

All this said, over the years, I’ve come to find out that my wife is one of the most loving people I have ever known. She puts up with so much of my stuff. If marriage teaches you anything, it’s that yes, you’re a jerk. See, mom will never admit this to you, though she knows it’s true. She’ll love you till the day you die but your wife loves you enough to tell it like it is. But my wife loves this jerk. She accepts me as I am and affirms the good things she sees in me on a daily basis. I’m simply floored and smitten by this kind of love. I’ve come to the conclusion that her unconditional love is God’s incarnate love to me. It’s fascinating how counter-intuitive his love can be. I thought that love would be putting me with someone who is the same as me, but in fact, it has come through two seemingly opposites. But this is wonderful, because through her I’m able to view an intriguing and captivating side of God that I would have otherwise never known. And now we have these beautiful children who are a product of this incarnate love. When I look into their faces, I’m amazed and taken aback at what God has done. We’re all vastly different in our little family unit and thus we’re put in a position where we can each grow in our humanity, that is, in Christ’s image together. So my family has sort of been the church to me over this past half year or so.

My Hope for the Church

In closing, I want to remark on a saying that I used to hear in ministry. It’s that you don’t have to necessarily like your fellow church members but you do have to love them. This is one of the most misguided sentiments I have ever heard. How are you going to love someone that you don’t like anything about? The gospel affirms each of us as individual and unique human beings. While the cross reveals the ugliness of our sin, it also helps us to look past this in order to see the beautiful images of God in one another and simply appreciate, learn from and behold that beauty. When we look at one another, we are looking into the face of Christ, I believe. Wouldn’t it be great to simply relate to one another in the church in this way? This is my prayer and hope. I’m starting first in midst of my family members. And who knows, I may someday again commit myself to a particular church fellowship. Thank you all for listening and God bless you all abundantly.

[1] Kayser, Phillip G., “Ruins of Athens – The Curse of the Athenian Model of Education”. Biblical Blueprints. 2009. Pg. 4 [http://biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RuinsOfAthens.pdf]

[2] Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. “Life Together”. 1954.

*[Author’s note] This originally said, “Very interesting that Jesus would say this; there is nothing about forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer, yet this is right at the end of it making a seemingly important point.” This is of course wrong. I’ve both read and written about the Lord’s Prayer many times, so I might chalk that glaring error up to confirmation bias; I felt strongly about making a point about forgiveness and so I viewed the prayer a certain way. Good lesson in objectivity or the lack thereof we sometimes display. This could also indicate that I simply need someone to proofread my material beforehand :)

By the providence of God, a priest had just parked near the man and was getting out of his car to catch his flight. But when the priest saw the bloody man, he quickly walked to the other side of his car so as not to be seen by him. Then by chance, a youth pastor showed up; but he also avoided the injured man, running past him to catch his flight.

Then a few minutes later, a gay man, traveling home to his husband after a business trip, parked in the open spot near the dying man. As soon as he saw the man’s condition, his heart went out to him. He called 911 and reported the incident. Knowing he had a first aid kit in his car, the man quickly went about stopping the bleeding with the help of the 911 operator– disinfecting and bandaging the man’s wounds. When he learned the ambulance would take nearly 30 minutes to get to the airport garage and that the dying man did not have that much time, the gay man told the 911 operator he would drive the man to the hospital on the airport campus. So he helped the bleeding man into his car, and drove him to the nearest hospital. The gay man stayed to make sure the paperwork was filled out and the man was taken care of, since the man’s identification had been stolen with his wallet. In the evening, the gay man called his husband and told him the situation. They both agreed he should stay all night and make sure the man was ok in the morning. In the morning he took out some cash and a credit card, and gave them to the hostpital, saying, ‘Take good care of him. If it costs any more, put it on my card.”

“What do you think? Which of the three became a neighbor to the man attacked by robbers?” “The one who treated him kindly,” the religion scholar responded. Jesus said, “Go and do the same.”

[This is how Jesus’ words sound to me in 2015]

When I listened to Grace’s testimony about her struggle with her teacher and friends I realize clearly that for many people they view Christianity as just a system of morals. The position is that the bible is first and foremost about ethics, and there is an idea that Jesus should be transcended in favor of the ethics he gives. At least that is their position. This is why you hear all this rubbish about Jesus being a good moral teacher. This idea was present with my friend Ali I had dinner with last week. He struggles with atheism and feels like the world is meaningless. He wants to kill himself at times and experiments with drugs to try to find anything to help him find meaning. He used to be Muslim but after a year of evangelizing him he gave up Islam. But to my sadness instead of becoming Christian he became atheist. The other night we met for dinner and after an hour of conversation he admitted that it is easier to live with yourself as a Christian, but it is harder to be a Christian. Nevertheless he would not believe. His point was ultimately the same as Kant, religion is about ethics, and while he said he had no ethics, he then said he had ethics. So there was no problem for him. In the past when I read the bible I always thought of morality and ethics when I read “Repent.” I had been taught that it means turning away from a sin. But it means something more than that. Kant was wrong. Jesus says in Mark’s gospel “Repent and believe the good news.” The word ‘repent’ is the same as John the Baptist used. The word literally means “to go beyond the mind that you have”. As you recall from his sermon, the word used is metanoia. When I break a rule or violate my conscience I am called to go beyond the mind I have. But more than that, Jesus urges us to change our way of thinking and see the world that is coming. The priest said that morality is not the central theme of the New Testament. The theme is a coming of a new way of things. A paradigm shift to viewing things unseen that ends in Revelations 21 with the New Jerusalem. That is why St. Paul tells the Corinthians that the time is short. That is why the scriptures say that what matters is a new creation. Why all of Paul’s achievements are nothing, why he tells the Roman’s their deeds are nothing, why circumcision means nothing. The predominate message of the early church was nothing besides the resurrection of Christ. The transformation of this world into some more, something greater. The curse that Adam brought, death is in retreat. That is the message of repentance. To go beyond death, by dying so that Jesus might live inside you.

At the heart of it all is a choice. Repentance requires a decision. We need Christ’s help to make this decision.To repent, to go beyond one’s mind is a choice. It is faith to step out into the unknown and depend on God. The forerunners to my culture believed that a man is his own master. The American dream is at its core the idea that I control my destiny. But as Kierkegaard states, when man is dependent on God, he is independent. When I make a choice I exclude all other choices. And the choice to repent excludes non repentance, and while this seems easy to understand, I constantly feel like I want it both ways. I want to repent but not really change anything. And while John says “The kingdom of heaven is near.” Jesus says “you are not far from the Kingdom”. Jesus helps me, and when I am unwilling he helps me become willing. I think of all that he has done for me and all that I have done by his power and grace and I am confident in his might. I can do all things though Christ who strengthens me. Let me go beyond this mind I have and take up my place with children of God. There is room for another at the foot of the cross.

“Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter I do not regret it.”

2 Corinthians 7:8-10 “Even if i caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it- I see that my letter hurt you but only for a little while. Yet know I am happy not because you were made sorry but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regrets. But worldly sorrow brings death.”

KV “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regrets.” 2 Cor 7:10

When we think about suffering and sorrow many Christians shy away from the topic. Images of starving children and broken hearted widows abound. Today’s message is on the topic of suffering. I picked the topic because a wise man once told me that if a lay person is to give a sermon, it is best if they give the message exactly where they are in their walk with the Lord. So where am I at with the Lord? Yesterday Hope and I went ice skating. Afterwards she asked me how I saw the gospel in our ice skating. I told her “I let you fall because otherwise you would have never learned.” This is the first use of suffering, to allow a person to succeed they must be allowed to fall. We can see that in this way suffering is a prerequisite to the goodness of God. In his love he allows us to fall because otherwise we cannot move forward to Him. We are fallen, and we fell after God in his love gave man free will, a free will that was needed for love to have any meaning. So we find that suffering produces perseverance, so that we might love and be loved.

The second purpose of suffering is one parents are all too familiar with. A parent who has repeatedly warned a child will often say “Fine. Learn the hard way.” Suffering is when our heavenly father says “Fine. Learn the hard way.” God uses suffering to shatter that illusion that we like to create for ourselves. The illusion that says “I am sufficient without you God.” Of course “there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” (Pro 16:25) and a very wise and common rebuke by church elders is not to love the gifts of God more than God himself. Truly created things have kept me from God, yet if they had not been in Him they would have not been at all. Nevertheless our God hates idols. He destroys idols. Christ zealously destroys our idols, calls, shouts to us in our deafness. He shines with such radiance that even in our blindness we see him. Like the sun at noon all shadows fade. Suffering awakens us to the fact that any creation is inferior to its creator. The most beautiful masterpiece can never be called a child of God. I like to think of a poor man who made a beautiful masterpiece. Years after his death his art was remember and cast high in the opinion of mankind. But the man was a Christian, and so to God he was his child and the masterpiece nothing more than a passing thought. Moreover when we establish an idol over God he breaks that idol with suffering. “He who is exalted will be humbled, he who is humble will be exalted.” So sufferings come to good and bad men in the same way, but even though the suffering is the same the sufferer is different. The Godly are brought closer to God through their suffering. The worldly and wicked become more desperate. As the unholy see all their idols destroyed they become worse and worse. After putting all their stake in becoming educated they feel unfulfilled so they place their worth in finding an attractive spouse. When they find this does not fulfill them, they look for more money and on and forth. They keep trying to fill the spot in their heart that was made for the living God. Every time the idol fails to bring about fulfillment they feel sorrowful. In the end this sorrow leads to death. We find that suffering is like a hammer. It can be used to build up or teardown. Christ builds us up. Unlike idols he never fails. As Christ suffered our sufferings ought to become like His. As we become like him we take our place as sons and daughters of God. Indeed the son of God became the son of man so that the sons of men might become the sons of God. Amen. Admittedly, suffering doesn’t get a lot of praise. People liken suffering to death. Afterall, the wages of sin are death. But the cross turns death into a victory. In a sardonic turn of events we find that death leads to life, and as the passage today assures us that suffering ultimately leads to salvation. Salvation! That’s the gospel right there. How can you expect to be like Christ of you never carry a cross. How can you be like Christ if you never put the will of the Father before yourself? We consider that our present sufferings are not even worth comparing with the future glory of God. This is what was meant by verse “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regrets.”

Now that we have an understanding of what suffering is, why it exists, and how it’s relevant to the gospel; the next question is how any of this relates to us day to day. You may agree with all I have spoken- but might think it to be impractical musing. With the understanding that suffering is for our benefit we might now address how this should look in our lives. I admit that there is a difference between knowing a path and waking it, and that I often fail in what I am about to say. But I am convinced of its truth. The truth is this: Godly suffering is for the sake of others. Christ did not suffer for his own sake, but for the sake of everyone else. Abraham when be left everything behind suffered, but ultimately he blessed all nations. Mary suffered indignation and the possibility of death when she became pregnant as a virgin, but birthed a savior. Stephan was stoned for the truth, but his death led Paul to later become a powerful witness to the gentiles. Godly suffering is for the sake of others. As such sufferings should lead us to continually love our neighbor. This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. We should strive to have a spirit of sacrifice even when we feel down and out. When you find yourself suffering under the stress of school or work, when you find yourself being persecuted by those who hate you because you will not conform to the pattern of this world, when you struggle with your spouse or co-worker. Never stop loving others. Never stop sacrificing for others. The Apostle John testifies that your sacrifice will not be in vain. “The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.” And what is the will of God? To love one other. Jesus says “A new command I give you: love…” As you love and suffer God will never leave you, he will never forsake you. Job testified admits his suffering “If only there were someone to arbitrate between us, to lay his hand upon us both, someone to remove God’s rod from me so that his terror would frighten me no more.” Unlike Job we now have Christ the Lamb of God, worthy. Let his light shine on us so that we might shine upon others. Let us suffer so that we might become like Christ. His grace transforms us. Redeems us. His love never leaves us. As the apostle says “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” When you struggle remember that Christ suffered more. He could have came down from cross. But he didn’t. So I am asking you, I am begging you, I commanding you: struggle until end, never giving up because Christ never gave up on us.

In a nutshell, Enns explains that the OT writing process most likely started around the time of David’s reign, when there was relative peace and tranquility within the kingdom, and ended during the postexilic or second temple period (referred to by some as the “inter-testamental period”). Contrary to what many think about the second temple period, in that it was largely silent especially from a prophetic point of view, this was most likely an extremely active time for Israel’s scholars in terms of recording, editing and compiling the nations long-held oral tradition as well as historical records (e.g. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is referenced in the book of Kings as a source). The motive behind this activity was Israel’s desire to make sense of their national failure; they wanted to look back at their history, which was inextricably permeated with broad-sweeping theological ideas, in the hopes that it would provide some clear answers for their present plight as well as a road map for the foreseeable future. Enns quotes Old Testament scholar and theologian, Walter Brueggeman [1] who says,

It is now increasingly agreed that the Old Testament in its final form is a product of and response to the Babylonian Exile. This premise needs to be stated more precisely. The Torah (Pentateuch) was likely completed in response to the exile, and the subsequent formation of the prophetic corpus and the “writings”  [i.e., poetic and wisdom texts] as bodies of religious literature (canon) is to be understood as a product of Second Temple Judaism [=postexilic period]. This suggests that by their intention, these materials are…an intentional and coherent response to a particular circumstance of crisis….Whatever older materials may have been utilized (and the use of old materials can hardly be doubted), the exilic and/or postexilic location of the final form of the text suggests that the Old Testament materials, understood normatively, are to be taken precisely in an acute crisis of displacement, when old certitudes—sociopolitical as well as theological—had failed.

While no interpretive model is free of erroneous thinking, this particular model is one that deeply resonates with me. Even from a casual reading of the OT, it is fairly obvious that an editing process took place and, upon further inspection, that all of the texts put together as a whole present a cohesive theological and historical message. In terms of the editing process, we have the death of Moses recorded at the end of Deuteronomy, which would be implausible had he been the sole author of the book. I’ve seen quite a few strain mightily to reconcile phenomena like this; for instance some would say that Moses’ death was revealed to him beforehand, thus giving him the ability to record it. I am the type of person who likes to look at the evidence, regardless of how unpleasant it is, head on. In light of the scholarship of the past century or so that has informed Enns’ interpretive model, I can no longer embrace interpretations which vociferously attempt to hold on to fantastical and implausible ideas concerning the authorship of the OT. This being the case, I do not subscribe to naturalism or materialism; I believe in the occurrence of the type of miracles which are recorded in the Bible.

An Inspirational Analogy

I am by no means a conspiracy theorist, therefore I do not believe that there existed a nefarious or duplicitous motivating reason as to why the OT was edited the way it was. The way I see it is that God certainly inspired those who were editing and compiling what would eventually be known as the Old Testament; he used a multiplicity of human agency for this creative, thoughtful and expansive (in terms of both time and geography) reflective process. This kind of inspiration comports somewhat analogously with how the Christian community today finds its bearings and maps out a future for itself in human history.

As those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, believers are powerfully moved, with great effect, to contribute their godly gifts to the furtherance of His cause. They pray for guidance, think, write and speak reflectively about their current collective place in history as well as ponder and plan out their future endeavors. Many are convinced that they are being inspired by God both directly as well as indirectly through one another, in various ways. And this proves true when something radically heart-changing and truly impactful in human history takes place through the church, of which there are many examples.

Destructive Dividing Lines

My previous point speaks to another issue I have with a narrow or rigid view of Scriptural inspiration. Often times, the church marks out its intellectual limits by way of its interpretation of particular passages of Scripture. This may be beneficial in some cases, but recently, it has led to the loss of the creativeness, thoughtfulness and fearlessness of the church, thus preventing its message from resonating with those in our present day and age.

The entire evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design debate is a perfect example of this. The creationist (young and older earther alike) hopelessly binds themselves to such a narrow interpretation of what the first several chapters of Genesis “clearly say” as to become a laughing stock and a source of derision to those espouse well-founded, modern scientific findings. This is absolutely tragic and unnecessary because in the first place the OT was never meant to address everything under the sun, so to speak, but rather was meant to inform the theological thought processes of an ancient people group.

Therefore, this particular assertion from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which is to be taken as authoritative by evangelicals, places a burden upon Scripture which it simply cannot bear (and was never intended to, for that matter):

We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may be properly used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. (Article XII)

And secondly, if the saying “all truth is God’s truth” is accurate, then certain parts of the body of Christ are needlessly and harmfully demonizing those who embrace certain observational truths discovered by modern science.

Of course, many will argue that Enns introduces a slippery slope, which in some respects may indeed be true. For instance with an interpretive model like his, how much of the OT should we take to be true or historically reliable? What if archaeological evidence eventually reveals that some of the things recorded in the OT are embellishments or outright false? What does this then say about the nature of inspiration and furthermore about the character of God?

These are genuine concerns, but might I submit that there is already present a slippery slope on the other side of the argument which is driving the church further and further back into a brand of fundamentalism which says that it is “the church versus those godless and agenda-driven scientists” or “biblical inerrantists versus those syncretistic, liberal bible scholars” or what have you.

A Weight Lifted

For my part, I desperately wanted to believe that there was a magic bullet that would prove everything in the Bible as factually true; that if given enough time and with enough archaeological investigation, scholars would exactly match every claim stated in our sacred text. To be honest, this type of view ironically led me to be very uneasy because for instance, the veracity of the Bible and thus the trustworthiness of God rested on the claim that, at one point in history, humans lived for several hundreds of years or that there was a literal Noah’s ark, that the entire world was flooded or that Isaiah was the sole author of his eponymous book.

Through modern scholarship, there appears to be very convincing alternative explanations for the things written in Scripture that chafe against our modern sensibilities. Are these findings mere coincidences or could this be evidence of God leading us into necessary, deeper, albeit uncomfortable truth? Some critics would shoot back that in the liberal scholar’s attempt to think outside of the box on theological matters, they run the risk of going so far off the deep end that they will lose God altogether or sully his name. But I echo the Franciscan friar, Richard Rohr’s sentiment in which he says that ideological boxes are good for a time; they provide a necessary foundation for many things, however they are never a good way to continue or to end.

At some point we have to put ourselves in the midst of the uncomfortable and inconvenient facts that reality presents to us for this is ultimately where life-changing, beneficial truth is found. As Christians we should know that, both factually and experientially, standing in the center of various paradoxes is where we begin to discover the nature of God. While views like Enns’ introduce a different kind of uncertainty to my walk with God and the Christian community, I believe that this will ultimately help me to continue in a healthier type of communion with Him and his people.

Some questions for our readers

• What is your view of biblical inspiration and why does it matter to you?
• In what way is the church’s battle against certain ideologies held by secular society helpful or harmful?
• How can an interpretative model like that of Enns serve to either add to or detract from our view of Scripture and/or God?

[1] W. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 74-75.

He is IMPORTANT in the church

Why do such shocking things happen in the holy church of God? My contention is that our theology (Bible study) always informs our Christian life. As I am studying Romans slowly and deliberately, I am positing a grossly inadequate understanding of sin as to why sin continues to thrive even in the church and often dealt with rather poorly.

1, 3, 22 sermons. Several times over two decades in Chicago UBF, I studied Rom 1:18-3:20 in one sermon and/or Bible study. This year, I expanded it to three sermons at West Loop:  Gospel Suppression (1:18-2:5); Gospel Impartiality (2:6-29); Gospel Accusation (3:1-20). If you think this is a lot (by UBF standards), John Piper preached 20 sermons on these verses, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached 22 sermons on these 64 verses!

Unthankfulness. The point of the UBF message was that the root of sin is unthankfulness (Rom 1:21). Therefore, we should always be thankful (1 Th 5:18). Of course, this is true. I know, as we all do, that if we are not thankful for any reason, we immediately lose peace and joy in our hearts and souls.

Disgusting sinners. I also learned that in a world without God, sin simply escalates and causes people to go from bad to worse (Rom 1:18-32). Again, we all know that this is also true.

UBF’s emphasis is on Rom 1:18-32 which constituted the major bulk of the sermon, while Rom 2:1-3:20 was just touched on rather briefly with a significant portion regarded as supplemental study. It felt to me as though it was optional and therefore not that important. So I never studied Rom 2:1-3:20, since the UBF sermon and manuscript spent hardly any time or emphasis on it.

My wrong understanding is that these 64 verses were not all that important for two reasons. (1) It’s about sin and we can skim it quickly, so that we can talk more about Jesus. (2) We studied these 64 verses in one sermon and focused on unthankfulness based on the chosen key verse, Rom 1:21.

Missing Paul’s main point in the flow of his argument. What I realized when I studied these verses more extensively a few months ago was that I missed what Paul was really trying to say in these 64 verses. (It was not “don’t be unthankful!”) Yes, the sins of the Gentiles are horrible. They are irreligious and immoral, lawless and licentious, and often gross and grotesque. But Paul’s point is not how horrible Gentile sinners are, but that the Jews–who were religious, moral and law abiding–were just as bad, if not worse! If we are to do justice with Rom 1:18-3:20, a key verse that better reflects these 64 verses is Rom 3:9, rather than Rom 1:21. “Jew and Gentile alike” (Rom 3:9) can be understood as “Christian and non-Christian,” or “religious and irreligious,” or “moral and immoral,” or “Bible believing and Bible ignorant” being equally under the power of sin. Doesn’t this explain why horrible sin happens in the church and then is covered up as though somehow Christians (or certain people) get some kind of special free pass?

What is Paul’s emphasis? Of the 64 verses, Paul spent 15 verses on Gentile sinners (Rom 1:18-32) and 49 verses (Rom 2:1-3:20) on Jewish sinners–more than three times the amount! Conversely, if I remember correctly, the UBF manuscript used up 4-5 pages on 15 verses (the sins of irreligious Gentiles) and just a page plus on 49 verses (the sins of religious “Bible believing” Jews).

This was how Paul preached and taught the Bible. When Paul taught about the sins of the Gentiles to a Jewish crowd, he noticed how the religious Jews were fully agreeing with him: “Yeah, Paul, go sock it to those disgusting immoral godless wicked Gentile sinners!” Thus, Paul switched gears from Rom 2:1-3:20 and socked it to the very decent, well-dressed, well behaved and religious Bible believing Jewish sinners for 49 verses!

Why am I belaboring this? As stated above, our Bible study of sin in these verses affects our understanding of sin and sinners. If we emphasize the sins of the Gentiles and inadvertently de-emphasize the sins of the Jews, this will be how it is in the church. We think, speak and act as though certain sins are worse (immorality, promiscuity, drunkenness), while other sins are not that bad (gossip, slander, politics, vanity, defensiveness, offensiveness). We blast the sins of the immoral, while we basically go easy on the “better behaved” sins of certain people in the church. Does this adequately explain my first paragraph above?

Have you studied about the sins of the religious in Rom 2:1-3:20? Should the sins of “certain important people” in the church be dealt with differently than others?

How does Satan work?

1. To incite pride

In 1 Chronicles 21:1 we read the story of David counting his fighting men. The text says that Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. Taking a census or counting our blessings is not necessarily a bad thing. But when such things incite us to pride and dependence on our own security, the bible says counting our strengths is a bad thing. So if you are obsessed with counting numbers that show your strength, you might be doing the work of Satan.

2. To blind people’s eyes

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 says the “the god of this age” has blinded people’s eyes. Satan hides things and is deceptive. Satan does not want people to see clearly. So if you are unwilling to discuss matters openly, try to manipulate who knows what information and would rather remain behind closed doors, you might be doing the work of Satan.

3. To tempt

In Matthew 4 we read the story of Satan tempting Jesus. Satan tempts Jesus to give into his fleshly desire for food in order to prove his identity. Satan tempts Jesus to test God’s protection. And the third time Satan tempts Jesus to gain the world just by bowing down to him to prove his loyalty. So if you are asking people to prove their identity as Christians, asking them to take unreasonable actions while trusting in God’s protection or promising grandiose blessings in exchange for loyalty, you might be doing Satan’s work.

4. To persecute

Peter warned that the devil sought to devour Christians through persecutions, as we read in 1 Peter 5:8-9. Satan is seen as a prowling lion, roaring angrily. To persecute is to harass constantly, to subject someone to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs. So if you are continually shaming those who claim to listen to the Holy Spirit for spiritual direction, appeasing those who want to celebrate the Christian sacraments or de-friending those who claim to obey the authority of Jesus and call out authoritarianism, you might be doing Satan’s work.

5. To afflict

In Job we read the story of Satan afflicting an innocent man. Job 2:7 says “So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head.” We cannot say all afflictions from Satan, but painful afflictions generally are one of the methods Satan loves to employ. So if you are taking joy in causing pain, suffering or trouble for other people, you might be doing Satan’s work.

6. To accuse

The bible calls Satan the “accuser”. Zechariah 3:1 says “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him.” Satan delights in accusing, heaping guilt upon guilt on the souls of humans. So if you enjoy putting guilt-trips on people around you, you might be doing the work of Satan.

7. To bind

Jesus mentioned the work of binding in relation to Satan. In Luke 13:16 Jesus was recorded as saying, “Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?” Bondage and enslavement and entanglement are not things of God. Jesus’ mission was liberation. So if you are propagating slogans that bind people’s lives with your methodologies, constantly expecting people to stay in your church, or intertwining people’s lives through arranged marriages, you might be doing Satan’s work.

8. To betray

The great climax of the story of Judas was when Satan entered him and he betrayed Jesus. John 13:27 says, “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” Betrayal is something we all end up doing at some point. It’s human nature. But it is also a scheme of Satan. If we find ourselves repeatedly betraying the trust of family members or friends, we might be doing the work of Satan.

9. To lie

Satan is called the Father of Lies in the bible. In Acts 5:3 we read Peter’s assessment of Ananias: “Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?” If you are giving people false promises, leaving out facts from stories, insisting on one perspective that trumps everyone else’s perspective or sweeping hundreds of authentic stories of people’s lives under the rug, you might be doing Satan’s work.

10. To display power

2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 describes another method of Satan: “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” So if you love displaying your own power, your own glorious history and you continually seek signs and wonders from the weather and the universe around you, you might be doing Satan’s work.

Questions

What else does the bible say about Satan? How can we discern and avoid Satan’s work? What is God’s work? And how does all this fit in with our work?

The concept of Jesus as the Good Shepherd is something that has been common knowledge and generally applied if somewhat intermittently in the last decade that I have been a Christian. I cried to the 23rd Psalm when my father passed away. It always surprises me that the meaning of the scriptures grow with me and my circumstances. The Holy Spirit always reveals new things to me. The first of these was something that seemed so obvious that I always overlooked it, and never realized its importance until today.

Verse 7 says “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.” Verse 9 says “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.” Verse 10 says “I have come so that they may have life.” Verse 14 says “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep.” My point is that the emphasis is on Jesus and further the promises of the gospel are only present through Him. There is no mediator between me and Christ. On one hand this seems like the most obvious thing, but then again it does not play out that way in people’s lives. Many people believe that they need someone to save them, be it their family, their church, their government, their personal shepherd- but the scriptures make it clear that Christ is all that is needed. I have often believed all I needed for a good life was a good degree and a good job. After failing at both of these I decided to settle for Christ, the author and perfecter of my faith, the holy of holies, who before Abraham was, the prince of peace, the son of God himself.

As I prayed on this passage a phrase came to mind. “The metaphor breaks down.” I am not sure why. As I have read the bible God’s relationship to man is often presented using metaphors. Here are all the one’s I have gathered:

• A potter to clay (Jeremiah)
• A building block to a church (1Peter 2, Romans)
• A man to wife (Song of Songs, old testament prophesy describe Israel as a prostitute)
• A father to son (1 John 3)

And finally a man to sheep. All of these metaphors only serve to capture or explain part of God’s love. The caution I received was this- that while a metaphor is helpful to teach, learn, and understand- ultimately to apply- we should caution ourselves from taking it so far that it overreaches its intended meaning. The metaphor given in John 10, of the sheep and Shepherd fail to capture that we are creations of God, and further that we are loved as a son, given freedom as such. The metaphor of the potter to clay along with the metaphor of the building blocks to a church captures that we are creations and that God knows every detail of us as an artist knows his art- but since it is inanimate, this metaphor also fails capture the mercy and justice that God provides his creations. The metaphor of the shepherd says nothing of obedience which is captured by a father and son relationship.

When I read John 10 I learn that Christ the good shepherd protects his flock. He guides them and cares for them. But I must remember that while I am his sheep, I am also his building block, Christ is my true love, I am but clay in his hand, and finally I am his son. The true biblical idea of being a shepherd loses this, but the scripture is far from incomplete as it provides us with numerous other metaphors of God’s goodness. But what does this mean for me? The same thing it always has, I should deny myself as Christ did, love others and above all love God with all my heart mind and soul. He is my maker, my love, my very great reward. My refuge, my father, and finally my Good Shepherd.

My Binder is Bigger than Your Binder

I remember how awestruck we were when one ubf shepherd brought a 4 inch white binder to Sunday service! He opened it wide and took notes during the service. We were so impressed because before then the standard was a 1 inch binder for bible study notes. This style of bible study notes was not just back in the 1980’s, but in Toledo ubf we carried on the tradition into the 90’s and 2000’s. I think only in the last decade did people start bringing laptops to bible study.

Binder Judging Day

Not only were ubf shepherds required to bring their binders (white was the only acceptable color) to bible study, we had several binder judging days. We brought our best binders full of notes and they were displayed on long tables. Those (like me) with some unfinished binders were shamed.

Paper, Scissors and Glue

All this was of course before the widespread use of computers. But being a Computer Science Engineering major, I had a PC. I bought it from Sears and was one of the first ubf shepherds to use the bible electronically and to print out notes entirely from the PC. Some rebuked this as unspiritual and sinful. The proper way of preparing notes was to cut the question sheet up into strips of paper, glue or tape them onto lined paper, and use a pen to write the answers. Some even said using a pencil was unspiritual because a pencil could be erased and changed. A pen was permanent and would last longer.

Android Phone

As a shocking contrast to all this, I decided to take ONLY my Android phone to any meetings I had with ubf people after leaving the ministry (yes I had several meetings). I have access to many bible translations, many books via Kindle, and the entire wealth of the internet on my phone. And best of all: I could live blog instantly if anything went wrong at the meetings :)

Anyone else remember the binders? Any stories you would like to share about how bible study is conducted at ubf? Regardless of the binders or laptops, what kind of bible study do you have?

Would not all Christ-followers agree with this primary message of Scripture? Is this not a great example of missional-ecumenism? Don’t all our disagreements pale in light of who He is? Might we all find a way forward as the Body of Christ under this banner? What are your reactions to this?

http://bravehearted.com/

As a follow up to an article I didn’t write I think it only apt to say that Galatians Set Me Free From Legalism was the best article I never wrote. That aside, I brought this up with my friend Steven, a seminary graduate. We had a long conversation about my time in UBF and I discussed how I believed that my chapter supported a legalism that was not in line with Paul’s letter to the Galatians. I did not expect him to disagree with me.

The primary message of the gospel

Steven first mentioned that since the 1960s American evangelicalism has phrased the primary message of the gospel as “Jesus saves you from legalism.” He said it’s a major topic and on a whole different page from Paul’s intended meaning in Galatians, but he said there is a very real question we have to ask as a missionary “What do we first communicate to new believers?” He said in China saying “Jesus saves you from legalism” does not really mean anything, and so organizations like Cru have struggled. He said the message of gospel is phrased as “Jesus saves you from sin and death.” He goes onto say that this is usually how the message of Galatians is given. This sounded very familiar. In fact I can quote:

“I read Galatians dozens of times since 1980. I knew it was about freedom. I assumed it proclaimed freedom from sin.”

This is primarily the eastern approach to the gospel. I am not qualified to say which one is “right”, or even if one is “right” and one is “wrong”. But what I will say is that this explains to me immediately why UBF is mostly unsuccessful. They are preaching a gospel message that to anyone who has grown up in an evangelical church (such as me) appears contradictory at best and heretical at worst. I am not sure how exactly to solve this problem, I think writing articles for fine websites such as this one is a start.

The new perspective on Paul

Steven said that there was a current movement called “The new perspective on Paul” and it challenges the modern evangelical view, and beyond that Protestantism itself. The old perspective, as a more wizened man than I said:

“The freedom Paul spoke of was freedom from legalism–the idea that you must add or do something else in addition to believing in Jesus in order to be saved and to be regarded and welcomed as a complete Christian of good standing in the church.”

This view traces back to Martin Luther, who looked at the Catholic Church in the 15th century and saw a list of indulgences and said that this was clearly legalism. But the New Perspective asked an interesting question “Is what Martin Luther saw in the 15th century as legalism the same as what a 1st century Paul saw in the Judaizers? What was the problem with the Judaizers?” The thesis was that the problem with Judaizers was not that works justified them, but that works made them Jewish, and being Jewish justified them. Paul saw the law as a badge of the covenant. Luther understood Galatians 3:24 to illustrate the second use of the law. The new perspective says Paul envisioned the law as a custodian for the Jews until the birth of Christ but Luther reversed the argument to assert that the law is a disciplinarian for everyone.

Luther holds, as most Protestants do, that the law crushes our self righteousness and leads to Christ. Therefore, the law becomes God’s moral imperative having been written on our hearts. Stendhal, the author of the new perspective, accuses western thought of adding a level of introspection and self guilt onto Paul’s message. It seems that this introspection is largely a byproduct of St. Augustine’s Platonic roots. We might go so far to accuse western Christianity to be “Platonic Christianity”. Protestant reformers read Paul’s statements about faith and works, law and gospel, Jews and Gentiles “in the framework of late medieval piety” and the law became associated with legalism. “Where Paul was concerned about the possibility for Gentiles to be included in the messianic community, his statements are now read as answers to the quest for assurance about man’s salvation out of a common human predicament”.

What about UBF?

So does UBF (or at least its leadership) stand condemned under Galatians? Would Paul have opposed top UBF leaders to their face? Under the traditional perspective of Paul it seems as though it certainly does. Ubf may not actually believe they are being justified by their works, but they are communicating it their actions by defining spiritual growth as the list of things Ben Toh presented.

The question that follows is this- Does UBF stand condemned under the message of Galatians under the New Perspective? This idea that being Jewish saves you and the idea that you need to be Korean, or at least Koreanized, came to mind. Does UBF inadvertently teach in its actions that you need to be like a Korean to be saved? Certainly.

Native people are encouraged to marry by faith native Koreans. Second generation Koreans are encouraged to marry by faith other second generation Koreans. This would not be evidence to my claim if marriage wasn’t orchestrated and facilitated by UBF. When someone is married by faith the church teaches that the person introduced is “godly” so by always introducing someone to a Korean they are implying that Koreans are “godly”. Other examples I can cite include Korean chapters being unwilling to work with the native ministry and a high level of unwillingness to allow native leaders to lead. There is also explicitly taught ideas such as American Christians are “lukewarm” and “Sunday only”, Americans being “selfish”, and that America needs to become a “Kingdom of Priests and a holy nation” despite the fact that there are more Christians in America than Koreans in the world.

I doubt that anything related to either perspective of Paul will be discussed at the staff conference on Galatians. It is most likely that I am just not trained enough to see their wisdom. Whatever the case I hope that UBF can learn to present the message of the gospel in such a way that it does not clash with American evangelicalism. My time in UBF recently can be summarized as such:

“When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

Paul’s letter to the Galatians concludes that we must boast not in our works, or even in the marks on our body but in Christ. Let us boast of our savior. I thought it interesting that it was not said that Peter “believed” that justification came from works in addition to our faith. But that he acted as if it did. Paul says “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of all of them ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like gentile and not like a Jew. How is it then that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” Peter putting an undue emphasis on circumcision added to the gospel without realizing it. Similarly if we put undue emphasis on fishing, 1-1 bible study, going to campus, restricting dating among singles, marriage by faith, testimony writing, preparing bible study notes, message training, using ‘one word’, raising disciples, attending all bible conferences, addressing people with titles, or running all major life choices through our personal shepherd and obeying his directive in all aspects we add to the gospel, which as Paul states “is no gospel at all”. The Christian who does such things truly deserves to be fed to lions. Paul says “let him be eternally condemned”.

The more I consider myself the more I realize legalism is a natural bent for myself. Legalism is very attractive because it makes the gospel readily obtainable and manageable. If I am attending church every Sunday and never missing bible study I can say to myself “I am justified.” But our gospel is not so obtainable, because it is already obtained for us. The works we do not make us good, the good in us- which is Christ- makes us good. I spoke to my Muslim student last week. A student had asked her about her head scarf and she said she was required to wear it. I asked “I thought the Koran gave no law. It says to be modest and that is why you wear it.” She agreed and tried to invite me to her mosque. She explained that if we prayed 7 times a day and attended mosque faithfully we would be given “a mark” that would save us. I realized this is how many Christians view the gospel, but it is not gospel at all.

Some Christians may counter this claim by citing passages were Jesus allows some of his followers to go because they did not want to worship him. We may as easily concluding that it is correct to doubt God when Christ said “God why have you forsaken me.” God can doubt God, Christ can turn us over to our sinful desires. But I am moved by Paul “Am I now trying to win the approval of men of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. Paul’s last comment in his letter is for us not to stop doing good. We cannot use our justification as a reason not to do works. Undue pressure produces outward fruit, but never inward fruit, which is what our Lord desires. He does not want works, but the person who on his account wants to do them. How could our God need anything? He has everything. He has everything except our love and devotion until we give it to him.

My natural bent for legalism must recognize this and with the Holy Spirit I must be transformed by constantly turning my back on the world for his sake. All those who disobey Paul’s words on legalism prove them. The law of God is eternal; it is the same 24 hours a day for all people who have ever or will ever live. People who attempt to justify themselves with the law fail and they end up in misery. The testimonies of Ben Toh, Andrew Martin, Brian Karcher and others speak to this. Ben Toh recently said “Reading and studying Galatians in 2009 set me free—28 years after becoming a Christian.” It may take 29 years, but legalism is as unfulfilling as air. It does not feed us. My prayer is that I will never fall to legalism. I pray that I always recognize that I am blessed first, and that any good about me comes from Christ. I pray that I will not be swayed by false teachers. In all these things I pray. Amen.

Matthew’s Purpose

This book was written to directly address one question: How does the bible applly to same-sex relationships? The book is dedicated to “To all those who have suffered in silence for so long.” The premise is clear from the first chapter: The bible cannot be set aside in the discussion about same-sex relationships, based on John 10:35.

Matthew’s Case

With brilliant calmness, Matthew synthesizes every debate, discussion and argument I’ve heard in regard to LGBT people. Matthew exposes and examines arguments from both sides, and shows how some of the arguments from each side fall short of the biblical mandate. Here is an overview of the case he makes.

Good fruit/bad fruit

The foundational argument made in this book is a sort of end-game. What is the fruit of how LGBT people have been treated? Is such fruit good or bad?

“First is the harmful impact on gay Christians. Based on Jesus’s teaching that good trees bear good fruit, we need to take a new look at the traditional interpretation of biblical passages that refer to same-sex behavior.” Loc. 998-1004

Historical Examples

Next Matthew takes us on a journey of some examples from history where long-standing, multi-century teachings of the Christian church have been wrong, and re-adjusted based on new discoveries. Matthew shows how each time, the authority of Scripture was not compromised by the new scientific discoveries, but rather, enhanced. Matthew cites recent history too, such as the 2013 closure and apology of the ex-gay ministry, Exodus International.

Celibacy as a gift

One of the contradictions expressed by the church has been to re-define celibacy from being a gift for some to a mandatory lifestyle choice for many in their attempt to “save marriage”. Matthew expounds on the gift of celibacy amazingly well, and shows proper, but not undue, respect for the gift of celibacy.

The traditional clobber verses

About half of the book is devoted to painstakingly examining the passages of Genesis 19, Leviticus, Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1. Matthew does this with many questions, references to multiple interpretations and excellent logic– all without coming across as a bully. Nowhere does Matthew forcefully exhort the reader to adopt his logic. Instead, Matthew gently and methodically presents his case, inviting the reader to journey along side him.

“Of the thirteen references to Sodom in the Old Testament following Genesis 19, Ezekiel 16:49–50 offers the most detailed description of the city’s sins. In that passage, God stated, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore, I did away with them as you have seen.” Sexuality goes unmentioned, both in the Ezekiel passage and in every other Old Testament reference to Sodom following Genesis 19. If Sodom’s sin had indeed been same-sex behavior, it’s highly unlikely that every written discussion of the city for centuries following its destruction would fail to mention that.” Loc. 1188-90

Matthew makes a real attempt to move the gay-Christian debate beyond the typical conundrum.

“Sad to say, though, that’s been the extent of many debates about the Bible and homosexuality in recent years. One side starts by quoting Leviticus 18:22 (or 20:13, which prescribes the death penalty for males who engage in same-sex relations), and the other side counters with verses about dietary laws and bans on certain combinations of clothing. We really do need to go deeper.” Loc. 1194-97

Brilliant Gospel Exposition

As with any book, I care deeply about how the gospel is presented. Matthew’s book shines brightly with the explicit gospel messages and was a joy to read.

“First, I’d like us to consider the reason why Christians don’t follow all the laws we see in the Old Testament, from its restrictions on food to its rules about clothing—and many more, including the death sentence for rebellious children. And then I’d like to look at the Old Testament prohibitions of male same-sex intercourse, as we seek to discern whether and why Christians should follow them today.” Loc. 1210-16

“Our freedom from the law, I should be clear, is about much more than one decision made by one church council nearly two thousand years ago. It is rooted in the saving, reconciling work of Jesus Christ. The New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the law. Colossians 2:13–14 says that God “forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.” Christ’s death made it possible for us to be permanently reconciled to God. Before then, only temporary atonement was possible through the sacrifices of the Jewish priests. But as Hebrews 8:6 explains, “The ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.” Loc. 1231-34

“I am far from the only gay Christian who has heard the claim that gay people will not inherit the kingdom of God. That message is plastered on protest signs at gay-pride parades. It’s shouted by roaming street preachers at busy intersections and on college campuses. The result is that, for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, all they’ve heard about the kingdom of God is that they won’t be in it.” Loc. 1955-58

Same-sex Marriage

Matthew concludes with a humble examination of marriage. He admits that since he is single and young, he has little to offer and cannot teach about marriage. But he shares some incredible insight nonetheless. Matthew continues to ask profoundly good questions, as he does throughout the book.

“Granted, the Bible’s silence on committed same-sex relationships doesn’t necessarily mean those relationships are blessed. Even if you agree with my analysis so far, you may still wonder: Can loving, committed same-sex unions fulfill the Bible’s understanding of marriage?” Loc. 1982-86

“Perhaps the dominant message about marriage in modern society is that it’s primarily about being happy, being in love, and being fulfilled. Nearly everyone desires these things, of course. But what happens to the marriage bond if one spouse stops feeling fulfilled? What if one partner falls out of love, or they both do? For many in our society, the answer seems obvious: The couple should seek a divorce. Why should two people who no longer love each other stay together? But that is not the Christian message. For Christians, marriage is not just about us. It’s also about Christ. If Christ had kept open the option to leave us behind when he grew frustrated with us or felt like we were not living up to his standards, he may have abandoned us long ago. But the story of the gospel is that, although we don’t deserve it, God lavishes his sacrificial love upon us anyway.” Loc. 2132-38

Conclusion: Hope and joy

This book left me with tremendous hope and joy, and also with a somber and deep commitment to be a straight, Christian ally to all LGBT people. The three concluding personal narratives are beyond amazing and simply must be read for yourself. I conclude with one of Matthew’s concluding statements.

“Tragically, I hear from many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians whose churches also are convinced that they cannot take an affirming approach to same-sex relationships while remaining faithful to Scripture. I wrote this book to show that there is a third way. The message of Scripture for gay Christians is not what non-affirming Christians assume it to be.” Loc. 2415

Are you free from legalism?

How to make the apostle Paul very angry. All Christians say that faith in Jesus and the gospel is all we need for life and salvation. But practically some Christians and churches communicate–explicitly or implicitly–that faith in Christ is not quite enough. In Paul’s day, Jewish Christians (the Judaizers) taught the Gentile Christians that in addition to believing in Christ they must keep Jewish traditions–circumcision, dietary laws, special days–in order to become “fully Christian.” This so outraged Paul that he did not express any pleasantries or thanksgiving after his introduction (Gal 1:1-5), as he did in his other 12 epistles. Instead he immediately launched into them (Gal 1:6ff) by directly confronting and accusing them of deserting Christ and distorting, changing and perverting the gospel (Gal 1:6b-7). To those who taught that additions to the gospel were needed (which is no gospel at all), Paul cursed them with God’s curse…twice in two verses (Gal 1:8-9). Boy was he mad!

A junior rebuking a senior publicly. Compared to Peter, Paul was a “junior” apostle. Yet, in that orderly structured hierarchical Jewish culture, Paul rebuked Peter publicly (not privately). Then he openly shared and circulated this embarrassing and shameful account in a letter to be read in all the churches (Gal 2:11-14). Today it is like sending out a mass email to everyone in the church! Imagine Peter, the rock of the church (Mt 16:18), committing such a basic sin and getting publicly rebuked by a junior! Peter’s sin was “deviating from the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:14) when he withdrew from eating together with Gentile Christians. By his behavior he was saying that Jewish Christians were better than Gentile Christians because they kept the tradition of Jewish dietary laws. By making this distinction Peter communicated that the gospel of God’s grace was insufficient for salvation and good standing as a Christian. He was stating by his action that justification was not just by faith, but also by the works of the law (Gal 2:16).

For over 25 years, without realizing it, I added to the gospel whenever I taught the Bible. Basically, I added (strictly enforced!) all the activities of the church to the gospel: marrying by faith, no dating without permission, writing out answers to Bible study questions, preparing Bible study binders, writing testimonies, going fishing, feeding sheep 1:1, never ever missing any church meetings (don’t you dare!), always wearing a tie in church, addressing other Christians with titles, etc. None of these “additions” were necessarily bad or wrong. In fact, I thought I was a “cut-above” Christian, not a nominal Christian. But I inadvertently communicated that Christ alone or the gospel alone was insufficient and inadequate to be regarded as a good Christian. So today, I’m done writing testimonies along with being done with…

• fishing,
• going on campus,
• preparing Bible study binders,
• having 1:1 Bible studies,
• restricting dating among singles,
• teaching “marriage by faith,”
• giving “message training”,
• “training” people,
• attending “mandatory” church meetings,
• attending all Bible conferences,
• addressing fellow Christians with titles,
• “copying” messages and manuscripts, etc.

I’m not opposed to any of the above and would encourage some people to seriously consider them, if they are so inclined. But I am convinced that putting any undue emphasis or pressure to conform to any church practices and traditions would invariably teach what Paul calls “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (Gal 1:6-7). To Paul, such “Bible teachers” should castrate or emasculate themselves (Gal 5:12). Worse yet, it invites an eternal curse from God (Gal 1:8-9).

Are you free from legalism? Or do you feel that something else is required from you in addition to your faith in the gospel?

There are countless good commentaries on Galatians. The books I have read and do not hesitate recommending are:

1. John R.W. Stott, The Message of Galatians: Only One Way, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1968).
2. Timothy Keller, Galatians For You, God’s Word For You (Epsom, Surrey, England: The Good Book Company, 2013).
3. Philip Graham Ryken, Galatians, Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing Company, 2005).

The 9th Beatitude

The poverty was something I don’t think I ever got used to. There were dozens of people walking everywhere. The city was not zoned so every spot that was vacant was turned into a makeshift house. Electrical wiring hung precariously. The Philippines reminded me of that scene from Going to America; the city looked like 1980’s metro Africa. Nothing could have prepared me for the state of their bible house. Their bible house was essentially two half houses connected with a board and covered with an open roof. This meant no amount of air conditioning would cool this place. There were no washers or dryers. Coworkers slept on a sheet on the ground. I was shocked at this place, but what shocked me more was that everyone was happier than I have ever seen. It is true, “Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.” They would have seen redder roses than I would have seen, and greener grass- had there been any grass to see. All the areas that could have grass were just dirt. I was astonished at their attitude towards life. Most of the people there wore clothing that appeared to have been fashionable several years ago in America. It seemed cross training shoes were absent. Shoes there seemed to be a thin and most comparable to slippers. Despite it all I never once heard anyone complain.

More Fun

The tagline for tourism in the Philippines is the titular “It’s more fun in the Philippines.” The students there would use it sarcastically. When we arrived at the resort there was a man urinating on the side wall of the resort in board daylight with several people all walking around him. I was shocked and laughed at this, when someone said “It’s more fun in the Philippines.” A day later I was walking to my room and a lizard crawled up the wall besides me. I asked if this was normal and the girl said “It’s more fun in the Philippines.” The whole tone of the conference itself could be described in this way “It’s more fun in the Philippines.” Nothing was mandatory. The schedule was set but you could have done nothing and nobody would have mentioned it to you. Friday’s schedule included a message after breakfast, then bible study. After bible study was socialization for a few hours until lunch. After lunch was music practice and free time. After dinner there was dance night. Different groups preformed dances and skits. Some of these were Christian and others were not. I saw a traditional Filipino dance. Saturday’s schedule was dance cardio before breakfast, a message after breakfast, group bible study, socialization and free time until lunch, after lunch there was music practice until dinner, after dinner there was life testimony sharing and music. The two presiders could not in any culture be said to have taken their role seriously. They joked the whole time in introducing people and everyone loved them. When they said “God is good.” You could see them glowing. It was an abrupt change from anything I have ever seen in American UBF, and “It was very good.”

The purpose of Bible study

The bible studies were very different from my home chapter, or even the chapter of the second gen I started under. When I sat down with her to study the bible I was confused. I asked her where the questionnaire was. She said there was no questionnaire. I asked her what we were going to study. She asked me what I wanted to study. The bible study was very 1 to 1, in the sense that we were on equal grounds. Although the students there seemed shy and in some cases differential to me, in bible study they spoke confidently about the gospel that gave them life.

We jumped around the bible as I explained how Christian virtues are only virtues when held under unfavorable conditions. I said that Christ can be said to love us because he loved us when he had every reason not to. Because there was no questionnaire to steer the direction of the conversation the bible study felt more organic and more real. I was not constantly on guard against questions that desired answers out of context.

Another thing I learned from the bible study is that the Shepherdess was very unfamiliar with the Old Testament. This struck me as odd at first. Later that night I had a different student leading bible study question me about what John had meant when he called us “Children of God” in 1 John. I spoke with Dr. William Altobar regarding this. It seemed to me that unqualified students were leading bible studies. He said that “Bible studies are there to build relationships between students so they can experience God.” I realized from this that I had taken up unknowingly that the purpose of bible studies was to learn about God. But in the Philippines, it was to experience God. It is important to note, but hard to see that if we have any good about us it come from God, we are like mirrors reflecting his glory.

Students are led to Christ in the Philippines by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit though students facilitated God’s word. In some sense I wonder what is best. I think that traditional UBF chapters led by native Koreans use the bible study to pass on teaching of obedience and loyalty though bible study. Traditionally it seems American protestant bible study try to pass on knowledge of the scripture though bible study. But the bible studies with Hope seemed as though she wanted to testify about Christ. No matter what we started talking about the conversation would end talking about Christ and his work in her life. Sometimes it became irritating to me. I wanted to talk about theology and she wanted to talk about Christ. The correct choice seems obvious.

In part 3 I will discuss what I learned though the messages, and the success of UBF in the Philippines.

This picture shows the disciples vehemently arguing among themselves as to which of them was considered to be the greatest (Lk 22:24), followed by Jesus’ emphatic assertion and imperative command that his disciples should not lord over others like the rulers of the Gentiles (Lk 22:25-26). Notice Jesus illustrating this important point–often ignored by the church hierarchy–with his index finger.

This dramatic picture shows Peter impulsively and spontaneously reacting to Jesus being arrested by swiftly slicing off the right ear of the servant of the high priest (Lk 22:50). Then Jesus touched and healed the man’s ear (Lk 22:51), followed by his surrender to the mob, saying, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns” (Lk 22:52-53).

This picture shows an angry high priest exclaiming in their kangaroo court, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips” (Lk 22:71), as Jesus stood helplessly and bound by ropes.

Finally, this last illustration is of Jesus on the road to Emmaus walking with the two men who were kept from recognizing Jesus (Lk 24:19-29).

Each drawing on each page drew out the drama and emotion of the biblical text (HCSB), especially the facial expressions of each character. Jesus looks haggard and rugged, even ugly without beauty or majesty (Isa 53:2), unlike typical Hollywood portrayals, such as the recent Son of God. Those who love looking at pictures would love the book. It would encourage children (or adults) who are not inclined to read the Bible to be captivated by the drawings and be drawn into the story.

This unique interesting book is written by Alex Webb-Peploe (pencils, inks, colors) and Andre Parker (art direction, design, colors). I received this book from The Good Book Company via Cross Focused Reviews for my review. The opinions expressed are mine. This is disclosed in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Grace alone. Alternate perspectives and counter comments have previously been bantered about, but I thought it good to articulate in one article the (Reformed) perspective that best expresses my understanding and my faith. The key is that only the grace of God (never man’s merit) leads to redemption and blessing, both in the OT and NT.

What Moses and Paul says. Moses declares what is called the Deuteronomic principle (Dt 4:1, 40), which says that obedience to the Lord’s commands (Law/Torah) brings life and blessing, while disobedience brings curse and destruction. On the other hand, Paul states that the law brings curse and death (since no one is able to keep the law), in contrast to the life that comes by the Spirit (Rom 2:12-13; 4:15; 7:8-9; 8:2-4; 10:4-5; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 3:12-13, 21-24; 5:18). Does Paul (NT) contradict Moses (OT)?

Grace before obedience. Moses did not view obedience to the law as the basis of covenantal relationship. The Israelites were God’s people entirely because of God’s grace and initiative in saving them from bondage (Ex 19:4; 20:2; Dt 5:6, 15; 6:21-23; 15:15; 24:18), independent of any merit on their part (Dt 9:5-6). God chose Israel as his people before revealing to them his law.

Obedience is the evidence of faith. To Moses a relationship with God happens with obedience to God’s commands. When acts of obedience arise out of genuine faith, God accepts them as proof of righteousness and responds with blessing and life. Jesus says likewise (Jn 14:15, 21, 23). Conversely, with disobedience, faith may be lacking, to which God responds with curse and death. We reap what we sow (Gal 6:7). Flesh begets flesh and the Spirit begets the spirit (Jn 3:6; Rom 8:5).

No acts of human righteousness ever merits God’s salvation. OT and NT consistently assert that no one may perform works of righteousness sufficient to merit the saving favor of God (Ps 14:1, 4; 51:4-5; 53:1, 3; Isa 64:6; Rom 3:23), which is entirely God’s grace and initiative.

Why was the Law given? God reveals his standard of righteousness by which his people, already saved by grace, may live and confidently depend on God for their approval. Thus, the Law is a gift of grace (Jn 1:16-17) through which God provided his people with an ever-present reminder of his deliverance, his power, his presence, his covenant faithfulness and the way of life and prosperity.

To reconcile Paul and Moses, later revelation cannot correct earlier revelation, as if there were some defect in it. Later revelation may be more precise, more nuanced, “more clear,” but it cannot be more true. Paul cannot be interpreted as correcting Moses, as if Moses’ teaching were erroneous. If Moses attributed a life-giving/sustaining function to the law (Lev 18:5), and Paul appears to have declared the opposite as a dogmatic assertion, then Paul would have failed the traditional and primary test of a true prophet–agreement with Moses (cf. Dt 18:15-22). Paul’s statements must be interpreted not only in light of Moses, but also as rhetorical assertions made in the context of particular arguments.

In Romans and Galatians, Paul responds to those who insist that salvation comes by the works of the law, as represented by circumcision. Paul’s reply to them is that if one looks to the law as a way of salvation, it leads to death, but if one looks to the law as a guide for those already saved, it yields life (Gal 5:13-25). In Rom 2:13 Paul sounds like Moses, “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” “The obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5)–a faith demonstrated through acts of obedience–is common to both the OT and NT. James says likewise in Jas 2:17, 24, 26.

This paradigm applies in both the OT and NT, and in both Moses and Paul:

1. God’s gracious (unmerited) saving actions yield the fruit of a redeemed people.
2. A redeemed people produces the fruit of righteous deeds.
3. Righteous deeds yield the fruit of divine approval and blessing.

Law lacking grace; grace lacking law. Some churches are driven by the law while claiming the grace of God. This results in legalism, phariseeism and burn out. Others emphasize grace while eschewing the law. This results in antinomianism, a moral looseness and a lack of holiness. A sad result is when “both sides” accuse the “other side” of being the problem.

Please write a post regarding law and grace. I love both doctrines. My desire is to emphasize grace (by the Spirit) without diminishing or imposing the law, both of which obscures grace.

(Reference: Block, Daniel I. Deuteronomy: The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2012. 197-199.)

A shocking confession. After 32 years of marriage, I have never told my dear wife, “I love you.” I strongly do not recommend this to any husband!! I never said those three words to her, partly because I am a shy introverted person from the east who has great difficulty articulating emotions of love to others. (Unfortunately, I have no problem articulating anger!) Also, a sad story of humanity is that countless millions of people throughout the world have said, “I love you,” yet behaved in ways where the loved one felt anything but love. Mainly, I thought that my love for my wife should be expressed in ways far beyond uttering three little words. I did not realize this but I might have backing from Deuteronomy chap. 6 about loving God! God does not want his people to love him by just saying “I love you” (cf. Isa 29:13; Mt 15:8; Mk 7:6).

You can read the rest of my sermon write-up and outline here.

One question surfaced lately is this: What if God loves Esau?

Ever since my marriage 20 years ago, I’ve been wondering about this question. But until now I didn’t do anything about it. I just dismissed the question. But could God love Esau? Why am I any different from Esau? Does Jesus choose only “Jacob” and despise “Esau”? Does the gospel only apply to “Jacob”?

This week the question surfaced again as I read “The Household of God” by Newbiggin. He asks piercing questions about the nature of the church and the boundaries of the church. My way of stating Newbiggin’s thoughts is like this: Does the boundary of the church only extend to Jacob?

No way!

So I searched the Scriptures for what God would have to say about Esau and Jacob. And I was continually drawn to Romans 9. I know the immediate reaction to my question: No way! Romans 9:13 states: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'” End of story. “Jacob” is God’s chosen people, Israel who became the Christians and “Esau” is everyone else who does not believe and stands condemned under the wrath of God. Others will also expound further and claim (and perhaps rightly so) that Romans 9 declares God’s sovereignty in the predestination of the elect. Much has been said about this subject.

Many have expounded on Romans 9. I am ill-equipped to discuss their writings on election. And election is not my subject today. I will only say that at this point I agree with St. Augustine: “Hence, as far as concerns us, who are not able to distinguish those who are predestinated from those who are not, we ought on this very account to will all men to be saved… It belongs to God, however, to make that rebuke useful to them whom He Himself has foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son” (On Rebuke & Grace, ch. 49). And I agree with Spurgeon: “All the glory to God in salvation; all the blame to men in damnation.” Jacob and Esau sermon by Spurgeon

My question again is, “What if God chose to love Esau?” Why do I ask such a question? Well it is a question asked by God through Scripture for starters. And it’s because I am drawn to the end of Romans 9, to the verses that seem to have been either overlooked or not delved into. Specifically I refer to Romans 9:22-33.

Objects of wrath and mercy

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Clearly there are two groups of people here: objects of wrath (“Esau”) and objects of mercy (“Jacob”). Clearly Apostle Paul is making his grand point here that Gentiles (“Esau”) are also included God’s salvation along with Isreal (“Jacob”). What if God chose to bear Esau in order to show Jacob his glory?

And to make this grand point, the Apostle points us to Hosea the prophet:

25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”

Does this mean that God loves Esau (those who were not God’s people)? Does this mean that Esau, along with Jacob, is now “God’s loved one”? Why or why not? Thoughts or criticisms?

Do you read the Bible daily?

Can you read the Bible for 10 min a day? Then I heard Francis Chan’s anointed sermon. I often ask people this: “How many chapters of the Bible do you need to read daily if you are to read the entire Bible in a year?” People think it is 15-20 chapters a day. But it is only FOUR! Chan said that if you only read the Bible for 10 minutes every day at the regular reading speed you can read the entire Bible in a year. Somehow this resonated with me and it kick started my Bible reading on Jan 1st. In the first six days of 2014 I read respectively 37, 20, 10, 11, 8, 10 chapters a day.

Are you trying to read the Bible? My favorite Yoda quote is No! Try not! Do or do not. There is no try! Trying to do something, anything, is equivalent to failing. Isn’t this why almost everyone who tries to diet and lose weight fail 95% of the time? Might it be the same with anyone who tries to stop watching porno, or lusting, or lording over others? When I was reading books and commentaries, I tried to read the Bible only and could not for several years. But after hearing Chan’s sermon, I felt inspired and simply read the Bible! I stopped trying to read the Bible. I simply did…happily and willingly.

Being or doing? God expects–even demands–our obedience, knowing full well that we will all fail without exception. Only Christ fulfilled the Law and obeyed God perfectly and completely (Mt 5:17)–at great cost and agony to himself (Ps 22:1; Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34). Yet Jesus obeyed God wholeheartedly and willingly (Jn 10:17-18). His obedience came from who he is–one with the Father (Jn 10:30; 17:21). His doing came from his being. Likewise, when we are transformed by God’s grace, our obedience comes from our willingness. Thus, I want to love God, even if I fail daily. I delight in the Law (Ps 1:2; 119:70; Rom 7:20) knowing that I will fail.

Do you buy Yoda’s theology? Without legalism or bibliolatry, do you delight in Scripture reading as you delight in Christ?

The conjunction word, “and”

Normally, conjunction words such as “and” are dismissed when counting words in the bible. But in a true count, the word “and” ranks number one as the most often used word in Scripture. A couple years ago I happened to read some articles that emphasized the importance of understanding conjunctions when studying the bible (words such as “and”, “but”, “yet”, “for”, etc.).

I’ve since learned to overcome my fear of the word “if” in the bible with the power of understanding the word “and”. I often fall in to the false dichotomy trap, where I end up thinking only in binary terms of “either/or” statements. But the word “and” comes to me like a small savior! Jesus was full of grace and truth. The word “and” resolved numerous false dichotomies for me, and released me from seeing myself and people around me with an either/or litmus test.

“Grace and…”

One demonstration of the power of the word “and” is to look and how often “and” is combined with “grace”. In the NIV84, the phrase “grace and” appears 15 times. Can we consider the grand teachings of the Holy Scriptures about supplication, truth, power, apostleship, peace, guarantee, righteousness and knowledge without grace?

grace and supplication
grace and truth
grace and power
grace and apostleship
grace and peace
grace and guarantee
grace and righteousness
grace and knowledge

Zechariah 12:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.

Romans 1:5 Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

Romans 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring–not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:2 To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.

1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.

Titus 1:4 To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

1 Peter 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Revelation 1:4 John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,

A fundamental human question, “What if?”

It seems to me that my fear of “if” stems first from human origins. We human beings seem to have been born with a sense of “if”, and often we fall into fearing the question “What if?”.

There are many examples of those who have explored this word, “If”, and far too many to examine here in this short article. But one example I love is from Rudyard Kipling, one of the great masters of poetry and prose, who was born in India in 1865 and who died in 1935. Kipling wrote a poem entitled “If”.  Here is the opening stanza.

If you can keep your head when all about you  

    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,  

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

    But make allowance for their doubting too;  

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

Christianity’s unnecessary fear of “if”

So why did I decide to write this article? The reason is because I’ve been processing a fantastic discussion that I had in person last Monday. Someone asked, “Would a person who does not believe in the resurrection of Jesus be saved? Should we consider such a person as a Christian?”

As I pondered this question this week, I found that this question exposed a basic fear in me, a fear that has been deeply ingrained in me from birth, so it would seem. But I also discovered the bible has much to do with this fear. In the spiritual realm, the word “if” strikes fear into the hearts of many.

Here are some examples from the bible:

If you do what is right…

Genesis 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”

If you obey me fully…

Exodus 19:5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.

If anyone does not remain in me…

John 15:6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

If you obey my commands…

John 15:10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

If we do not give up…

Galatians 6:9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

If you persevere…

1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

If you do not repent…

Revelation 2:5 Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

My contention: Respond to “if” with love instead of fear

If you find yourself reacting to the “if” question of life or the “if” declarations in the bible, my contention is that you should respond with love and grace. See the bible “if” in light of the grace of God. Let the love of God drive out your fear. Surrender to the grace of God, for there is not a single person in all of history, apart from Christ, who can survive the fear of “if” without grace.

If you are good enough? I invite you to surrender this fear of “if” and cling to love. How much better our friendships would be when we no longer fear the “if” in other people around us, and instead react with love in spite of any “if”.

My hope and prayer is that every time you read the word “if” in the bible or begin to wonder if you measure up, you will recall the love of someone close to you. Remember the grace shown to you. And respond with the joy that comes from seeing the bible’s “if” statements with the guarantee that comes from grace and the living hope that comes from love.

Do you realize that Jesus answers every single “if” statement with a resounding YES! Yes you will persevere, yes you will repent, yes you will obey, for I have already done all this for you. And what is more, I will credit all this accomplishment to your faith, even though it is only my power that saved you. The word “if” is not be be feared, but is meant to be an open door to the gospel.

Stay tuned for my next article where I contend that the fear of “if” can be driven out with the love of “and”.

Some centuries after Psalm 119 was composed, Yahweh burst through our back door. He entered our world to physically insert himself into our history and experience. Our understanding of Psalm 119 will be sub-Christian unless we hold in the forefront of our minds the fact that it was penned in the B.C. era. That was before the shockwave named Jesus started reverberating through the cosmos. That was before anyone could imagine that someone would write (Hebrews 1:1-3):

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

In the centuries before that momentous advent, Yahweh prepared some people for his coming. He communicated with them in their own language. He interacted with them in ways that were culturally appropriate and understandable to inhabitants of the Ancient Near East, through human mediators and laws and rituals (and sometimes even through wars). The most enduring product of this awkward divine-human interaction is a set of diverse literature that, down to this day, shows amazing depth and wisdom and ability to inspire people from all backgrounds and walks of life. By any fair measure, the writings of Scripture are remarkable. Yet they were only a foretaste, a shadow, of the future reality. So when the Apostle Paul was describing Old Testament writings, practices and rituals, he wrote (Colossians 2:17):

These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

As the Old Testament was being complied, the descendants of Judah were engaged in an intense struggle regarding their history and purpose. Yahweh had chosen them. The Creator had made his home with them in ways that no other nation could boast. Yet the narratives that shaped their identity – the stories of the patriarchs, of Egypt, Sinai and the wanderings in the desert, the conquest of Canaan, the war and social chaos of Judges, the brief glory of David and Solomon, the turbulent period of kings, the sacking of Northern Israel , the tragic fall of Jerusalem, the exile to Babylon, the anticlimactic return to Judea – were stories of dashed hopes, failure, humiliation and pain. The Psalms provide a remarkable window that into this centuries-long process of national introspection, the wrangling and haggling of a people trying to understand who they were in relation to God

Imagine that you had a radio that allowed you to tune in to the airwaves of Judaism in the centuries before Christ. As you turn the knobs and play with the buttons, you can’t pick up any talk, but you hear plenty of music. What you hear is a mixture of new tunes (new for that time), recent hits, alternative tracks, and golden oldies. One of the first things that you notice is that, unlike our broadcasting stations, theirs don’t classify themselves as religious or secular. There are no stations devoted just to politics, or just to entertainment, or just to news and current events, or just to popular music, or just to worship music. The spheres of human activity that the modern western world likes to keep strictly separate are all mixed up and running together, and the songs that you hear seem to be addressing all of these areas at once. The songs come in a wide variety of styles and genres by artists with various points of view. They are the songs that people sing at home and in public worship, the lyrics running through their heads, the tunes that they whistle as they go about their daily work, the soundtrack that captures the nation the ethos of those times.

That’s what we find in the Psalms.

As N.T. Wright notes in his recent book on the psalms, many of these songs celebrate God’s presence among his people in his Temple at Jerusalem. He writes (chapter 4):

The Temple turns out to be an advance foretaste of YHWH’s claim on the whole of creation. We are to see the Temple as establishing, so to speak, a bridgehead for God’s own presence within a world that has very determinedly gone its own way. It is a sign that the creator God is desiring not to provide a way to escape from the world (though it may sometimes feel like that) but to recreate the world from within, to set up a place within his creation where his glory will be revealed and his powerful judgments unveiled.

Other psalms express the dismay and agony of God’s people as they saw Solomon’s Temple sacked and destroyed. We cannot overstate how deeply the destruction of Jerusalem, and the subsequent exile to Babylon, was etched on their national psyche. These events shook them to the core and made them wonder if God had removed his presence from them. Although they returned after 70 years and rebuilt the city, the Second Temple was a mere shadow of the first, and foreign oppressors made it difficult to imagine that Israel could ever return to its former glory.

Jewish theological reflection in the Second Temple period led many to believe that God was setting up a different kind of presence that would accompany them wherever they went, whatever their political situation might be. That “portable temple” was the Torah. Wright continues:

By prayerful and obedient study of the Torah, the blessings that one might have had through the “sacred space” of the Temple could be obtained anywhere at all.

By study and practice of the law, the Jewish people themselves would become the sacred dwelling place of God in the fallen world. Songs inspired by this Torah-as-Temple tradition include Psalm 1 (“But his delight is in the law of the Lord…”), Psalm 19 (“The law of the Lord is perfect…”) and, of course, Psalm 119.

Psalm 119 expresses a Jewish person’s heartfelt affection for the Torah. When the psalmist embraced the written word as his lifeline to God, I have no doubt that he was heard by God and experienced genuine encounter with his Maker. By joining the psalmist in praying Psalm 119, we can honor and celebrate the One who, though sometimes distant, has never abandoned his people, but continues to reach out to them and interact with them in all sorts of circumstances.

However, if we stand Psalm 119 against the wider backdrop of biblical history, we cannot ignore all that has happened since then. We must not forget those revolutionary events that the psalmist could never have imagined: Jesus’ birth and life, the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and Pentecost. Yahweh’s arrival and presence in this world have shifted our paradigm for interacting with God. If we continue to read Psalm 119 as though God hasn’t entered the room, he will stand awkwardly beside us, wondering why our eyes are still staring down at the written word instead of looking up into the beautiful, penetrating eyes of the incarnate Word.

Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path

Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible, has two prominent features. First, it is an acrostic poem. It has 22 stanzas corresponding to the 22 characters of the Hebrew alphabet, and each verse within a stanza begins with the appropriate character. Second, nearly every verse of this psalm contains a reference to Torah. The psalmist refers to Torah by various terms which, depending on the English translation, are rendered as God’s word(s), his law(s), precepts, commands, statutes, decrees and promises.

Among conservative evangelical Christians, Psalm 119 has two common and related interpretations. This psalm, together with other passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16 (“All Scripture is God-breathed…”), Isaiah 55:11 (“…so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire…”) and Psalm 19:7 (“The law of the Lord is perfect…”), are often used as proof-texts to establish doctrines of the Bible’s divine inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy. Second, this psalm is often used by pastors and teachers to exhort people to read, study, memorize and meditate on the Bible. The psalmist is held up as a positive role model for us to follow in our attitude and approach to Scripture. Psalm 119 is seen as a Christian love poem about the Bible.

Indeed, the psalmist’s relationship to the written word seems to be nothing short of infatuation. Consider verse 48:

I reach out I reach out for your commands, which I love, that I may meditate on your decrees.

Or verse 62:

At midnight I rise to give you thanks for your righteous laws.

Or verse 97:

Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long.

Constant study and meditation on scripture is said to yield countless benefits in the life of a believer; it leads to purity, delight, wisdom, strength in the face of opposition, comfort in suffering and trial, the sure promise of salvation, and so on.

Before I continue, please allow me to say this. It is an excellent thing for Christians to read, study and meditate on Scripture. I believe that a life immersed in Scripture, when done in a sensible and proper way, is a truly blessed life. Regular Bible reading, Bible study, Bible-focused prayer, and Bible-focused worship are invaluable spiritual disciplines that draw us into fellowship with God. My intention is writing this article is not to discourage anyone from studying the Bible, but to promote a deeper understanding of Scripture and encourage Christians to approach the Bible with greater care, thoughtfulness, and respect.

Having said that, I will now raise some objections to the traditional understanding of Psalm 119 as a declaration of unbridled love for the Bible.

I have discovered that, as Christians read this Psalm, they often perform a mental substitution. When they encounter one of the synonyms for Torah – God’s word, his laws, commands, precepts and so on – they automatically replace each of those terms with “the Bible.” And without thinking too much about it, they simply assume that the author must be talking about same book that evangelicals refer to as “God’s instruction manual for our lives.” Reading “the Bible” into the verses of Psalm 119 can be helpful up to a point. But it distorts the poem and misrepresents how it would have been understood by the original hearers, because the Bible simply did not exist at that time. The Old Testament as we know it did not exist at that time. Scholars agree that the books of the Old Testament were not arranged into a fixed, authoritative canon until the final centuries before Christ. Even the Torah (i.e., the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible) may have undergone some editing during and after the period when this Psalm was composed. The process and timing by which the books of the Old Testament were compiled, edited and fixed is not fully understood. Regardless of how it happened, we may be certain that whenever the psalmist referred to God’s word, God’s commands, God’s law, and so on, he was not talking about the Scriptures that Christians have today. Inserting “the Bible” into each verse of Psalm 119 is an anachronism. It extrapolates beyond the author’s intent. It assumes that whatever role the Torah played in the spiritual life of the psalmist, the Bible should play an equivalent role in our Christian lives today. Whether or not that assumption is correct, it deserves to be recognized and examined.

I believe that the best guide to how Christians are to understand and apply the Old Testament is in the New Testament. Jesus taught his disciples that the Old Testament is all about him (Luke 24:27). The New Testament authors describe Jesus as the fulfillment of the Torah (Matthew 5:17), as the Word made flesh (John 1:14), and the exact representation of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3). I would argue that, if Christians are going to perform a mental substitution as they read Psalm 119, it would be more appropriate to insert “Jesus” rather than “the Bible” into every verse.

Another reason why I resist inserting “the Bible” into every verse of Psalm 119 is that it may promote unhealthy and unbalanced approaches to Christian discipleship. The greatest positive contribution of evangelical Protestantism to the larger Body of Christ has been its high regard for Scripture and its emphasis on Bible study and Bible teaching in community and individual life. But the movement’s strength can also be a weakness. If study of Scripture is emphasized to a degree where other spiritual disciplines and crucial aspects of the Christian life are neglected, believers can get stuck in an overly intellectualized, impersonal, principle-driven and non-experiential faith that substitutes abstract learning for personal transformation. The evangelical passion for Scripture can morph into a kind of Bible-worship that has been called biblicism, Bible-only-ism and bibliolotry.

Disciples of Christ are supposed to model their lives after Jesus, not after the Pharisees, scribes or teachers of the law. Jesus certainly knew the Scriptures. The Old Testament figured prominently in his childhood education, worship, prayer and teaching. But the gospels do not show Jesus or his disciples devoting endless hours to private or classroom-style exposition of the Bible. Jesus modeled a healthy Christian life that kept the necessary spheres of work, study, rest, worship, compassion for the poor and needy, contemplation, recreation, etc. in a healthy balance.

When we approach Psalm 119 – or any other chapter of Scripture – I think it is best to view the passage in light of the great themes of the Bible, in light of the whole sweep of God’s history from and the continuous experience of God’s people from Genesis to Revelation. When viewed in that way, Psalm 119 is much, much more than a love poem about the Bible and an exhortation to study Scripture. I will attempt to explain this in my next installment.

Don’t spend too much effort interacting with culture or worrying about former members or thinking of ways to change the Sunday worship service or spending time with your family. I was taught that I could actually do these worldly things from time to time, but I had to make sure I always got back to reading the bible to get my mind and heart “cleaned up”. Go to your bible study appointments. Read the bible day and night. Read your bible as you work and eat. Memorize bible verses. Recite your memorization in front of various groups.

“Back to the bible” was ingrained in my mind through being reminded of several bible verses, especially: Deuteronomy 11:18 “Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.” Psalm 19:10 “They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the honeycomb.” Deuteronomy 8:3 “He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.”

I was taught to read the bible every day, to choose a key verse for my life, for each year and for my marriage, my children, my jobs, and every facet of my life. I was taught to assign a bible verse to every endeavour of life. I often memorized the key verses of the ubf daily bread booklet, in case someone asked me if I did daily bread that day.

The good, bad and ugly

Good (keep it)

– I learned many things about the bible characters and stories from verse by verse exposition. This was the normal, methodical method of reading the bible in ubf.

– I overcame a fear of reading bible in public.

– I began thinking seriously about doing what the bible says to do, and attemtped to live according to the bible.

– I learned to wrestle with God, spending much time thinking about how to apply bible verses in my life events.

Bad (change it)

– I was expected to only use the NIV translation of the bible.  This reveals that my study was shallow. Any serious bible student will use multiple versions, and spend time learning some Greek and Hebrew.

– I was taught to use the inductive approach only. This is where you observe facts of a passage in the bible, and then draw conclusions from those facts. However, most of the time I was told what the conclusion was supposed to be. Any serious bible student will use a combination of both inductive and deductive approaches. If you draw a conclusion from some verses, for example, that conclusion should be checked deductively with many other passages to see if it holds true.

– The emphasis of going back to the bible is on going to the Old Testament books. It means going back to the Moses or Joshua style of leadership. Any serious bible student however will study both the Old and the New, and Christians will emphasize the New Testament normally.

Ugly (stop it)

– Going back to the bible was a daily exercise in ubf. So much so that we neglected our children and family to attend bible study. This thinking taught me to choose bible study over children.

– Back to the bible thinking also means “back to UBF question sheets and lectures only.” Rarely if ever did we make connections with the mainline churches. I was taught that my “pure” inductive method with just the bible and ubf material was superior to any commentary or other church pastor’s opinion.

– Back to the bible means putting yourself back into the bible story. I was taught to put myself into the bible story and imitate the bible characters. I began to live in a fantasy world, thinking I was Joshua or Abraham or whichever character we studied.

– I spent much time reading the bible, but I was taught to treat my shepherds’ authority as greater than the bible’s authority. If there was a conflict between the bible and my shepherd or director, I was to listen to my shepherd.

– I began over-prescribing the bible for every life problem and situation. The bible became like a drug, soothing away all problems in life.

Result after 24 years

After more than two decades of living with “back to the bible” thinking, I find that I have lots of knowledge about the bible texts. However, I have little understanding of the meaning of the bible texts. I have little knowledge of 2,000 years of Christian history. I am just now discovering the Christian “greats” such as Charles Spurgeon. Just after leaving I found that I was a shallow, empty, heartless man.

What will happen if the bad is changed and the ugly is stopped?

If ubf people remove the bad and the ugly, they might feel as if their pure bible study is being infected. But I think it will be your emptiness being filled, your shallowness becoming deeper and your superficial relationships becoming more real. Removing the bad and ugly parts of “back to the bible” could be the first step on the road of healing and reconciliation.

I was taught this passage from the NIV, which reads:

The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

²“I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
³ I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you. (emphasis mine)

In the Bible study, I was encouraged to respond to God’s call like Abraham did, to leave my connections to my pre-UBF life and go to “…the place [God] will show [me],” which meant UBF ministry and campus mission. If I obeyed, I was told “…all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” When I married, Dr. John Jun delivered our wedding address from Genesis 12:3, exhorting us to be a family of blessing who not merely enjoys God’s blessing but becomes a blessing to others. I was encouraged, “Become a source of blessing to other people like Abraham.” Of course, the best method of being a blessing—we were taught—is to go to the university campus and invite students to 1:1 Bible study, shepherding as many of them as possible so that they too may “become a blessing” by doing the same. The best method of being a blessing certainly did NOT involve much consideration for my own family.

But how correct is our interpretation of Gen 12:3? Did the Bible translation affect the way this verse was interpreted? Consider the way the NASB translates verse 3:

And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” (emphasis mine)

Notice that the word translated “people” in the NIV is translated “families” in the NASB. It is also translated “families” in the ESV, NLT, NRSV, and KJV. In fact, among the popular English translations, only the NIV uses the generic word “people” instead the more-specific word “families”. The Hebrew word is mishpachah. It occurs 301 times in the Old Testament, 177 times indicating family or families, 100 times indicating clan, and only 4 times indicating an unspecific group of people. While I don’t pretend to be an expert on Biblical Hebrew or exegesis, isn’t it interesting that the NIV, which is the main-stay English translation of UBF in North America, does not use the word families? Is it merely a coincidence that this arguably most-popular text in UBF avoids the word “family,” preferring to use “people”? Considering the accounts of Chris, big bear, myself, and others of how families in UBF have sometimes been neglected, abused, and disregarded, it begs the questions:

• Does our choice of Bible translation affect the way we interpret certain passages?
• Could the choice of Bible translation contribute to the pressure felt by many present and former UBFers to “…sacrifice family on the altar of UBF campus mission”?

Why skip John 17?

I should first explain the impetus for today’s article. Anyone can see the publicly available ubf ISBC program. If you take a look, you will see that the Upper Room discourse passages are all covered, plus a few extra passages. Or are they? John 13, 14, 15 and 16 are there. John 18, 19 and 20 are there. But where is John 17? Perhaps this “high priestly prayer” passage will be mentioned as a side note.

So the ISBC planners skipped John 17. Just an oversight? No, I found out that the planners specifically and intentionally left John 17 out because it “does not talk about mission enough”. Hence my biggest concern for the ISBC.

So here are my thoughts on why John 17 is not only about the mission of Jesus, John 17 is our essential text of the bible to understand and carry out a healthy disciple-making and gospel-proclaiming Christian ministry that honors Jesus.

Why is John 17 is central to Christian mission?

1. Christian mission is for Jesus’ glory. One of the explicit gospel definitions in the bible is in 2 Corinthians 4:4. Christian mission is first and foremost about glory of Jesus. John 17:1 begins with Jesus’ glory: “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you…”

2. Christian mission is under Jesus’ kingdom authority. Another explicit definition of the gospel Jesus proclaimed is the gospel of the kingdom, Matthew 24:14. Jesus continues in John 17:2 “…since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.” All authority belongs to Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The gospel is about the Lordship of Jesus.

3. Christian mission is done by believers who belong to God. Throughout Jesus’ prayer in John 17, Jesus  repeats the theme that believers belong to God, and God the Father gave them to Jesus. This teaching reminds us that people who come to church do not belong to the church or to the pastor: people belong to God.

4. Christian mission is founded on the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the high priestly prayer in John 17, Jesus tied his own mission “being sent” with the mission he would give to his followers (John 17:16-19). So in order to understand our Christian mission, we must begin to understand the deep Trinity relationship, especially the Father and Son relationship. John Armstrong makes this point well in his Unity Factor book: “We must understand that the unity of the church is not an end in itself. Unity is a sign and an instrument of the first fruits of God’s purpose to reconcile all things in heaven and on earth through Jesus Christ.”

This list is not comprehensive. There are many more reasons why John 17 is central to the mission Christ gave his followers.

What do you think? Is John 17 related and/or central to Christian mission? Why or why not? What does your favorite brilliant theologian say about John 17 and the Upper Room Discourse?

That saying, “Go back to the Bible,” features the word back. But this juncture, we have no choice but to move forward. No matter how much we pine for familiar comforts, we press on to a future that is strange and uncertain.

In this climate of postmodernity, we hear questions that  a generation ago were unimaginable. In my undergraduate days, people were asking, “How can I know that Christianity is true?” The words know and true needed no explanation. But today, many are asking profound, unsettling questions about the foundations of truth and knowledge. If we cling to old ways of speaking about the Bible without understanding the ethos of the times, we risk alienating an entire generation, rendering ourselves and our message irrelevant.

Is going back to the Bible an appropriate direction for today? That depends on the context.

Imagine you are speaking to Christians who have little or no engagement with the Scriptures. Telling them to go back to the Bible might be the best advice that you could give, and if that advice were taken, it could lead to genuine renewal.

On the other hand, suppose you meet someone who spends so much time in “spiritual” (translation: church-related) activities that he becomes detached from reality, ignoring his wife and children and the emotional, relational or financial problems that may be ruining his life. Telling him to go back to the Bible might be the worst advice imaginable. It would only encourage him to retreat deeper into an abstract religious fantasyland where the people in his life are summarily dismissed and the conflicts in his life are spiritualized** away.

[**Spiritualize: the practice of minimizing, dismissing or avoiding problems based on the misguided idea that this is what Christians are supposed to do.]

Or suppose you find a community that invests a great deal of time in Bible study. And suppose the community has cultural, generational and ideological conflicts that threaten the community’s health and existence, but leaders don’t want to talk about those problems, because they find those conversations too awkward and uncomfortable. I imagine that if Jesus were standing before them, he wouldn’t be telling them to go back to the Bible. Rather, he would tell them to put the Bible down for a while and start to act on its teachings, especially the teachings about relationships and conflict. Problems in a community cannot be solved merely through personal Bible study; they need to be faced by the community.

A few years ago, I asked a ministry leader, “Is it possible to study the Bible too much?” The leader immediately responded, “No, I don’t think so.” Yet I have seen people study the Bible too much. I’ve watched them retreat to their comfort zones when, in my estimation, they really ought to be doing something else.

Bible study is important. Hearing God’s word is essential. But more of a good thing is not always a good thing. Sooner or later you cross a threshold where studying becomes a cheap substitute for doing. James 1:22 says, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” If we are not careful, long hours of Bible study can become self-deception. It becomes what author Peter Scazzero has called, “Using God to run from God” (Emotionally Healthy Spirituality, Chapter 2).

I’ve spent a great deal of time studying the Bible over the last thirty years, and sometimes it’s been wonderful. The experience of sitting down to read and discuss the Bible with believers whom you love and respect can be exhilarating. But Bible study can also be boring. It can be depressing or even infuriating.

The outcome of Bible study depends on our attitudes toward Scripture. And it depends on the happenings of our lives and the drama of our interpersonal relationships. I have found that it’s very difficult – actually, it’s impossible – for Bible study to be effective among people who are in serious conflict. If participants do not openly acknowledge the conflicts and start to work them out beforehand, buried problems and suppressed emotions start to come out in inappropriate ways. Leaders start to use Scripture as a tool to suppress opposition. Pastors use the pulpit to stifle dissent and advance their agenda. I have watched people do this (including myself), and it gets very ugly.

Another set of problems arises when the entire community aspires to be Bible teachers. At times, we have placed such heavy emphasis on teaching that we spoke of spiritual leadership and Bible teaching as if they were identical. Not long ago, someone in our ministry noticed that, in Ephesians 4:11, the apostle Paul mentions five different kinds of leaders (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers). This young man asked his elders, “What is an apostle?” He was told, “An apostle is basically a Bible teacher.” Then he asked, “What is a prophet?” He was told, “A prophet is basically a Bible teacher.” Then he asked, “What is an evangelist?” Again he was told, “An evangelist is basically a Bible teacher.” Every type of leader was portrayed as a Bible teacher, despite the fact that Paul’s intention in that passage was to distinguish the offices and highlight the diversity of gifts.

We have at times artificially inserted this emphasis on Bible teaching into the Old and New Testaments. Some have claimed that Jesus, in his three-year ministry, spent the vast majority of his time teaching the Scriptures. And that Jesus’ top priority for his disciples was to train them to carry on his work of teaching the Scriptures. But in fact, very little of Jesus’ ministry was devoted to expository preaching from the Old Testament. Jesus engaged in fresh storytelling through parables and all kinds of imaginative discourse.

Throughout the four gospels, the followers of Jesus are referred to by the Greek word mathetes which we translate as “disciple.” A disciple is not primarily a student of books or writings but a follower of a living person. The distinction is important. Writers of the gospels do mention some who could be regarded as the Bible teachers of their day. They are called scribes, teachers of the law, and experts in the law, and the manner in which they are portrayed is usually negative. Despite all the time and energy they had spent on Scripture and all of the knowledge they had accumulated about God, they failed to recognize the Son of God when he walked among them. Jesus delivered to them a devastating critique in John 5:39-40: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

Is it possible to immerse oneself in the word of God while becoming disconnected from God? Not only is it possible, it is exceedingly common.

In a thought-provoking book titled What We Believe and Why, author George Byron Koch explains it this way (Chapter 22). Before us stand two doors. The first door is labeled, “The Way to God”; the second door is marked, “Lectures About God.” Going through the first is extremely frightening, so most of the time we opt for the second. In our study and in our worship, we talk about God, expounding on his attributes and discussing principles and doctrines. We speak of him in the third person as if he were not there. Rarely if ever do we address him directly. Encounter with God is buried under layer upon layer of abstract teachings. Over time, we cling to our ideas and imagine that they are the real thing, that in possessing them we have God himself, to the extent that we begin to worship our ideas. Without realizing it, our Christian faith mixes with religious idolatry which becomes extremely difficult to detect and root out. Our ideas, principles and doctrines may be good and correct. But by focusing on them rather than God himself, we become detached from him and from one another. And we begin to identify ourselves not by our common love for Christ, but by the unique teachings and practices that distinguish us from other groups.

When Samuel Lee advised people to go back to the Bible, I’m not entirely sure what he meant. But I have heard this motto used to reinforce practices which are thought to come directly from the Bible but are, in fact, just expressions of our local tradition. The misconception that we are purists who simply follow the Bible alone is common in the evangelical world. The New Testament scholar N.T. Wright wrote eloquently about this:

Most heirs of the Reformation, not least evangelicals, take if for granted that we are to give scripture the primary place and that everything else has to be lined up in relation to scripture. There is, indeed, an evangelical assumption, common in some circles, that evangelicals do not have any tradition. We simply open the scripture, read what it says, and take it as applying to ourselves: there the matter ends, and we do not have any ‘tradition’… But I still find two things to be the case, both of which give me some cause for concern. First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort. This is simply naïve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology. If we are not careful, the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can, by such routes, come to mean simply ‘the authority of evangelical tradition…’

[Quotation from “How Can the Bible be Authoritative?” by N.T. Wright]

To go back to the Bible in the best sense could mean to put aside our notions, biases and traditions and approach Scripture as if for the first time to learn something new. Over the last three decades, I have frequently heard our leaders encouraging people to do this. I believe that we want to do this. But we overestimate our ability to put biases aside. Everyone who reads Scripture does so through lenses tinted by prior beliefs, experiences, traditions and commitments. It’s hard to take our lenses off because, most of the time, we are not even aware that we are wearing them. Despite our best intentions to read the Bible in a fresh way, our assumptions and habits are so deeply entrenched in our character that we can’t identify them anymore. At that point, it becomes impossible to get something out of Bible study that we haven’t gotten in the past. As the saying goes, if you keep doing what you’ve always been doing, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got.

Let me say that again. If you keep doing what you’ve always been doing, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got.

Which leads to a paradoxical truth. In order to really get back to the Bible, we sometimes need to get away from the Bible.

When I came into this church three decades ago, I was taught a particular style of Bible study, a style that, perhaps with a few minor changes here and there, is still practiced by most UBF chapters throughout the world. For the first ten years, that style of Bible study helped me to grow. After twenty years, I was no longer learning from it. And after 25 years, it was actually making me worse. Not everyone has experienced the same problems that I have in the same manner or degree. But I have been around long enough to see that there are indeed some common elements to the ways that we do things. There are good habits and bad habits that have spread throughout the community. And some of the bad habits that I picked up were hindering my spiritual growth. Whatever bad habits I acquired, it is ultimately my fault that I acquired them. But I did pick them up in our community, and I spread them to others, and the community reinforced (or at least did not discourage) them.

My Bible study had become self-focused and moralistic. I approached every passage with the intent of finding and extracting the right principles and then applying them to my life. The point of every Bible study became, “What am I supposed to do?” In every passage, I tried to locate the tasks God was directing me to do, the sins I was supposed to repent of, the bad habits I was supposed to avoid, the promises I was supposed to claim and believe, and so on.

Over time, this reduced my Christian life to a to-do list. That list became so long that I could never, ever fulfill it. I constantly felt like a failure, because I was never living up to the standards and expectations that I had set for myself and that our culture had set for me. So I did what I had been implicitly taught to do, what others had taught me to do: Keep choong-shim. Maintain soldier spirit. Keep up appearances as an exemplary servant of God at all costs. I hid my weaknesses in order to save face, so that I wouldn’t become a “bad influence” on others.

As I treated the Bible so mechanically and hid my weaknesses so effectively, my soul withered; prayer became ineffective and my personal relationship with God almost nonexistent. But as long as I continued to say things in my Bible studies, testimonies and messages that sounded good, people continued to praise me, and no one seemed to notice that I was adrift. We had put so much emphasis on mission and so little on friendship, relational honesty and intimacy that no one could tell that I had any serious problems. No one, that is, except my wife, who saw what was going on and was greatly concerned.

For me, the keys to coming out from this difficulty were: (a) opening myself up to Christian influences in the greater body of Christ by reading articles and books and by making friends with committed Christians outside of UBF; (b) becoming honest and revealing my weaknesses, allowing myself to express doubts and ask tough questions about the Bible — the kinds of questions that raise eyebrows and make people uncomfortable in traditional group Bible studies, because they are considered too volatile, controversial or off-topic; (c) taking time off from my habitual Bible study to read, think, contemplate and pray, and just to be with God, and to be with God’s people; (d) to stop beating myself up over the fact that I never pray enough, never study the Bible enough, never work hard enough, and am always falling short of standards and expectations; and (e) to take seriously what the Bible says about the person and work of the Holy Spirit, opening myself up to living by the Spirit’s power rather than by self effort.

And thus it was by getting away from the Bible – more precisely, by getting away from the only kind of Bible study that I knew – and taking time to read, meditate, pray, and interact with people in other settings, that my Bible study was greatly refreshed. Although I spent less time in the Bible than I had done before, I got more out of Scripture than ever before. I began to own my faith. I began to write and speak with genuine conviction. I became an honest student of the Bible rather than a role-player and imitator of someone else.

Getting away from the Bible in that way wasn’t easy. Rumors began circulating (and still circulate to this day) that I had gone off the rails, given up my mission, and denied God’s grace upon my life. The biggest obstacle was my own fear that, if I stopped doing Bible study and testimony writing in the usual way, that God would become very disappointed in me and I would lose his love and blessing. But those fears were unfounded. I discovered the basic truth that God does not love me any more or less based on anything I do. And, quite ironically, when I stopped trying to live up to the challenge of Psalm 1 to meditate on God’s word “day and night,” I suddenly found that without trying I was, in fact, ruminating on Scripture and spiritual issues a great deal of the time. By apparently doing less, I learned to depend on God’s grace and experienced his love and blessing all the more.

Last year during a blogging discussion with various people, I had someone tell me: “The bible says it, and so I believe it. End of story.” Such an attitude left the person in an odd situation. Her own words contradicted her beliefs because she failed to reason through the topic at hand. As I continue through my paradigm-shifting transformation, this notion of the “bible alone” has struck a deep chord with me.

Is the bible sufficient for every facet of life? What role do traditions, organizations and other inspirations play in the life of a Christian? Who is it who guides us into all truth?

While I firmly believe we Christians do need to check our doctrines against the bible, I’ve found that how we do that checking is of utmost importance. And furthermore, I’ve found a vast treasure of insight among resources outside the bible.

In this short article I present three talking points to encourage a discussion about the bible-alone mentality. The bible is indeed my checkpoint. But I will no longer elevate the bible to be the fourth member of the Trinity, as I did in the past!

A. Is the bible God’s material word for every situation?

Some people claim the bible is God’s material word, the always pertinent and necessary wisdom, for all situations. The thought is that the bible has God’s final answers on all matters of life. And when God is silent on a matter, we should be too. Let’s examine this thinking in light of the life issue of slavery in America and Britain and the related abolitionist movements around 1800.

Naturally, a Christian in 1800 would want to know what the bible has to say about slavery. If we think that the bible is God’s pertinent and necessary word for every life matter, we find a rather strong case for keeping the slavery system going. Consider the following.

Exodus 21:1-3 allows buying servants:

1 “These are the laws you are to set before them:  2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.  3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

Exodus 21:20-21 says that slaves are property and can be beaten:

20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,  21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Ephesians 6:5-6 continues to promote slavery:

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.  6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

There are many more verses, but you get the point. If you think that abolishing slavery is a simple matter, consider how some great men of faith viewed the issue.

“Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2). Now ‘slavery belongs to the right of nations,’ as Isidore states (Etym. v, 4). Therefore the right of nations is a natural right.”  Source: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “On Justice”

“Masters contribute greater benefits to their servants than servants to their masters. For the former furnish the money to purchase for them sufficient food and clothing, and bestow much care upon them in other respects, so that the masters pay them the larger service … they suffer much toil and trouble for your repose, ought they not in return to receive much honor from you, their servants?”  Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homily 16 on 1 Timothy,” quoted in Philip Schaff, Saint Chrysostom and Saint Augustin (New York: Whittaker Press,1889), p. 465.

 

Slavery was also viewed as a natural law or way of humanity by several councils.

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.  The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.”  Source: Instruction 20, The Holy Office (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), June 20, 1866.

“Indeed, the deeds of superiors are not to be smitten with the sword of the mouth, even when they are rightly thought to be deserving of reproof. And if sometimes the tongue in criticism of them slips in the least degree, the heart must be overwhelmed with penitential grief. It should reflect upon itself, and when it has offended the power set over it, it should dread the judgment passed against it by Him who appointed superiors. For when we offend those set over us, we oppose the ordinance of Him who set them above us.”  Source: Pope Gregory I, ca. 540-604 C.E., quoted in Henry Davis, Pastoral Care; Ancient Christian Writers Series, no.11, (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1950), p. 100.

Questions for discussion:

1. How could we avoid the pitfalls of those who have gone before us?
2. Should we Christians re-enable the owning of slaves?

B. How will the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth?

Here is another example. Let’s say you are reading the bible in your morning devotions one day. You come across Psalm 33:1-4

1 Sing joyfully to the LORD, you righteous; it is fitting for the upright to praise him.  2 Praise the LORD with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.  3 Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy.  4 For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does.

Verse 2 contains a command, a specific command, two commands even. “Praise the Lord with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.” If this word of God is right and true, how do you respond?

Are we to be laden with guilt because we’ve never even seen a 10-stringed lyre? What is lyre anyway? And when do we play? Every morning? Each night? God’s command is pretty specific here. We must use a 10-stringed lyre, not 6 strings, not 3 strings but 10 strings.

Before you cast off this example as irrelevant, consider how many arguments have arisen over the style of worship music over the years.

Questions for discussion:

1. What role does the Holy Spirit have as our guide into all truth?
2. How do we obey the commands we discover in the bible?

C. Will we stand before God with flawed doctrine?

And now for my favorite example: fig newtons. Let’s say you want to please God in all things, which includes your new diet plan. You absolutely love fig newtons. You want to include them on your new diet plan because of the health benefits of figs, and you also want to add several recipes involving figs to your menu.

But there is a problem. Your friend happened to jokingly mention that Jesus cursed the fig tree. You laughed it off, but secretly at home you scour the internet and your bible to find out if God will be upset if you eat figs. Shockingly, you find the following.

Mark 11:14 says that Jesus did indeed curse the fig tree.

“14 Then he said to the tree, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard him say it.”

Matthew 21:18-20 makes it clear Jesus hates figs.

“18 Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it,“May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. 20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.”

To your horror, you then discover that the Old Testament condemns fig trees as well! Not just one tree, but all of them. The trajectory of Scripture is against figs.

Jeremiah 29:17 says figs are to be used as an example of judgment.

“17 yes, this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will send the sword, famine and plague against them and I will make them like poor figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten.'”

Hosea 2:12 says that God will destroy fig trees because of impurity.

“12 I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,
which she said were her pay from her lovers;
I will make them a thicket,
and wild animals will devour them.”

Here’s something to consider: You and I will both stand before God on Judgment Day with flawed doctrines (my doctrine will be more flawed than yours, but hey those are the breaks I guess :)

Questions for discussion:

1. What, if anything, is wrong with my fig tree teachings?
2. If we will all end up with flawed doctrines, how might we live now?

• Belief and Behavior.
• Creed and Conduct.
• Doctrine and Duty.

Necessarily, the first always precedes the second, or the second always follows the first. Through Bible study, our behavior follows our belief, our conduct follows our creed, and our duty follows our doctrine, and not the other way around.

Freedom and rest. Tit 3:8 says, “…those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good.” When we trust God, we do what is good. When we truly believe, we behave. Those who know the grace of God are eager to do what is good (Tit 2:11,14). The Christian life is not one where we have to squeeze goodness out of reluctant people. Rather, it is a life that is joyfully lived out when the gospel is preached and taught. It is truly a life of freedom (2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1) and rest for our souls (Mt 11:29).

Bible study should proclaim, teach and emphasize the first BCD, because the second BCD follows the first.

What about me? My confession is that for over 2 decades of teaching the Bible as a Christian, I primarily emphasized the second BCD. My Bible teaching is laden with imperatives and commands: deny yourself (Mt 16:24), take up your cross (Mk 8:34), feed sheep (Jn 21:15-17), make disciples (Mt 28:19), meditate on God’s word day and night (Ps 1:2), be joyful (1 Th 5:16), pray continually (1 Th 5:17), always give thanks (1 Th 5:18), etc. If I felt the Bible student was not adequately responding in a timely fashion, I would throw in severe threats for good measure. (If you don’t repent, God will give you AIDS … or the Ebola virus!)

Did I do something wrong? “No” and “Yes.” “No,” because I did teach what the Bible said. But “yes” because I stressed the second BCD of behavior, conduct and duty, rather than the 1st BCD of belief, creed and doctrine. I did not deny the first BCD. However, I stressed the Christian life rather than Christ. I stressed being good rather than the gospel. I stressed doing rather than done. I stressed, “Finish your job,” rather than “It is finished” (Jn 19:30).

Is that a problem? I think it is because when behavior, conduct and duty is emphasized in Bible teaching and preaching, our outward Christian life can seem to be right, while our heart may drift (Mt 15:8; Isa 29:13). But God looks at the heart, not the nice outward Christian appearance (1 Sam 16:7).

Weary and tired. Also, when Christian duty is stressed, we soon become weary and tired. When behavior and conduct is emphasized, the Christian life is driven by a sense of duty and burden, rather than the unending wonder of who Jesus is.

Is the BCD of Bible teaching and preaching relevant and practical?

But I have to admit that something in my heart went against it. It was my past experience. I distinctly remember making the decision several times to be like Daniel and to pray three times a day. But I can probably count on one hand the number of times I actually managed to do so. Failure upon embarrassing failure. Couple years ago, I would have preached to myself: “overcome your past experience and obey.” But I cannot anymore.

Andrew Murray, in one of his books on prayer, points out that prayerlessness is a sin just as stealing or lust is a sin. After all, a person who doesn’t pray is practically expressing his unbelief and distrust in a loving and caring God. And as we cannot simply break with sin, especially habitual sins, we cannot easily break with the sin of prayerlessness. It takes God’s power to change.

What I therefore realized is that change is not just about doing the right thing (i.e. praying three times a day). Rather, I first have to become the person who does the right thing: a person who loves to pray, who loves to spend time with his heavenly father and who has the necessary grace-driven discipline to seek God’s face in times when the desire to do so reaches a low. And this makes a huge difference.

Here is why I personally would refrain from applications such as “Be like Daniel and pray three times!” If this is done mechanically and done for the wrong motives, we have become merely religious people, not Christ-centered people. In addition, if we are able to bring up the discipline to obey (which is a crushingly hard thing to do) and consequently become the people who are able to pray three times by our own effort, we have an identity problem: we are back to defining who we are by what we accomplish and are thus no different from how the world defines people.

As Tim Keller pointed out, the gospel narrative tells us that we stop defining ourselves by what we do. Rather our identity stems from what Christ has done for us. Defining ourselves by our accomplishments leads to self-righteousness and pride if we are successful in achieving our aims by our own efforts. Or we’ll end up with inferiority complexes and deep frustrations if we fail. We either beat up others or we beat up ourselves or we go back and forth. (I thank Tim Keller for the words). Conversely, the gospel narrative is the only way that can make us truly humble because every good thing happening in and through us is by God’s grace. And it can make us truly bold because God’s grace elevates us and gives us a status of worth, which truly is beyond this world: to be called God’s children.

The story of Daniel is that he prayed, that he was put into the lion’s den and miraculously saved by an angel of God. He escaped the lions unharmed. But Daniel’s story points to a much greater and even more marvelous story. Years later, there was another man greatly beloved who prayed three times, with tears, sweating and blood. Like Daniel, he was thrown into a lion’s den as Psalm 22 says: “Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me.” But this time, there was no angel to save. On the cross, Jesus was literally overpowered and his bones were crushed. This, in fact, is how Jesus bore my sin of disinterest in God, my vain confidence in myself, and my lack of spirituality and discipline, all expressed in prayerlessness.

I am back to the question of how I can become the person who loves to pray and who is unceasing in prayer. Only when I look at the Lamb of God and when I realize that the person whose prayer life was faultless went into the lion’s den to pay for my failures. He is the Lord who has always loved me now lives in me through his Holy Spirit. This is the starting point for my sanctification process towards a life of unceasing communion with God.

May God help me.

The consequences of sin remain, even after God forgives our sin. David did not want his adultery with Bathsheba known. He committed the “greater” sin of murder in order to cover up his “lesser” sin of adultery. His sin found him out. God forgave David’s sin (2 Sam 12:13). We Christians will meet him in heaven. But the consequences of David’s sin were devastating. David’s oldest son Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:14). To ask a few “silly” questions to make a point:

• How would a father feel about his daughter being raped?
• About his oldest son raping someone?
• About his own son raping his own daughter?

That’s not all. David’s most handsome son Absalom killed Amnon for raping his sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:28-29).

• How does a father feel about his oldest son being murdered?
• About another son being a murderer?
• About one son killing another son?

Next, Abasalom slept in public with all of his father’s concubines (2 Sam 16:22), and attempted to kill his own father (2 Sam 17:2-4), and take over his kingdom. The end result was that Absalom was killed, breaking David’s heart to pieces (2 Sam 18:33). God does not mince words when the Bible says, “you can be SURE that your sin will find you out.”

Supposing no one finds out my sin… Yet, many are able to “hide their sins” so that no one really knows what they did. Do they escape their sin being found out? Suppose I am addicted to watching pornography. But I know how to make sure that I am “never discovered,” not even by my wife or by anyone else. Say I go to my grave being addicted to pornography, but no one on earth knows that. Do I then escape my sin being found out, since no one knows what I did?

Sin WILL still find you out. It is obvious that pornography will distort my view of my wife, women in general, and even my own daughter. We hear of incest committed by a father toward his own daughter. We are repulsed. These daughters are scarred and wounded for life. But there is another “strange” consequence. When a father’s daughter grows up from a cute little girl and becomes an attractive woman, the daughter begins to look like the pornographic images that the father watches. As a result, he “withdraws” from his own daughter, because he cannot control his sexual urges and feelings toward his own daughter. Because the daughter needs her father’s love, she is also scarred and wounded by her father’s withdrawal from her. She then begins to seek “a father’s love” from boys and very often becomes promiscuous. Even if no one else knows, my sin WILL find me out.

Is there no hope since we all sin? Yes, sin WILL find us out. But the marvelous majestic mystery of the gospel is that my sin found itself on my Lord Jesus Christ. All my vile sins that have to expose me for the dirt bag that I truly am, found itself on the person of the purest man, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If my sin did not find itself on Christ, it would land entirely and squarely on me. This is the mystery of the gospel. Only the gospel can transform me from the jerk and creep that I am to be a pure, holy and blameless precious child of God.

Yes, your sin WILL find you out. Did your sin find itself on Christ?

The world cannot touch Paul. Of course, it is because Jesus is all the world to him (Phil 3:7-11). Therefore, the world has no handle on him whatsoever. There is nothing in the world that can bind him or hold him. Imprisonment has no hold on him. The envy and rivalry of Christians does not bother him (Phil 1:15,17-18). Suffering, persecution and opposition cannot touch him (Phil 1:28-30). Dying is not dreadful, but truly beneficial (Phil 1:21). Like his Lord Jesus, he has overcome this world in every possible way (Jn 16:33).

Curved inward on oneself. In contrast to Paul and Jesus, it so easy for me to be irritated at the most mundane of matters. If I am watching TV with my wife at night and she starts to fall asleep, I do not think of how hard she has worked all day, but how disinterested she is whenever we are together! (Sob, sob.) For sure, I am a sinner who is incorrigibly incurvatus in se, which means “curved inward on oneself.” And this sentiment is toward the person whom I love the most in this world, next to my Lord. What about toward others who are annoying!

Happy, healthy, humble. I realized what Paul’s healthy, happy, humble attitude toward himself was. Because of the grace of Jesus, Paul’s passion was to become like Jesus in his death (Phil 3:10). He was not trying to attain some level of success in the world, or even in the church. Seeing the beauty and the majesty of Christ, he knew and felt that he was the worst person alive (1 Tim 1:15). Whomever he met, he considered and felt that they were all better than he (Phil 2:3). If he did think of himself, he did so with sober judgment (Rom 12:3). His genuine view of himself seemed too humiliating or degrading. But he was fully aware that though he was still a very sinful man, yet Christ loved him and gave himself entirely to him (Gal 2:20). Though Paul’s life was wasting away, he was being renewed day by day with a glory that is out of this world (2 Cor 4:16-17). This ongoing never ending tension of his utter sinfulness and of Christ’s incomprehensible love enabled Paul to be a truly happy, healthy, humble man.

How can we truly be happy, healthy, and humble like the Apostle Paul?

What is sanctification? You can read in depth how Louis Berkhof (1873 – 1957), a renowned 20th century theologian, explains Sanctification. Briefly, Berkhof stresses the fact that God, and not man, is the author of sanctification and that the spiritual development of man is not a human achievement, but a work of divine grace. Thus, and I like his sentence: “Man deserves no credit whatsoever for that which he contributes to it instrumentally.” Berkhof states that this is so important because studying the Bible anthropologically (man-centeredly) and activism are such characteristic features of American Christianity that they glorify the work of man rather than the grace of God.

Probably, this is true not just of American Christianity but of Christianity through out the world, because the default mode of every man’s sin is incurvatus in se, which means to be “curved inward on oneself.” So it it “normal” to study the Bible self-centeredly, rather than God-centeredly or Christ-centeredly. It is also “natural” to think and feel and function as though my sanctification is up to me, even if I say that it is up to Christ.

How does the Apostle Paul view sanctification? For sure, Paul acknowledges that his sanctification is all because of Jesus and not him (Php 2:12-13; 1 Cor 15:10). Paul also views his sanctification as “I am not there yet.” Where does he say this? Paul said, “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal…” (Php 3:12a). Again, he said, “I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it” (Php 3:13a). Paul’s single goal and desire is to be like Christ. But Paul basically said, “I’m not there yet.”

When Paul said this, he was likely addressing a false teaching called “perfectionism,” which suggests that a Christian can become perfect (or close to it) in this lifetime. Perfectionism is not an uncommon sentiment among Christians today. There is an account of an older minister who preached in church that he had achieved a state of perfection as a Christian. A man asked him after the sermon, “Does your wife agree that you have achieved this state of perfection.” He answered, “She does not believe in that doctrine yet!”

Such a teaching began with John Wesley who explained from studying Php 2:12 and Php 2:15 that Christians should strive for perfection (true) and concluded that some Christians could reach some degree of perfection in this life (not true). Wesley’s motivation for saying this was good: He wanted to combat the dead formalism of the church in his day. He wanted to see real, vibrant holiness among Christians. But to say that perfection is possible or attainable for a Christian in this lifetime is not supported by the Bible.

I have also sensed an implicit idea that Christians may regard themselves as more holy, more godly, more spiritual, and more mature the older they get. It is likely true that Christians, quantitatively speaking, “sin less” as they get older. But are older Christian really less sinful? I painfully acknowledge that a major reason that I seemingly “sin less” today is because I had a lot more strength to sin more when I was younger!

Such an idea that older Christians are holier, more godly, and more spiritually mature was not what Paul communicated. Such an idea promotes subtle (or blatent) elitism and a self-righteousness, which is not healthy for any church or Christian community. Paul was not an elitist. He never viewed himself as above the rest, or above his flock. He testified freely that he is the worst of sinners not as a young Christian, but as a mature, seasoned, Christian (1 Tim 1:15). He regarded all his fellow Christians as co-servants (Php 1:1), partners (Php 1:5) and brothers (Col 1:1), and not as his subordinates or “foot soldiers.” How could Paul be so genuinely humble? He knows from his heart and core being that he is not there yet, that he is nowhere hear perfection or Christ-likeness. Though Paul pursued perfection in Christ with all his heart, he did not teach perfectionism.

Do you agree? Do churches implicitly teach or promote perfectionism? Do older Christians communicate elitism? Is sanctification as being “not there yet” a good and helpful and healthy attitude to have (especially as we age)?

Be prepared: At Ellerslie, the gospel is presented with a lion heart, in the style of the thunder-gospel preaching of old. Eric Ludy is a poet and writer who was extremely low-key and gentle. But recently he felt pushed by God to be a lamb who speaks with the voice of a lion.

Eric Ludy – The Ellerslie Experiment from Ellerslie Mission Society on Vimeo.

What are your initial reactions to Eric’s messages? Is there room for someone like this in today’s world? Does he go too far? Are there dangers his ministry should watch out for?

Remember: “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word” (Isa 66:2).

Are any of you willing and interested to make the commitment to read the whole Bible in 2012? Hopefully, by God’s grace, my New Year’s resolution would not fail in Jan 2012!

Related to the above questions is a “famous” quote from Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” which atheists love. Dawkins himself read it at the end of the documentary movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic (woman hater), homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal (killing one’s child), pestilential (causing disease), megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic (denying pleasure), capriciously (impulsive) malevolent (doing evil) bully.” (Brackets mine.)

Answers (and rebuttals) welcomed.

YOU MUST NOT EAT (Gen 2:17). This “strange” verse was my conversion verse when I began 1:1 Bible study in 1980 with John Lee, a pediatrician who attends Lincoln Park UBF. I regard this as a “strange conversion verse” because I have not read of anyone else in history who was converted to Christ through this verse. Gen 2:17 caused me to cry tears of repentance for many hours. It convicted me of my life long sin of completely disregarding my Creator and living as though I am my own god, and yet God had not destroyed me, but loved me all my life to that day.

SEEK FIRST (Matt 6:33). After conversion I the word “first” in Matt 6:33 exposed my sin of never allowing God and the things of God to have first priority in my heart and life. “Things” always preceded God: girls, romantic/sexual fantasies, studying medicine, being a doctor, watching movies, watching sports, going jogging, hanging out, etc, was always “first.”

HOW FOOLISH! (1 Cor 15:36). 6 months after conversion, Samuel Lee, the founder of UBF, introduced me to my future bride. I was terrified of her because she seemed too domineering and powerful, and not at all the kind of woman I ever envisioned marrying. I knew she was a good, godly woman who loves Jesus, and I was foolish in my sinful sensual self for not wanting to marry such a woman. So, I married “by faith” by painfully acknowledging that my life and my marriage belong to God, not to me. After 30 years of an utterly sublime marriage, I joyfully and thankfully conclude that God knows me far better than I will ever know myself.

DENY YOURSELF (Luke 9:23). I know how sinful, worldly and selfish I was and still am. Without a doubt, I knew that I could not follow Jesus as I was. I absolutely needed to deny myself in order to follow Jesus. Though I fail daily, I always need to deny myself, especially as I get older.

HAVE FAITH (Mark 11:22). One of Samuel Lee’s great strength was his faith in God. By his faith, our gracious God used him greatly to convert Koreans to be world conquerors. Lee said and I agree that my weak point was my lack of faith. It still is. I need faith to challenge the impossible, which was my back pain and my visa status of being an illegal immigrant for 7 years. God helped me experience the victory of faith by no longer having back pain, and by becoming a US citizen after being an illegal alien for 7 years. Still, faith is my weak point and quite baffling to me.

I HAVE LOVED YOU WITH AN EVERLASTING LOVE (Jer 31:3). In 2005, I was scammed of $1,000,000 because of greed, pride and a desire to retire ASAP. By this sin I totally dishonored my God, my church, my wife, my children, myself. I hated myself. But God spoke to me tenderly through Jer 31:3. I was newly amazed at the love of God that was indeed greater than all my sins.

GOD INTENDED IT FOR GOOD (Gen 50:20; Rom 8:28). When I had conflicts with some friends in church, I felt disillusioned after 25 years in UBF. Though they are godly Christian friends and well intentioned, some of their decisions and words devastated me. Of course, this was my own sin of being affected by their actions. The only respite I found was in the absolute goodness of God (Gen 50:20; Rom 8:28) that could not be thwarted by any man, regardless of what they say, do or decide. Is there a greater verse in the Bible that can help any Christian in any situation in life?

NO MORE FEARING MAN (Prov 29:25). To fear a man is to insult God who is above the man you fear. To cause others to fear man is to play God. “Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.”

JESUS BECAME SIN FOR ME (2 Cor 5:21). Historically, 2 Cor 5:21 is known as the Great Exchange. I never ever quoted or referenced this verse in sermons and Bible studies for 30 years. Now I do so repeatedly with gratitude for what Jesus has done for this soul of mine.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IS ABOUT JESUS (John 5:39). I had studied the Bible as though it was mainly about me and about others. But Jesus said that the OT is about him (John 5:39; Luke 24:27,44), and that Moses also wrote about Jesus (John 5:46). So I asked and answered the question in this post: What is the point of Genesis?

MY UPWARD HEAVENLY CALLING IN CHRIST (Phil 3:13-14). How comforting it is that God has called us heavenward in Christ Jesus. Regardless of the circumstances of life, good or bad, this is a constant that never changes. Only in Christ can I forget what is behind, strain toward what is ahead, and press on toward my heavenly goal.

WORK OUT YOUR SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING (Phil 2:12-13). Practically, I pray to work out my salvation with fear and trembling and with humility and tears (Acts 20:19). I pray to know with absolute unwavering certainty that this is only the grace of Jesus that God is first working in me so as to enable me to work out my own salvation.

What are the Bible verses that have helped to transform you? To have a crystal clear direction in your life (Psalm 119:105)?

“Ah,” the neighbor says. “I hear you are religious! Great! Religion is a good thing. Where is your temple or holy place?”

“We don’t have a temple,” replies the Christian. “Jesus is our temple.”

“No temple? But where do your priests work and do their ritual?”

“We don’t have priests to mediate the presence of God,” replies the Christian. “Jesus is our priest.”

“No priests? But where do you offer your sacrifices to acquire the favor of your God?”

“We don’t need a sacrifice,” replies the Christian. “Jesus is our sacrifice.”

“What kind of religion is this?” sputters the pagan neighbor.

And the answer is, it’s no kind of religion at all.

In its very essence the Gospel or Christianity signifies the end of religion. The above imaginary conversation expresses how the Gospel is different from and the very opposite of how people perceive Religion to be, including Christianity that is inadequately understood and communicated.  (The differences in the table between Religion and the Gospel is explained further in the link). Briefly, Religion is man’s effort to reach God, while the Gospel is the good news that God reaches out to man through Jesus Christ. Interestingly, it was the most religious people of Jesus’ day that schemed to kill Jesus and they did. To give mankind peace and rest, Jesus put an end to religion, while the religious elite put an end to Jesus. Religion is always threatened by and opposed by the Gospel of Jesus.

Do you understand Christianity to be the Gospel (good news) of God saving you through Christ? Or might you think of Christianity as your efforts of trying to get to God?

I would like to direct you to a good talk by Sinclair Ferguson (1948 – ).  He is a Scottish preacher from Glasgow, but now serves in South Carolina.  He’s a very good preacher.  I have listened to his series on Ephesians, James and 2 Timothy numerous times (they’re available at firstprescolumbia.org and sermonaudio.com).  John Piper, when asked who is the preacher he’d sit under, if he were not a church pastor himself, mentioned Sinclair Ferguson at once.  And Hughes Oliphant Old in his monumental 7-volume work wrote the following about Sinclair Ferguson:

“As I have said several times, I am not in the business of handing out the senior preaching prize, but there is no denying it—the preaching of Sinclair Ferguson is exemplary no matter on which side of the Atlantic one considers the question.”

In my experience, Sinclair Ferguson is not a rock-star preacher like John Piper at all.  He’s got a lovely Scottish accent, he is not loud, but is full of worship in preaching, and very serious.  He also wrote a number of good books published by Banner of Truth Trust and other publishing houses (most recent titles are “In Christ Alone” and “By Grace Alone”).

I first came to love this preacher because of the talk I’d like to point you to (and an interview with him by C.J. Mahaney).  And I also have a personal request for English-speaking brothers and sisters who could possibly help me transcribe these audios (2.5 hrs long, two parts) into text format.  Then I will translate them to Russian, for the edification of Russian ministers, too (not just in UBF).

Here is the link to the audios (please note that they were delivered in 2008, when Sinclair Ferguson became sixty):

“Preaching The Word. Reflections At Sixty – Part 1” by Sinclair B. Ferguson.

“Preaching The Word. Reflections At Sixty – Part 2” by Sinclair B. Ferguson.

If the links above don’t work, here is the master page:

Sinclair Ferguson audio master page

Even if you have no time to help with the transcript, please listen to this talk – it’s very good.  It’s not a mere autobiography, because you learn from a number of other good ministers, through Sinclair Ferguson’s spiritual lens.

When I studied Genesis in 1980, I was taught that God created man for mission (Gen 1:28). Dr. Samuel Lee, the founder of UBF, came up with a catchphrase which I loved: “Man = Mission, Mission = Man.” This catchy phrase is found in UBF’s Genesis Bible study materials worldwide. Because of the grace of Jesus poured out on me, I wanted to give of myself for my mission from God, which was to devote myself to one-to-one Bible study with anyone and everyone. This has been my staple of Christian life for the last three decades of my life to this day. This is surely nothing but the marvelous grace of Jesus to me.

So why am I now rethinking the phrase “Man = Mission” which has revolutionized the purpose of my entire life?

Many of our Bible studies could be synagogue sermons. In my article “What is the Point of Genesis?” I argue that Jesus and the New Testament apostles testify that all the Old Testament Scriptures, including Genesis, are about Jesus and the salvation found in him (John 5:39; Luke 24:27,44; 1 Cor 15:3-4). So does teaching that Man = Mission point us to Christ and lead us to salvation? Edmond Clowney says that any sermon or Bible study that does not take into account the full drama of redemption and its realization in Christ is a “synagogue sermon,” one that a Jew would agree with. So if “Man = Mission” is the point of a Bible study or sermon, it might be agreed with by many a non-Christian, while they still remain lost in sin and bound for eternal condemnation.

A “Man = Mission” theology makes mission, not Christ, the focus our Christian lives. Furthermore, the teaching of “man = mission” might shape our Christian psyche in a way that may not focus on or emphasize the main point of the Bible, which is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27). Mission-centered (instead of Christ-centered) Bible studies and sermons could subtly or implicitly idolize mission in place of worshipping God. Whenever anything becomes an idol, even something good like God’s mission, it stops glorifying God. Then our idolatry of mission, rather than God himself, becomes our practical identity and our self-worth as a Christian and as a church.

Mission as idolatry. Tim Keller defines an idol as making a good thing an ultimate thing. For instance, our children are among God’s best gifts to us human beings. But if our children become ultimate to us, knowingly or unknowingly, they become ab idol, taking the place of God). Then our joy is dependent on our children doing well and making us proud parents. We may unwittingly crush them, spoil them, even ruin them for life. Similarly, when our mission becomes our idol, our strongest joy and delight is not God (Ps 37:4), but how well we are carrying out our mission. The object of our glory becomes a fruitful, exemplary ministry with many growing disciples, growing church attendants, and missionaries being sent out. Then our disciples and members are regarded not as precious redeemed people, but as objects and tools for our glory, church growth, and mission. If any particular disciple in our church disappoints us, or “doesn’t produce,” or leaves the church, they become marginalized or stigmatized. They are labeled as selfish and worldly and are said to have “run away.”

Though mission is important, I do not believe that it can be the major driving force of any Christian individual or church. Even mission can become an idol if it, rather than Christ functions as the ultimate joy and meaning of our lives. So, according to Genesis, how might we rethink teaching the purpose of man’s life?

Before God gave man a mission, he created man for relationships (Gen 1:26-28). When God created man in his image, he wanted man to be a relational being. God created man in relationship to God, to himself, to others, and to the world, which was all broken when man sinned created man for relationships. Only Christ, through his redeeming work on the Cross, restores all our broken relationships. Tim Keller said, “If this world was made by a triune God, relationships of love are what life is really all about.” If we make mission rather than relationships as primary, we could be “faithful” to our mission while damaging precious and priceless relationships. What if I’m a so-called “exemplary, fruitful, influential Christian leader,” but my wife is not happy, my children don’t relate to their dad, my fellow Christians think I am unapproachable, and my non-Christian friends think that I’m arrogant and self-righteous. I guess you could still insist, “I am mission-centered.” Someone said, “It doesn’t please God to sacrifice our families on the altar of Christian mission,” or something to that effect.

Mission is ultimately the mission of God, not man’s mission. When I emphasize that “man is mission,” I think that mission is what I must do as a responsible Christian. If I do my mission “well,” I could be commended and honored, but if my mission is “not fruitful,” I could be regarded as unimportant. But is mission ultimately my duty, or God’s doing? Countless promises through out the Bible begins with God saying, “I will…” Therefore, God is the One who will fulfill His mission. When I realize that mission is really not my mission or man’s mission, but God’s mission, then all I need to do is to humbly and prayerfully jump on God’s bandwagon, and go along for the ride. God will fulfill his mission, with or without my participation or involvement, and regardless of my obedience or disobedience. Jesus said to Peter, “I will build my church” (Matt 16:18). It is really not up to Peter or me to ensure that God’s mission is carried out correctly or properly. It is nothing but the grace of Jesus that Peter or I or anyone else am enabled and empowered to participate in God’s mission.

Mission is ultimately completed by Christ. Tim Keller’s audio sermon entitled Made for Stewardship (Gen 1:26-2:2, 7-9, 15) explains man’s work and “mission” differently from UBF. Keller explains man’s work in relationship to rest, for God worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th day. God created us to live in a cycle of work and rest. But because of our sin, we lost our rest, regardless of whether we work or not. Also, our work becomes a burden and a curse. Even Christian service, serving God and living for God’s mission is a heavy unsustainable burden and a curse without finding rest in Christ (Matt 11:28-29).

Without understanding the rest purchased for us in Christ, our work, including our Christian mission becomes our sense of identity or self-worth. To Rocky Balboa, his “work” was to go the distance for 15 rounds in the boxing ring. The Jewish 100 meter runner in Chariots of Fire said, “I have 10 seconds to justify my existence.” Even someone like Madonna finds fulfilment and meaning only when she produces creative work over and over again. Otherwise, she feels useless and mediocre, saying, “Even though I’ve become Somebody, I still have to prove that I am Somebody.” Similarly, as a Christian, am I still trying to prove myself through my mission? Am I still functionally finding fulfilment only when I preach well, disciple others well, grow my church well, and am respected by others, etc.? But such a life of God’s mission is a life that is too heavy for me to bear. Furthermore, God did not intend for me to do so with such a mission driven or performance based attitude.

Saying “man is mission” is not wrong. But ultimately, it is not my mission or my work, but Christ completing his mission and his work, when he said, “It is finished” (John 19:20). Only Christ fulfilled perfectly “Man = Mission.” When I realize that Christ completed the mission where I failed, I find rest in Christ’s completed work. Then, and only then can I live a life of mission by His strength and grace alone with the utmost of gratitude, thanksgiving and joy.

Do we overemphasize mission when teaching Genesis? Should Genesis point to Christ who alone fulfilled his mission?

I remembered a question that came up once during Bible study on Genesis 27: Is there a time to use deception to get God’s blessing? I don’t recall how anyone at the study answered the question. This sounds like an odd question, especially when asked of Christians. Why would a Godly person lie or use deception to get a blessing or to glorify God?

Please read Genesis 27 to see if you understand why this question might come up: 

“1 When Isaac was old and his eyes were so weak that he could no longer see, he called for Esau his older son and said to him, “My son.” “Here I am,” he answered. 2 Isaac said, “I am now an old man and don’t know the day of my death. 3 Now then, get your equipment—your quiver and bow—and go out to the open country to hunt some wild game for me. 4 Prepare me the kind of tasty food I like and bring it to me to eat, so that I may give you my blessing before I die.” 5 Now Rebekah was listening as Isaac spoke to his son Esau. When Esau left for the open country to hunt game and bring it back, 6 Rebekah said to her son Jacob, “Look, I overheard your father say to your brother Esau, 7 ‘Bring me some game and prepare me some tasty food to eat, so that I may give you my blessing in the presence of the LORD before I die.’ 8 Now, my son, listen carefully and do what I tell you: 9 Go out to the flock and bring me two choice young goats, so I can prepare some tasty food for your father, just the way he likes it. 10 Then take it to your father to eat, so that he may give you his blessing before he dies.” 11 Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, “But my brother Esau is a hairy man while I have smooth skin. 12 What if my father touches me? I would appear to be tricking him and would bring down a curse on myself rather than a blessing.” 13 His mother said to him, “My son, let the curse fall on me. Just do what I say; go and get them for me.” 14 So he went and got them and brought them to his mother, and she prepared some tasty food, just the way his father liked it. 15 Then Rebekah took the best clothes of Esau her older son, which she had in the house, and put them on her younger son Jacob. 16 She also covered his hands and the smooth part of his neck with the goatskins. 17 Then she handed to her son Jacob the tasty food and the bread she had made. 18 He went to his father and said, “My father.”“Yes, my son,” he answered. “Who is it?” 19 Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me. Please sit up and eat some of my game, so that you may give me your blessing.” (Genesis 27:1-19 NIV) 

I decided to read some commentary on this passage to get a broader viewpoint. John Wesley reacts to Rebekah’s actions with disdain. He makes a good point that Jacob had a legitimate path to God’s blessing, and was God’s choice. Rebekah did not need to intervene. God did not need Rebekah’s impatient actions to bless Jacob. God already knew both Esau and Jacob well. Rebekah could have used truth to persuade Isaac, such as telling him that Esau had already given up the blessing by selling his birthright and by marrying strange wives.

Rebekah is here contriving to procure the blessing for Jacob, which was designed for Esau. If the end was good, the means were bad, and no way justifiable. If it were not a wrong to Esau to deprive him of the blessing, he himself having forfeited it by selling the birth right, yet it was a wrong to Isaac, taking advantage of his infirmity, to impose upon him: it was a wrong to Jacob, whom she taught to deceive, by putting a lie in his mouth. If Rebekah, when she heard Isaac promise the blessing to Esau, had gone to him, and with humility and seriousness put him in remembrance of that which God had said concerning their sons; if she had farther shewed him how Esau had forfeited the blessing, both by selling his birth-right, and by marrying of strange wives; ’tis probable Isaac would have been prevailed with to confer the blessing upon Jacob, and needed not thus to have been cheated into it. This had been honourable and laudable, and would have looked well in history; but God left her to herself to take this indirect course, that he might have the glory of bringing good out of evil.
John Wesley

Commenting on Jacob’s outright lie in verse 19, John Wesley was dumbfounded. He wondered how a good man like Jacob could lie to his father, even twice.

Who would have thought this plain man could have played such a part? His mother having put him in the way of it, he applies himself to those methods which he had never accustomed himself to, but had always conceived an abhorrence of. But lying is soon learned. I wonder how honest Jacob could so readily turn his tongue to say, I am Esau thy first-born: and when his father asked him, Genesis 27:24. Art thou my very son Esau? to reply I am. How could he say, I have done as thou badst me, when he had received no command from his father, but was doing as his mother bid him? How could he say, Eat of my venison, when he knew it came not from the field, but from the fold? But especially I wonder how he could have the forehead to father it upon God, and to use his name in the cheat.
John Wesley 

The fact is, no one can take the curse for someone else. Only Jesus Christ did that. “10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” (2 Corinthians 5:10 NIV). There is no record that God approved Rebekah’s deceptive actions. And Jacob would pay dearly for his lies. He would live life on the run, living in fear of his brother Esau, who wanted to kill him.

The Bible does say that Isaac was acting by faith: “20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.” (Hebrews 11:19-21). Indeed, Isaac was acting by faith. He could not see well. But does the Bible say that Rebekah was acting by faith? Does the Bible say that Jacob was acting by faith? No. The Bible simply acknowledges that Rebekah had God’s promise that “the older will serve the younger” and that God knew both Jacob and Esau: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9:10-14) Neither of these statements tells us that God approved of Rebekah’s deception nor that God approved of Jacob’s lies. The Bible simply upholds God’s sovereign choice to bless Jacob. I believe God did not bless Jacob because of Rebekah’s actions, but in spite of her actions.

What do you think? Is there a time to use deception and lying to get God’s blessing? Was Rebekah or Jacob acting out of faith? Should we imitate their actions to get God’s blessing for ourselves or for someone close to us?

This question is especially pertinent to us because, for the last fifty years, the study of Genesis has been the bread and butter of UBF’s Bible study ministry throughout the world. God has blessed thousands of people through our study of Genesis. It has led to many genuine conversions to Christ. It did for me when I studied Genesis in 1980 with Dr. John Lee of Lincoln Park UBF.

How I had understood Genesis. Having studied and taught Genesis for the last three decades, I can say that my understanding and presentation of Genesis was built upon imperatives: God is the Creator, and you are not; therefore, you must honor God as the Lord of your life (Gen 1:1). Man sinned; therefore, repent of your sins (Gen 3:1-7). Cain proudly rejected God’s sovereignty; therefore, you must humbly accept God’s sovereignty (Gen 4:1-7). Noah obeyed God and built an ark of salvation; therefore, you must obey (Gen 6:1-22).

I saw the patriarchs as examples to be emulated. Be an ancestor of faith and a source of blessing, and offer your “Isaac” to God as Abraham did (Gen 12:2-3; 15:1-21; 22:1-19). Marry by faith as Isaac did (Gen 24:1-67). Struggle with God as Jacob did (Gen 32:22-32). Forgive others as Joseph did (Gen 50:15-21).

Genesis surely contains ethical and moral principles, illustrations and examples for our Christian lives today (1 Cor 10:6,11). But are these teachings to be obeyed the point of the book? How are Christians to understand Genesis? What did Jesus say about Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament (OT)?

What Jesus said. In John 5:39, Jesus spoke to Israel’s Bible teachers about the OT: “These are the Scriptures that testify about me.” Luke 24:27 says that Jesus “explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” In Luke 24:44, Jesus said, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Basically, Jesus said that all of the OT Scriptures, including Genesis, are about him. They are not primarily about Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. They are not primarily about me. They are primarily about Jesus.

What Paul said. In Acts 20:27, Paul said, “…for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” The “whole counsel of God” refers to the OT, because the NT had not yet been written. Throughout his thirteen epistles, Paul regarded the gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection as matters of first importance, and he believed the gospel was “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:1-4). Paul confirmed that Jesus’ death and resurrection are in accordance with the whole counsel of OT Scriptures.

What Peter and the four gospel writers said. All of Peter’s sermons in Acts were a proclamation of Christ by citing the OT Scriptures (Acts 2:14-41). The gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all quoted extensively from the OT to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

If Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the evangelists presented the OT Scriptures as a proclamation of Christ, shouldn’t we be doing the same?

I have found that it is possible to teach, reveal and proclaim Christ from Genesis. Here are just a few illustrations from select stories of Abraham and Jacob.

God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen 15). When Abraham asked God how he would gain possession of the promised land, God answered by explaining a covenant ritual that involved cutting a heifer, a goat and a ram in two and arranging the halves opposite each other (Gen 15:8-10). Then when Abraham fell into a deep sleep, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch (representing God) appeared and passed between the pieces (Gen 15:17-18). This was how God made a covenant with Abraham. What is the meaning of this grotesque and bloody ritual which involved cutting three animals in half? When parties made a covenant in ancient time, both parities would walk between the divided animals so as to signify, “May this be done to me if I break this covenant. May I be torn apart. May I be cut in half.” But after Abraham prepares the animals, instead of the firepot moving between the animals side by side with Abraham, God went through this bloody alleyway all by himself. God takes the full responsibility for the fulfillment of the covenant all by himself, even when we fail to keep our part of the deal. Whenever we sin, it is God, not us, who becomes like the butchered and sliced animal. This is grace. When we personally know this immeasurably costly grace, we begin to understand that the only one true blessing is Christ, not Abraham or anyone else.

Abraham offered Isaac (Gen 22). When God asked Abraham to offer his only son Isaac as a sacrifice, it was not to command us to offer him our Isaac. God stopped Abraham, because the actual sacrifice of Isaac wasn’t necessary; one day God was going to sacrifice his Son for us all (Rom 8:32). This was explained in a previous article.

Jacob’s dream at Bethel (Gen 28). At Bethel, Jacob saw “a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.” What is the personal application we are supposed to draw from this passage? Is the passage teaching us that we should make a disgustingly selfish vow, as Jacob did, so that we will see a vision? Or does this dream teach us something significant about God?

Jacob wanted God’s blessing, as do we all. Jacob was not seeking God. But God was seeking him. As God came down in judgment on the tower of man’s pride at Babel (Gen 11:4), so in Jacob’s dream God came down to Jacob in grace. The angels ascending and descending on the stairway signified an opening of communication between heaven and earth. The climax of the vision is that God came down the stairway to stand over Jacob. The Lord stood “above it” (Gen 28:13) has also been translated and understood to mean “beside him” or “over him.” Jesus identifies himself to Nathanael as the one on whom the angels ascend and descend (John 1:50-51). Standing by Jacob, the Lord taught Jacob about Himself. He is the God of the past (Gen 28:13), the future (Gen 28:14), and the present (Gen 28:15). He is the God who takes the initiative with selfish Jacob and with selfish me. God comes to us in the person of Jesus.

God’s initiative in establishing a relationship with fallen mankind is a recurring theme throughout the book of Genesis. God approached Adam and Eve (Gen 3:9), Noah (Gen 6:13-14), Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), and now Jacob. God’s initiative challenges our natural, default way of thinking that we must make a sincere effort to seek God and please God enough to bring forth his blessing upon our lives. The painful, honest truth is that “there is no one who seeks God,” “not even one” (Rom 3:10-12; Ps 14:1-3, 53:1-3; Eccl 7:20). Jacob did not earnestly seek God, and neither do we. It is God who takes the initiative to seek us, ultimately at great cost to himself (John 4:23).

Jacob’s struggle with God (Gen 32). This famous wrestling match took place at night at the ford of the Jabbok River. Does this passage teach that we must also struggle with God until God blesses us? Does this mean that anyone and everyone who struggles with God gets to see God and receive his blessing? Is my struggle the determining factor as to whether or not I see God and get his blessing?

In any wrestling match, who wins? The one who is stronger and better. In a wrestling match between God and man, who is the stronger one? The answer is obvious. Yet God declared Jacob the winner (Gen 32:28). How could this be? God wrenched Jacob’s hip, declared him the winner, and then blessed him (Gen 32:25-29). In the morning, Jacob understood the grace of God when he said, “I saw God face to face and yet my life was spared” (Gen 32:30). Obviously, God allowed Jacob to win. But one day, God would have to lose. God blessed Jacob, but one day he was going to have to curse his Son (Gal 3:13). Jacob struggled at the river and victoriously won. One day, Jesus was going struggle at Gethsemane’s Garden in unbearable agony and then lose in an apparently conclusive defeat. For Jacob and for us to see the glorious light of the face of God (2 Cor 4:4), God had to hide his face in the darkness of Calvary (Matt 27:46). Only by God losing in heartbreaking humiliation could we ever gain the final victory.

What is the point of Genesis? It is Jesus. It is the gospel. It is the marvelous grace of Jesus. It is the initiative of God to seek us out, to love us and to save us at great cost to himself.

Do you agree that Genesis is about Jesus? Do you focus on Jesus when you teach Genesis?

References

1. Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, Edmond P. Clowney, 2003
2. The God Who is There, D. A. Carson, 2010
3. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, Graeme Goldsworthy, 2000
4. The Gospel Coalition 2011 Conference: “Preaching Jesus and the Gospel from the Old Testament.” (9 excellent lectures)

In part two I did not discuss an important facet of the interpretation of the sower parable: namely, the ambiguity concerning whether it is the word or the people who are sown. If you look carefully at verses 14-20, sometimes the seed that is sown is the word (14-15) and sometimes it is the people (16,18,20). What might be the significance of this? Was Mark just being sloppy?

The explanation for this apparent conundrum lies a bit later on in the Isaiah 6 passage from which Mark quotes. Isaiah reports God’s declaration that in spite of the devastating judgment to come upon the land, “as the terebinth and oak leave stumps when they are cut down, so the holy seed will be the stump in the land” (13). Here, the “holy seed” refers to the people of God. God’s activity in Jesus’ ministry was not only the sowing of the word in people, but the sowing of people in the land. More specifically, in Jesus God was re-sowing Israel, the people of His kingdom. Jesus confidently prophesied that this kingdom would grow like a mustard seed into “tallest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade” (Mk 4:32).

The kingdom God envisioned for His people has always been a kingdom to be established through the hearing of His word that leads to faith and obedience. To touch on a UBF favourite, before God prefaced his declaration to the Israelites that they would be for Him a kingdom of priests and a holy nation with the clause, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant….” (Ex 19:5). In this context it is also worth noting that what Jesus himself calls the first and greatest commandment, the Shema, also begins (as does the parable of the sower!) with the call to hear: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deut 6:4-5). And apparently the word “to hear” in Hebrew also has the meaning, “to obey” so that there is no question of truly hearing God’s word but being disobedient to it. I hear echoes of James at this point: “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says…. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does” (James 1:22,25).

Maybe this is starting to sound dangerously like law- or works-righteousness to you? Well, I would like to say two things about this (which, by the way, links this series back to a short discussion that went on between Joe, Dr. Ben and myself had in the comments on the last part of Joe’s 13-part series). First, even though I believe in justification by faith alone (Ro 1:17; 3:28), I also think we need to uphold James’ point that faith without works is dead (2:17,24), which I think Paul actually agrees with at several points even in the letter to the Romans (1:5; 6:16-18). John 6:29 brings this out neatly: “Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.’ ” To bring this back to the sower parable, those who truly hear the word are those who also accept it and bear fruit. BUT, I also want to add that the obedience that comes from our faith and is integrally linked to it does not really come from us, and so there is still no room for boasting. In the language of the sower and connected parables in Mark 4, it is the seed sown in us that grows up and bear fruit, causing those who hear to grow up and bear fruit along with it. The seed grows up and bears fruit, and the kingdom of God comes, like this: “Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. All by itself the soil produces grain–first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head” (4:27-28). In other words, a life that bears the fruit of the kingdom is the natural outflow of the work of the word of God sown in us.

The last point I want to make is to draw attention once more to the reversal Mark makes of the apparent insider/outsider distinction based on Isaiah 6:9-10. The disciples, unlike those on the outside, have been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but they themselves do not understand. And they really don’t understand, as Mark makes clear over and over again throughout his gospel. I mentioned what happens in Mark 8 in the last post. We could also cite Mark 6 – the disciples see Jesus walking on the water, but they think it’s a ghost. After Jesus calms the wind and waves, Mark comments, “They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened” (6:51-52). Take a look also at 7:17-18. “Are you so dull?… Don’t you see..?” “Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?” (8:17-18) “But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it” (9:32). The disciples repeatedly fail to understand what is happening around them. They argue about who is the greatest instead of seeing the greatness of the kingdom revealed in Jesus who came to serve. They are indignant when they see Mary pour out her perfume on Jesus. They try to resist with violence against the mob that comes to arrest Jesus instead of understanding the way of the cross. They don’t believe the good news of Jesus’ resurrection.

What might Mark be trying to convey to his readers by presenting the disciples in this way? Remember that these very disciples are the apostles and leaders of the Church, the heroes of the faith for the early Christians Mark initially wrote for. If even these guys struggled so hard to understand the kingdom, what about us? Are we likely to be doing much better than they did? “Consider carefully what you hear,” Jesus warns us in Mark 4:24. The way I have often heard people deal with Mark 4 is to go through the different obstacles (path, rocks, thorns) and ask what sort of soil we are. In those discussions, hardly anyone thinks he or she is like the hardened path that the word doesn’t even get inside. But I think our hearts are often hardened like the path, hardened by repeated use. We have heard the gospel stories so many times that, just as ground that gets packed down by frequent travelling, we have such fixed ideas about what they mean that we aren’t really open to hear anymore, and the word Jesus is speaking to us now often doesn’t even get in.

I think we have a lot more to learn from blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-52) than we would like to admit. (I am mainly talking about myself here, as I continue to realize how much I have to learn and how little I know of God’s kingdom.) Bartimaeus was under no illusions about his blindness. With this in mind he cried out with all his strength, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” When Jesus asked him what he wanted, he simply said, “Rabbi, I want to see.” To this man, Jesus replied, ” ‘Go… your faith has healed you.’ Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road” (52). The attitude we need to have as hearers of the word combines a serious humility: sober judgment about our ignorance, but combined with a vibrant hope in Jesus, who “even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak” (7:37; see also 7:33-35 and 8:22-26).

God has indeed given us the secret of His kingdom in the person of Jesus. Now it’s up to us to heed His main imperative, “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” (9:7).

References

1. Bailey, K.E. Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
2. Capon, R.F. Kingdom, Grace, Judgment: Paradox, Outrage, and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
3. Crossan, J.D. “The Parables of Jesus,” in Interpretation, July 2002, pp. 247-259.
4. Evans, C.A. “On the Isaianic Background of the Sower Parable,” in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 47:1985, pp. 464-468.
5. France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
6. Hedrick, C.W. Many Things in Parables: Jesus and his Modern Critics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
7. Heil, J.P. “Reader-Response and the Narrative Context of the Parables about
8. Growing Seed in Mark 4:1-34,” in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 54:1992, pp. 271-286.
9. Myers, C. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988.
10. Snodgrass, K. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
11. Westermann, C. The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990.
12. Yoder Neufeld, T.R. Recovering Jesus: The Witness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007.

I chose to discuss the parable of the sower because it is the “parable of parables” or the “master parable.” In Mark 4:13 Jesus says to his disciples (the Twelve and the others around him), “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?”

Let’s begin at Level 1, where we consider the meaning of the parable itself, in isolation from its narrative context. Strictly speaking, the actual parable of the sower only takes up six verses (3-8). Before that, Mark gives us the narrative setting (1-2), and after the parable itself we have Jesus’ challenge to his audience (9), followed by a shift in scene to Jesus giving private instruction to his disciples (10-32), followed by a return to the crowd setting with a summary statement in 33-34. In the private instruction section, the disciples ask Jesus about the parables (10); Jesus responds by first providing a general principle drawn from Isaiah 6 (11-12), then issues a challenging question (13), provides an interpretation of the sower parable (14-20), and tells two related figures of speech (21-25) and two more parables about growing seeds (26-32).

Most of us are already familiar with Mark’s interpretation, so it is hard to do this, but try to imagine yourself only hearing Jesus tell the actual parable (verses 3-8). What might we think? Here is a story about a farmer going out to sow his seed, who experiences a progressive three-fold failure followed by a three-fold success. Failure or success is linked to the sort of soil the seed falls on, not to the quality of the seed, which is presumably the same in each case. The seed on the path doesn’t even get into the soil; the seed on rocky places gets in but doesn’t take root and so ends up scorched; the seed among thorns grows up nicely but gets choked and fails to bear grain. The successful seed yields a surprising crop – some of it producing thirty, some sixty, and some even a hundred times what was sown.

Without the narrative setting, how might we understand this parable? Taking into consideration socio-economic considerations about peasant life in first-century Palestine, some scholars suggest that this parable, in its original telling, offered sympathy and even revolutionary hope to typical overworked and oppressed farmers who would be familiar with the tragic experience of crop failure. A harvest as abundant as the one described in verse 8 would enable such a farmer to pay off his debts and free himself from his servitude to the landowner under the vassal system. According to Ched Myers (1988), Jesus describes the kingdom of God as envisioning “the abolition of the oppressive relationships of production that determined the horizons of the Palestinian farmer’s social world” (p. 177). While this brings elements of the parable’s social and cultural setting to bear on its interpretation, showing a way Level 4 can contribute to reading the parable, such an interpretation – however exciting it might be for those inclined toward socialism – might not seem very plausible, at least, not without more explanation.

Without clear interpretive constraints, the parable on its own could mean just about anything anyone wanted it to mean. And to my mind this is the biggest problem with either restricting interpretation to the narrative world of the parable on its own (Level 1) or opening it up too broadly, a danger facing anyone who would use Levels 4-6 on their own and then speculating and allegorizing away. Either way we have no clear guide for reading the parable. But if we read the parable at Level 2, as an integral part of the overall narrative Mark has put together, we quickly get a grip on some firm constraints to work with. In the case of the sower, more so than most of the other parables that appear in the gospels, Mark gives us a lot of help. For one thing, he provides an actual allegorical interpretation (14-20). In light of this, we see that the sower parable is about what happens to the word that is “sown in” people who hear it. Three types of obstacles hinder those who hear from bearing fruit: the birds (Satan) eat up the seed (word) sown along the path; the sun (tribulation and persecution) scorches the shallow-rooted plant in the rocky ground; and the thorns (cares of the world and deceitfulness of wealth) choke the healthy plants that grow up among thorns. But amidst the apparent failure of the word, there is also surprising success – “those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold” (20).

Mark’s interpretation doesn’t tell us who the sower is or what the fruit refers to, or what makes the difference between those who bear thirty, sixty, and a hundred times what was sown. But the broader context of Mark’s gospel provides some clues. Just as there are three failed responses to the sowing in the parable, in chapters 1-3 we find three groups not responding well to Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom (1:14-15): the Scribes (2:6-7; 3:22), the Pharisees (2:16,24; 3:6), and Jesus’ own family (3:20-21,31-35). In spite of this, we also see successful response in the disciples (1:16-20; 2:14; 3:13-19) and in the increasing numbers of people following Jesus (1:27-28,37,45; 2:1-2,13,15; 3:7-9,20,32; 4:1). The other elements in Mark 4 all support the idea that the sower refers to Jesus and the seed/word to his preaching of the kingdom.

(a) The hearing of Jesus’ word (here spoken in parables) is emphasized throughout the chapter: Jesus introduces the parable, “Listen!” and concludes it with the challenge, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Structurally, the whole section is framed by comments on Jesus teaching/speaking the word to the crowds in parables (1-2, 33-34).

(b) The quotation from Isaiah 6 distinguishes between superficial and genuine hearing. Jesus gives us the impression that his very purpose in using parables is to make sure people “on the outside” don’t understand what he’s talking about, even though they “hear” the word. It almost sounds like a version of double predestination – God chooses to let some hear, turn and be saved, but causes others to harden their hearts and be unable to turn and be forgiven. But as the next point will show, a complete understanding of what Mark is doing in 4:1-34 mitigates against this, even if the actual result of Jesus’ preaching is a kind of polarizing or sifting of his audience.

(c) Jesus uses the lamp image (21-23) to say that what is hidden (namely the mystery of the kingdom in Jesus’ parables) is meant to be disclosed. He repeats, “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” The measure saying (24-25) is also introduced with the words, “Consider carefully what you hear,” suggesting that the measuring has to do with applying oneself to Jesus’ words. Both of these sayings have the function of clarifying the earlier quotation from Isaiah – Jesus is not intentionally preventing anyone from being saved. In this context it is relevant to notice that even the disciples, those on the inside, to whom the secret of the kingdom of God has been given (11), don’t understand the parable. In fact a major theme of the rest of Mark’s gospel is the persistent and serious lack of understanding of the disciples, who like everyone else need to have their eyes and ears healed (see for example 8:17-21,29-33).

(d) The two additional parables explain two further aspects of the same process discussed in the sower. The parable of the growing seed (26-29) indicates the inevitable growth and fruit-bearing of the sown seed, which has nothing to do with human effort – in other words, it happens by the power of God. And so the harvest is assured. And the parable of the mustard seed (30-32) depicts the unexpectedly great effect that the growth of this seed will have in the world. The focus here is on the “seed sown on good soil” (20), which, just like Jesus’ ministry, will win out in the end in spite of small beginnings, all sorts of opposition and obstacles, and unlikely odds.

To my mind, reading the parables in their immediate narrative contexts (Level 2), as I have done for the sower above, only makes sense. The fact is that we only have the parables of Jesus embedded in narrative contexts, and when we take these contexts into consideration, the significance of the parables themselves, and of the narrative in which they are set, becomes much clearer. But even at Level 2 we already saw the broader Scriptural and theological context creeping in via Mark’s quotation in verses 11-12, and in some of the interpretive moves I made in points (a)-(d). At Level 3 a lot of new possibilities break in, and the potential for allegorizing breaks open as much as it does at Level 5, given a sufficiently fertile imagination, so much care is needed when working at Level 3.

There is so much more to say about this parable, and about the way the different levels of meaning can contribute to its interpretation, but let me conclude this installment by stating in what sense the sower is the parable of parables. The kingdom of God, which Jesus has come as God’s agent to establish, gets established via the word of God. When the word of God gets sown in us, it powerfully and inevitably produces a great and glorious harvest of righteousness. This happens by the power of God, but it also requires obstacles to be overcome. Many people, even those who hear, will fail to produce the fruit of the kingdom. But many others will hear, accept, and bear fruit, and the harvest will be astounding. When this happens, lives will change and our world will be transformed. The purpose of all the parables is to describe what the kingdom of God is like and/or to stimulate us to think about, come to understand, and then to decide and act in ways that realize this kingdom. The sower is the parable that reveals to us the foundational secret of how this takes place – through the hearing, receiving, and response to the word of God. So “he who has ears to hear, let him hear”!

This is the first part of a three-part series on the parable of the sower, focused on the version of that parable that appears in Mark 4. In the second installment I will give my analysis of the parable itself, and in the third I will share some lessons I think the parable has for us.

To understand the parables of Jesus is crucial for anyone seriously interested in knowing what Jesus taught during his time on earth, since the New Testament gospels are the main documents that preserve the teachings of Jesus, and parables make up a large portion of these teachings – about thirty-five percent in the synoptic gospels (Snodgrass, 22). Jesus was clearly a teller of parables, so any student of Jesus’ teachings needs to come to terms with the parables. For people in UBF, understanding the parables takes on additional significance since the gospels make up the bread and butter of our theological understanding. Sunday sermons and correlated Bible studies typically move passage-by-passage through a book of the Bible, and the general pattern of book selection in many UBF chapters takes one of the gospels, then another OT or NT book, and then back to another of the gospels, alternating between a gospel and other books of the Bible. Knowing, then, what Jesus’ parables are supposed to be doing can only help us as we seek to follow him.

So what is a parable, anyway? The New Testament’s use of the Greek word parabole, and the Hebrew word mashal (most frequently translated parabole in the Greek version of the Old Testament), actually cover a wide range of literary forms that precision-oriented people would want to distinguish from each other. Metaphors (“You are the salt of the earth” (Mt 5:13)), aphorisms (“Let the dead bury their own dead” (Lk 9:60), proverbs (“Physician, heal yourself!” (Lk 4:23)), allegories (e.g. the two eagles and the vine in Ezekiel 17), simple comparisons or similitudes (“Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly” (Prov 26:11)), extended narrative comparisons (e.g. the parable of the prodigal son in Lk 15) and more can all be referred to as “parables” in the biblical sense of that word.[1]

New Testament scholars who do research on the parables disagree with each other on various points concerning both the nature and the function of parables. I won’t be able to go into much detail on the fine points of this vast literature, but will simply present what I see as a good working definition of the term “parable,” and a good general characterization of how parables are supposed to work. For the purposes of understanding the sort of thing the parable of the sower is (and what most of the other texts we usually think of as parables are), it will be sufficient to define a parable as an extended comparison in narrative (story) form with a beginning, middle and end, that compares some event from human experience or nature to something else (usually to some aspect of the kingdom of God). Whatever else the function of parables might be, it is clear that Jesus used them to teach. Many scholars see the theme of Jesus’ teaching, especially in the parables, as concentrated on the overarching theme of the kingdom (or reign) of God. From this point of view we can explain the wide variety of different parables by noting that, just as a king does many different things, so to does the King whose kingdom Jesus describes. So the kingdom of this King can be compared to many different things, each of which is intended both to give us insight and to move us to the sort of faith, decision and action appropriate for subjects of the King.

A core question to ask about the parables is how we should read them. The rest of this installment will investigate this question. To get our minds around the different possible ways of reading a parable, it is useful to think of parables as narrative worlds. Part of what you do when you tell a story is to generate a world of meaning. For example, J.K. Rowling, in writing the Harry Potter series, created a narrative world that is populated by various fictional characters (e.g. Ron Weasley, Lord Voldemort), institutions and settings (e.g. Hogwarts School, Ministry of Magic), and that has its own history. The parables of Jesus are obviously much shorter than the fantasy novels of Rowling, Tolkein or C.S. Lewis, and the narrative worlds generated are relatively sparsely populated. The characters in Jesus’ parables do not get developed much, and he includes only the details needed to make his point. Still, they generate small narrative worlds. An interesting thing about Jesus’ parables is that they are stories within stories. Each one occurs within the larger narrative context of a gospel, which is itself a story (in this case a story whose main character is Jesus), and so a distinct narrative world. Parables, then, are stories embedded inside of bigger stories. We can take this further: the gospels themselves are part of the New Testament, and the New Testament is one part of the two-part canonized work Christians call the Bible. It is possible to see the entire Bible, even with all its diversity, as generating an over-arching narrative world.

Each of these world-levels – (1) the parable itself, (2) the gospel as a whole, (3) the whole of Scripture – can play a role in how we read and understand any given parable. Some scholars have wanted to pull the parables out of their narrative contexts and examine them in isolation (focusing exclusively on Level 1). The motivation for reading the parables in this way is to get at the “original” parable, as Jesus actually told it in its historical, first-century life setting. People worry that when the author of the gospel recorded the parable, he adapted and shaped it to fit his own theological agenda, and so lost the function and intention of the historical Jesus. The effort to understand how Jesus’ first-century audience would likely have heard his parables brings an additional level into play: (4) the parable within the first-century cultural context of Jesus’ life and ministry. Reading the parables informed by what we know about Jesus’ cultural context and social setting can enable us to fill in the unspecified details of the parabolic worlds more accurately.

Another worry that drives these scholars comes from the tendency of parable interpreters in the past to “allegorize” the parables. Allegorizing means treating the parable as a secret code that needs to be deciphered, and resolving its meaning in ways disconnected from the actual text and the original intention of telling the parable. The way Augustine interpreted the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) often gets cited as a particularly bad example of this. Augustine says the man who gets beat up is Adam, the thieves are the devil and his angels, the priest and Levite are the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament, the Samaritan is Jesus, the donkey is the incarnation, the inn is the church and the inn-keeper is Paul, and this goes on for pretty much every single object in the story. Is this what Jesus meant when he originally told the story? Allegorizing introduces still another level or two of meaning from which parables can be read: (5) the parable within the network of Christian theological doctrines, or even (6) within the network of universal truths about human beings, God and the world. But even if we agree that allegorizing in an overly imaginative way is a problem, it seems clear that we shouldn’t get rid of it altogether. As we will see in the parable of the sower, either Jesus himself or the gospel writers (or both) allegorized to some extent (see Mk 4:14-20), and in doing so followed a practice common in Old Testament writings and in other writings around the time of Jesus and the early church.

In the next installment, I will try to show how reading the parable of the sower at each of the levels of meaning (1)-(6) can help us to get a deeper understanding of the text, but at the same time can limit us and lead us astray if we aren’t careful.

I began this series by asking what happens when our understanding of Scripture is contradicted by the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is easy for us to convince ourselves that we are holding to “biblical” values and principles simply because we belong to a ministry that strongly emphasizes Bible study, and yet miss what God is saying to us here and now. The epistle to the Hebrews contains a vivid description of how the Holy Spirit works in conjunction with Scripture (Hebrews 4:12-13, NIV):

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

For the Bible to do its work, we must do more than just try to understand the meaning of the written word. We need to come in the presence the living Word and allow him to expose unpleasant truths about ourselves. In the King James Version, “laid bare” is rendered as “naked.” Studying the Bible while you are naked sounds rather uncomfortable. Unless our Bible study is somewhat uncomfortable, we are not approaching Scripture as we ought. In the next chapter, the author delivers a stinging rebuke to his readers (Hebrews 5:11, The Message):

I have a lot more to say about this, but it is hard to get it across to you since you’ve picked up this bad habit of not listening.

There are countless bad habits that keep us from listening to the voice of God. The bad habit of pulling verses and passages out of context to support our pre-existing positions. Using the Bible to affirm our identity and make us think we are better than others. Treating the Bible as a collection of timeless principles and moral examples rather than the great metanarrative of history culminating in the person and work of Jesus. From my own experience, I know how easy it is to fall into a pattern of bad habits which, while we are interacting with Scripture, allows us to remain distant from Jesus. As Jesus said in John 5:39-40:

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

The Spirit wants to awaken us out of complacency into a dynamic, life-giving relationship with Christ. He wants to refresh our mission, giving us a renewed understanding of the gospel and how to participate in missio Dei.

As the 50^th anniversary of UBF approaches, I have mixed feelings about what has been happening in our ministry. I am grateful for what God has done among us thus far, but I am apprehensive about the talk about preserving our “spiritual heritage” and passing on “UBF principles” to the next generation. The reason I am apprehensive is that, when leaders articulate what the heritage and principles are, it sounds like a description of the fruit of the gospel work among the first generation of UBF members, not the seed that generated that fruit.

The seed is, of course, the gospel. The historical facts of the birth, death and resurrection of Christ, his ascension, lordship and Second Coming, are the universal message that must be proclaimed by the Church in every time and place. The call to believe this message and personally follow the risen Christ are the core of the universal Christian witness. The fruit is the renewal of persons and restoration of relationships seen among those who receive the gospel message, the visible work of the Holy Spirit who dwells in the fellowship of believers.

If someone has come to a saving faith in Christ, evidence of that faith must appear in the person’s life in the form of visible fruit (Heb 6:8; Jas 2:26). But that visible fruit may look very different from one person to another and from one community to another. Profound differences began to appear within the first generation after Christ. The first disciples of Jesus were Jews, and they expressed their gospel faith in visible ways within the context of distinctly Jewish lifestyle. But when Gentiles received the gospel message, they began to live out their faith differently. This led to a crisis around 50 A.D. culminating in the Jerusalem Council in Acts chapter 15, when distinctions between Jewish and Gentile Christians were openly acknowledged and blessed. If the apostles had decided to impose Jewish life-patterns upon Gentile Christians, the growth that the Church experienced in its first two decades would have been unsustainable. The key to continued growth was for the apostles to simultaneously hold on to the historic message of salvation through Christ alone and let go of their implicit, culture-bound notions and expectations about what the “ideal” Christian life should look like, allowing the Holy Spirit to work creatively among new converts.

Too many evangelistic movements have fallen into the trap of trying to sustain activities that are inherently unsustainable. When the Spirit works powerfully in a particular time and place, those who are changed by it may naturally begin to think that this is how it’s supposed to be in other times and places. There is a very fine line between (a) giving thanks to God for what he has done and faithfully building upon it, and (b) canonizing the formative experience of the evangelistic movement by constructing a system of theology, principles, and rules around it in an attempt to perpetuate it. Those who cross this line try to absolutize what is provisional and, despite good intentions, obscure the gospel message and stifle the work of the Spirit among those who would come after them.

The actual fruit of the gospel consists of inward qualities (love, joy, peace, etc.) which cannot be directly observed (Gal 5:22-23). These inward qualities are universal, but their outward manifestations are context-specific and culturally conditioned. During the last century, conservative evangelicals in the United States promoted “Christian” values by demanding that church members abstain from smoking, drinking, gambling and dancing. Interestingly, none of these activities is specifically prohibited in the Bible; Christians in the first century wrestled with a different set of moral issues and dilemmas. A personal decision to refrain from smoking, drinking, gambling or dancing may be an appropriate response to the gospel in some contexts, but these are not timeless laws, and treating them as such can produce unintended negative consequences for individuals, congregations and society at large. When standards like these are imposed as a matter of policy, disciples may adhere to them, but their adherence may not be the evidence of real inner transformation; rather, it will appear through self effort, relationship pressure, cultural expectations and church rules. It will be counterfeit fruit, not the result of genuine Christian spirituality, and its benefits will not last.

When missionaries bring the gospel message into a new culture, they also carry tacit notions of how an ideal Christian disciple should look and act. It is almost inevitable that missionaries will impose many culture-bound standards and expectations upon their disciples. As the disciples mature and begin to exercise independent faith and judgment, they begin to challenge the missionaries’ standards with ideas of their own, leading to tensions and conflicts within a ministry. Appeals to the Bible may not solve the problem, because each one can make a compelling case (in their own minds, at least) that the Bible is on their side. The fundamental question being raised is this: Who determines what the ethical implications of the gospel are in that specific time and place? Should the missionaries decide? Or should the native disciples decide?

The correct answer, I believe, is neither. In a genuine gospel ministry, the Holy Spirit must decide. Fruit-bearing is the prerogative of the Spirit who comes upon each believer in Christ, young and old, male and female, and upon the Church as a whole (Acts 2:16-18). The work of the Spirit is mysterious, unpredictable and surprising. He cannot be treated in a mechanical fashion or be reduced to rules, principles or methods, because he is a person. There is no greater need among us now than to become personally acquainted with Holy Spirit and discern what he doing in this present generation among missionaries’ children and among native disciples, so that this work may be encouraged and blessed.

Editor’s note: Last month, Ben W posted an article that was supportive of the NIV 2011. The piece below, which was written by Chris Kelly and first appeared on his own blog, presents a different view.

As most of you know, the NIV Bible has been used by millions of readers since it first appeared in 1984 and is one of the best-loved translations for many reasons. But this year those who hold the copyright to the NIV have introduced an updated version on BibleGateway.com, and their plan is to replace the 1984 version with this new version. This new translation is not only needless and dishonest, but harmful in the following respects:

It is an attempt to win the approval of people. It is a capitulation to the whims of men and women of this godless age rather than a resolve to be faithful to the word of God. It will lead to the loss of a great and beloved translation, which is being replaced with a lesser, though newer one.

One does not need a crystal ball to see into the motives of the folks at Biblica, the newly named International Bible Society. For already, they have produced two similar translations under different names, first 1n 1996 the New International Readers Version, then in 2001 the Today’s NIV. The updated NIV-2011 resembles the TNIV far more than it resembles the original NIV of 1984. Why take something really old and conform it to something newer that one already has in print? Why give the new translation an old name?

This move cannot be honest. Even Professor Moo’s explanation defies common sense. He talks about “transparency”, which is a modern euphemism for “conformity”, in the way that chameleons are “transparent” by blending in with their surroundings. When I expected to hear “faithfulness to the original text”, what I hear is “conformity to the contemporary English usage”. (I am simply translating Dr. Moo’s words for clarity and ease of understanding to non-academics.)

Conformity to what? To a culture steeped in feminism and immorality; conformity to a language that demands political correctness over truth; conformity to a Christianity that is increasingly lukewarm and unwilling to challenge people of this age.

I don’t remember reading this goal in the 1984 version Translators’ Preface. They write instead of “continuity with the long tradition of translating the Scriptures into English” and of “accurate translation, clarity and literary quality”. The 1984 NIV was popular for all these reasons. The 2011 NIV is something else. 5% has been changed, by Moo’s estimate, “not just here and there, but in every verse“. It sounds as if what he means (if again I may “translate”) is, “The spirit of this translation is updated, and you will sense it in every verse”.

No clairvoyance is needed. The words of these translators tells it all. The 2011 Translators’ Notes read: “When the original Bible documents first emerged, they captured exactly what God wanted to say in the language and idiom of ordinary people. There was no friction between hearing God’s Word the way it was written and understanding it the way it was meant.”

Au contraire! The word of God has always rubbed some people the wrong way, because “the wisdom of God is foolishness to men”. It rubbed the educated the wrong way because the New Testament was written in common Greek. It rubbed every Gentile the wrong way because it was written by Jews. It rubs all sinners the wrong way because it demands holiness. This goal of “reducing friction” is exactly the goal of making the Bible more acceptable to our generation, to make it less abrasive.

Then there is a scholarly argument that the KJV was out of date (after 400 years) and likewise the NIV is now in need of an update, if we would maintain the lack of friction they imagined the KJV had in its day. But after only 30 years, they suggest there is a similarity. Has our language actually changed that much in 30 years? Of course it hasn’t. But our culture has changed dramatically; many, many things that didn’t cause friction then rub people the wrong way now.

The point here isn’t to argue whether some might need a newer translation, or one that doesn’t cause any friction to their modern mindset. The point is, they’ve already given us such a translation twice. So why not just make these little updates to one of the two other NIV-like versions? The 5% changes to the original NIV would only constitute around 0.5% in the TNIV. Really! Here is an example, that is quite common. Look at Phil 3:10 in the old and new NIV and the TNIV:

NIV (2011): I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death

TNIV (2005): I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death

NIV (1984): I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death

Why replace the NIV with the TNIV? or give the TNIV the name NIV and leave the older, more familiar NIV in the dust? I have suggested that money or pressure from feminists are at the root of this move. I ask Professor Moo, then, please tell us the full rationale.

I was told by members of my church that strong language wasn’t necessary in this matter, that I needed to be more “christian” in how I write. But sirs, the Bible is the word of God and you know this. I’m sure you value it as such, just as all true believers. It has always been a touchy matter to tamper with the words in this Holy Book. I will, then, be Biblical in my criticism. Romans 12:2 reads,

And do not be conformed to this world …

Is this not your goal in these changes? It is HIS word, not yours or mine. It is not for us to make it less abrasive, but to translate it faithfully and preach it boldly. The very roughness of the original, which you consider outdated, was assuredly rough to those who heard it then. You know this is true. It was never a politically correct book. Do not do this to the Bible.

What is more, it is unbecoming of us to conform the Bible to the culture in ANY age, especially one that is increasingly immoral. Spurgeon wrote (on March 28th in his devotional Faith’s Check Book):

It is for the saints to lead the way among men by holy influence: they are not to be the tail, to be dragged hither and thither by others. We must not yield to the spirit of the age, but compel the age to do homage to Christ. If the Lord be with us, we shall not crave toleration for religion, but we shall seek to seat it on the throne of society.

Shall we adapt our Holy Bible to the whims of an unholy age? I trow not! Men, do not be the tail of society, be leaders. Do not follow feminists who take offense at the word He—for indeed this constitutes the bulk of the substantive changes you’ve made. Do not follow bean counters who’ve noticed the dismal sales of your TNIV. Do not foist upon Christians something totally changed in spirit from what we have loved and read. It will not be blessed by God. The Spirit in which it was surreptitiously replaced on BibleGateway back in January tells it all, it is a Spirit we do not know.

PS: My son just reminded me that I need to consider other people’s viewpoints (bias) on this, or I risk being ignored by all who don’t share my own. I admit that 40 years ago, when the Living Bible and the NIV first came out, I heard the same points I’m making now being argued about those translations. I brushed them off as being from old-fashioned people who resented anything new. At that time, I did not consider those people’s points of view at all. I’m older now, and I am a little better at recognizing my own as well as others’ biases. I want to be fair. Thus, I do not condemn the TNIV or NIrV or ESV or any translation at all. I’m not on a crusade to bring back the King James. But I insist that replacing the NIV with the TNIV is needless and hurtful to Christian tradition. And I suspect, but not insist, that this move is purely driven by business goals (translated, “greed”).

In a nutshell, Paul says that God hardened the hearts of most first-century Jews to reject the gospel message of righteousness by faith. The remnant who accepted the gospel did so by the grace of God alone. And the Gentiles who accepted the message did so by the grace of God alone. Paul also expressed his hope that someday the Jews, seeing God’s work among the Gentiles, would be aroused to envy, believe the gospel and be saved.

Why did God choose to work this way? Paul’s analysis suggests the following.

• If most of the first-century Jews had accepted Christ, then Christianity would have been so closely bound to Jewish lifestyles and traditions that the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles would have been hindered, and the message of salvation by grace alone would have been watered down.
• If most of the first-century Jews had accepted Christ, then they could think it was their superior character, discipline, keeping of the law, etc. that allowed them to fulfill their purpose as the chosen people. The fact that only a remnant accepted Christ was a mark of shame upon the Jewish Christians which humbled them, making the remnant less arrogant and less likely to impose their own cultural standards upon the Gentiles (although some of them still tried).
• The Gentiles who received the gospel from the Jewish remnant also had to be extra careful not to think of themselves as superior in any way, because if God did not spare arrogant Jews, he would not spare arrogant Gentiles either.
• If and when the gospel ultimately flows from the Gentiles back to the Jews, it will again be an act of saving grace by God’s own choosing.

Another powerful description of election is found near the beginning of 1 Corinthians, where Paul notes that neither Jews nor Gentiles were naturally inclined to accept the gospel (1Co 1:22-24):

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Note the use of the word called. He uses the same term again a few verses later: “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called” (1Co 1:26). That term emphasizes that it was God who, by his divine sovereignty, selected and called the believers in Corinth out from their respective cultural groups to follow Christ. It was not their own choice, their own faith, their own character, their own anything. It was only because of him that they became Christians, and so they have absolutely no reason to boast (1Co 1:30-31). This sense of being called by Christ, and not approaching him by their own merit or choosing, was so pervasive among the early Christians that it is reflected in the name of their community. The Greek word ekklesia, which we translate as “church,” literally means, “ones who were called out.”

What does Paul’s teaching on election imply for the spread of the gospel and missionary work today? Here are three practical lessons that I draw from it.

First, it underscores the fact that evangelism is not driven by human planning, vision, or zeal, but is undertaken by God’s initiative and the work of the Holy Spirit.

There is a short passage in the middle of Romans chapter 10 where Paul writes (Ro 10:14-15):

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

This paragraph has often been interpreted as an exhortation to evangelism. Countless pastors have quoted these verses to urge their members to volunteer, go out, and carry the gospel to an unbelieving world so that they too can have “beautiful feet.” In the context of Romans 9-11, however, this is not an exhortation to evangelism. It is an explanation of why a remnant was chosen out of Israel to believe in Jesus. The original disciples of Jesus didn’t volunteer; they were called by Jesus and then sent by him and the Holy Spirit to the preach the gospel to the rest of Israel, who for the most part rejected the message because God had hardened their hearts. And the hardening of their hearts was part of God’s plan!

Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that evangelism is unnecessary. It is necessary. But it is God who calls and sends some to evangelize, and it is God who manages the outcomes, either positive or negative, and uses them for his own mysterious salvation purpose. To think that we can decide to accept a vision and go out and evangelize, and that we will be successful if we only try hard enough, pray long enough, and use the correct methods, then we are deluding ourselves. God’s interest is to save the nations, not to expand our churches and ministries. He is more than willing to allow us to fail, to chasten us, to humble us, etc. if necessary to show us the world that no group is intrinsically privileged, that salvation comes to everyone by the grace of God alone. He is more than willing to use poor, ineffective, arrogant, or ethnocentric evangelism to reveal the weaknesses of evangelists, churches and Christians and show the world that everyone, including all missionaries and all religious leaders, are sinners not just in theory, but in actuality. He is not interested in helping unrepentant Christians to save face. He wants to show off the amazing grace of his Son, not to dazzle people by the greatness of us.

Second, it shows that God’s mission travels in all directions.

God did not intend for the gospel to travel just from Jews to Gentiles. His plan was for the gospel to start with a remnant of Israel, to flow out the Gentiles, and then ultimately come back to Israel. If the gospel were to flow in one direction only, then it would elevate certain persons and groups to privileged status over others. But the gospel flows in all directions. As missionaries evangelize disciples, they must allow themselves to be re-evangelized by the disciples. This makes the concept of a missionary-sending nation somewhat dubious. Rather than praying for any nation to be “a missionary-sending nation,” it would be more reasonable to envision “a gospel-proclaiming and a gospel-receiving nation.” A church that sends missionaries overseas should not imagine itself to be just a power-station for mission, always giving but never receiving, insulating itself and not allowing itself to be influenced by the Christianity of the converts. As the Church welcomes new believers into the fold, it must itself be transformed. God is always interested in using the various parts of the Body of Christ to evangelize, renew and reform other parts. If any part seeks to reform another, it had better be prepared to be reformed right back.

In part 4 of this series, I discussed the problems with the “mission-station” strategy in which foreigners enter a new culture, set up a church that resembles the one from back home, and attempt to raise disciples in their own image. Donald A. McGavran (1897-1990), the missionary and scholar who coined this term, criticized the mission-station strategy on the grounds that it is ineffective and inhibits church growth. Although I believe his arguments have merit, I do not consider slow growth to be the main reason why Christians must avoid establishing mission stations. We must avoid doing so because this approach conflicts with what the New Testament teaches about election and undermines the gospel of salvation by grace alone.

Third, it underscores the need for great humility – not a false modesty, but a true acknowledgement of our own spiritual poverty – in the way we do apologetics, evangelism and discipleship.

Paul’s teaching about election leads explicitly to the conclusion that at no point may any Christian individual or group think of themselves as superior to any believer or nonbeliever. This does not mean that there is not a proper time for some to teach and others to learn. Indeed, election means that some are called by God to positions of teaching. But the role of teacher carries a grave responsibility to examine himself to uncover the weaknesses of himself and the group from which he comes. As Paul warned in Romans 2:17-20:

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?

We have no business evangelizing others if we are not simultaneously allowing ourselves to be evangelized by the message we are preaching and by the work of the Holy Spirit among those we are attempting to reach. At no point does evangelism depend on our own effort, faithfulness, righteousness or obedience, because the gospel comes to all not because of our wonderful goodness, but only despite our horrible badness. And if our efforts do not produce the desired result, if the message we preach is rejected, what are we to conclude? Lesslie Newbigin (as quoted by Bosch in Transforming Mission, p. 413) wrote:

I can never be so confident of the purity and authenticity of my witness that I can know that the person who rejects my witness has rejected Jesus. I am witness to him who is both utterly holy and utterly gracious. His holiness and grace are as far above my comprehension as they are above that of my hearer.

In the next, and final, article of this series, I will pick up a question that was left unanswered at the end of part 4: Who decides the ethical implications of th gospel?

I open with these questions as I review King’s Cross (Feb 2011), which is Tim Keller’s new book. The book is adapted from sermons he preached from Mark’s Gospel. (Keller is the senior pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York.) I was quite impressed and moved by Keller’s presentation and emphasis in his study of Mark’s Gospel, especially in that what he taught as central was not what I had emphasized in my own Bible teaching of Mark’s Gospel. Very briefly, Keller’s emphasis of his Mark’s Gospel study is “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,” while my emphasis was “You better be like Jesus and SERVE and GIVE YOUR LIFE, you lazy selfish sinner!” Of course, I never said that, but that was my point. Let me explain.

King’s Cross is neatly organized into two parts, corresponding to Mark’s two symmetrical halves or acts:

1. The King (Mark chap 1-8): The identity of Jesus (King over all things)
2. The Cross (Mark chap 9-16): The purpose of Jesus (dying on the cross)

Hence the catchy title from its two parts (“The King” and “The Cross”), each part consisting of 9 chapters, with each chapter focusing on a particular theme by exploring a selective key part of the story told in Mark’s Gospel, explaining the background, illustrating the main point, and applying it for readers. So the book retains the essential elements of good preaching. (But a handful of well-known passages aren’t addressed in detail in the book.) I will not review each chapter of the book, but only selectively address a few points:

The Dance of the Trinity (Mark 1:9-11)

Chap 1, The Dance, identifies the Trinity during the baptism of Jesus: the Father, who is the voice; the Son, who is the Word; and the Spirit, who is the dove (Mark 1:10,11). Keller makes an analogy to the Trinity being present at creation (Gen 1:1-3; John 1:1-3). He ties the story of redemption through Christ with the story of creation in the beginning to show God’s overarching orchestration of God’s plan and purpose in the Bible, as being both a project of the triune God.

Keller titles this chapter The Dance, which is the description of the Trinity used by C.S. Lewis who wrote in Mere Christianity: “In Christianity God is not a static thing…but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama…a kind of dance.” It is a continual never ending dance of perfect love, submission, deference, humility and service toward the other Persons of the Trinity. Being made in the image of the Trinity, we were created to “dance” around God/others. But our sin causes us to expect others to dance around us, thus breaking relationships. Even among holy Christians in the church (1 Cor 1:2), a leader may expect his members to dance around his directives, while the members may expect the leader to dance around their needs and expectations. Keller’s point is this: “If this world was made by a triune God, relationships of love are what life is really all about.”

Food for thought: Do we preach and teach the Bible by focusing on relationships, or on making sure that I and others carry out our “mission”? Do I “dance” around others in love, or do I expect others to dance to my tune and expectations?

The Gospel (Mark 1:14-15)

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ opening words of declaration to the world concerns “the gospel” (ESV) or “the good news” (NIV) (Mark 1:15). Keller’s repeated emphasis in his previous books, Counterfeit Gods and The Prodigal God, including King’s Cross, is this: “The essence of other religions is advice; Christianity is essentially news.” Do we primarily see the Bible as what God has done for me in Christ (1 Cor 15:3,4) and communicate it to others as such (good news), or do I present the Bible as what I must do and how I should live and what I must believe (advice for right living)?

I acknowledge that it’s not easy, in fact it’s downright difficult, to teach the Bible simply as “good news.” Why? I think it is because when you ask, “What I must do?” in response to the gospel, the answer is basically, “Nothing! Absolutely nothing!” But we’re afraid to say, “Nothing,” thinking that we will be teaching “cheap grace.” But isn’t it true that I can really do nothing for God, for Jesus, and for the Holy Spirit? Yes, God loves me for sure, and yes, he does have stuff for me to do. But God doesn’t really need me to complete Himself (or His mission), as the cute romantic movie line goes, “You complete me.” So, if I succeed in teaching the Bible as good news, not good advice, and my “sheep” realizes by the work of the Holy Spirit that they don’t have to do anything at all, then I have succeeded in proclaiming the gospel as good news. If not, I would have taught them to save themselves through religion by doing good works as their righteousness before God and people. But when one truly realizes that they don’t have to do anything (because Jesus has already done it through the Cross), it is only then that they will WANT to do all things with all their heart (Deut 6:5), for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). In the gospel of grace, there is no “I have to,” but “I want to.”

The Call (Mark 1:16-20)

In Jesus’ time, students sought out rabbis whom they wanted to learn from. But Jesus sought out and took the initiative to call his disciples. When teaching Jesus’ calling of his disciples (Mark 1:16-20), I usually press others in some way to respond to God’s calling. But the truth of the matter is that no one can really respond to God’s call unless God himself calls that person (John 6:44, 65). My application is that I should teach the Bible not by pressing others for a response (or for repentance or obedience), but to depend on the Holy Spirit to work in that person’s heart (John 16:8). Then their decision to follow Jesus is not because of my human pressure and “push,” but because of God working in their hearts through his word, and by his Spirit. Then they will understand that God’s call is not primarily up to their response or repentance or obedience, but that it is nothing but sheer grace that God called them.

Authority (Mark 1:21-22)

Perhaps, we throw around phases like “spiritual authority,” as though the one who has it has some kind of advantage, or superiority, or an elevated elite status over others. I never thought of this before, but “authority” comes from the word “author,” where the authority does not come from the man, but from the Source. Thus, Jesus taught with original rather than derived authority.

Therefore, my authority as a Christian should not draw attention to myself as having authority that others in the church should acknowledge or submit to. This causes an unhealthy fear of man (Prov 29:25), rather than a healthy fear of God (Prov 1:7; 9:10). Also, if I do come across as the “head honcho” (God forbid!), it functionally becomes as though a man is the head of the church, and obscures the truth that Jesus is the Head of the church (Col 1:18; Eph 1:22). But my sin is to always default to myself and to expect others to submit to my “spiritual authority” in the church, thus clouding God’s glory. Ultimately, only the Holy Spirit can glorify God and enable man to glorify God (John 17:2).

The Ransom (Mark 10:45)

Whenever I taught Mark 10:45, my emphasis was on Jesus who came to serve, and on Jesus who gave his life. Therefore, you and I, if we are Christians, must likewise serve and give our lives, just as Jesus did. But Keller spent 15 pages of this chapter focusing almost entirely on Jesus as the ransom, the substitutionary sacrifice, the debt that had to be paid, either by us sinners, or by God himself. (David Lovi has written on this in 2 parts: The Necessity of Penal Substitution.)

Practically and functionally, we humans think that the route to gaining influence is to have power and control. We hold the power and control whenever we try to ensure that others work hard, serve, live for their mission, and give their lives for the church and for world mission. It then becomes as though our own power and control is the determining factor that makes the church prosper and grow. But keeping the power and controls is really self-centered leadership, and not trinitarian. Moreover, holding and communicating such power and control really doesn’t change sinner’s hearts. Only Jesus who died as a ransom changes hearts. When Jesus died on the cross, he gave up all power and control; he became the symbol of utter weakness, helplessness and vulnerability. But in this way, and only in this way, are we empowered (Rom 1:16), and our hearts transformed by the Spirit (2 Cor 3:18) with gratitude, love, joy and peace (Gal 5:22,23).

Keller closed King’s Cross with these words: “God made you to love him supremely, but he lost you. He returned to get you back, but it took the cross to do it. He absorbed your darkness so that one day you can finally and dazzlingly become your true self and take your seat at his eternal feast.”

By all means, read the book. If not, check out my summary of each chapter:

Chap 1: The Dance (Trinity) (Mark 1:9-11): Do you expect others to dance around you?
Chap 2: The Gospel, The Call (Mark 1:14-20): Is your gospel good news or good advice?
Chap 3: The Healing (Mark 2:1-5): Are your sins against God or people (Ps 51:4)?
Chap 4: The Rest (Mark 2:23-3:6): Are you desperately seeking significance?
Chap 5: The Power (Mark 4:35-41): Do you enjoy goodness and calm in a storm?
Chap 6: The Waiting (Mark 5:21-43): Do you have peace when God delays?
Chap 7: The Stain (Mark 7:1-23): Do you feel unclean, insignificant?
Chap 8: The Approach (Mark 7:24-37): Do you know you’re a dog, yet loved?
Chap 9: The Turn (Mark 8:27-9:1): Why is forgiveness so hard?
Chap 10: The Mountain (Mark 9:2-29): What if you are filled with doubt?
Chap 11: The Trap (Mark 10:17-27): Is money just money to you?
Chap 12: The Ransom (Mark 10:45): Is Jesus all you want and need?
Chap 13: The Temple (Mark 11:1-18): Are you both a lion and a lamb?
Chap 14: The Feast (Mark 14:12-26): Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

Keller might be a contemporary champion of the church in regards to presuppositional apologetics (especially Reason For God), which perhaps we might be weak at as a church. King’s Cross is similarly presented presuppositionally and rationally and persuasively (while assuming nothing or very little). It has countless gems in every chapter, which I have not addressed. I’ve only quite randomly and selectively high lighted a very few points.

Perhaps, through reading this post, might you consider reassessing or tweaking how you have personally understood Mark’s Gospel and taught Mark’s Gospel to others?

Reading Romans to learn about justification by faith is a useful exercise. But it is also helpful to take off those Reformation goggles to see what Paul was actually saying to Roman Christians in the first century. If we do so, then we may find that the central teaching of Romans is not justification by faith. Rather, I believe we will find that the key idea is divine election.

Allusions to election appear in the very first verse: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God…” (Ro 1:1). Notice the terms “called” and “set apart.” Paul’s status as an apostle and servant of Christ were not attained by virtue, dedication, hard work, values, character, etc. but were given to him as a gift of pure grace. It was God who called him and set him apart from his fellow Jews to serve the gospel rather than promoting Jewish law, custom and tradition.

Paul was writing to a church that he did not personally found. His letter was intended to give them a rich theological and historical perspective on the gospel, to help them better understand their identity as a mixed congregation of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Comparisons and contrasts between Jews and Gentiles are made throughout the book, in virtually every chapter. Vast differences existed between these two groups with regard to history, culture, lifestyle and conscience. Paul did not want them to ignore those differences, but to pay attention to them, wrestle with them, and understand God’s purpose in bringing these polar opposites together in light of missio Dei.

The thesis of the first half of the book (Chapters 1-8) is that a divine message of salvation has now been revealed, a message that can save Jew and Gentile alike, and that both groups are saved in exactly the same way: through a righteousness that comes by faith (1:16-17). Both groups are sinful and deserving of God’s judgment, but in different ways and for different reasons. Gentiles have fallen into blatant godlessness evidenced by idolatry, sexual immorality, violence, and depravity (1:18-32). Jews have violated God’s covenant with them by breaking the laws that he gave them (2:17-29). Neither group has the right to point a finger of judgment at the other, because neither one is repentant (2:1-5). But Jesus Christ came to save both Jew and Gentile in the same way, granting them righteousness that comes by faith (3:21-26). God’s manner of salvation makes it impossible for anyone to boast (3:27). This gospel of righteousness is not new; it is found in the Old Testament, through the accounts of Abraham and David (chapter 4). Jesus is the new Adam who recreates the entire human race (chapter 5). Anyone who believes Christ is united with him in his death and resurrection, and the risen Christ comes alive in him, giving him a new life (chapter 6). Christians are not bound by law, but have been freed to live by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit accomplishes what the law was powerless to do: bring our dead souls to life, give us victory over sin (chapters 7-8).

Partway through this treatise on the gospel is a defense of the doctrine of election (3:1-8). Paul explains that even though the Jews failed to uphold their covenant, God’s purpose for them did not fail. He hints that human unfaithfulness is foreseen by God and is ultimately used for his glory, but that fact does not absolve anyone of genuine guilt. He picks up this theme again in chapters 9-11, where he wrestles with a subject that for him was intensely personal and painful: the Jews’ overwhelming rejection of the gospel.

If we look to Romans chapters 9-11 to answer all of our questions about Calvinism versus Arminianism, we will be disappointed. Paul was not constructing a theological system. His purpose was limited to making sense of what God had done, was doing, and will do with his chosen people, to help Jewish and Gentile Christians understand their respective positions in God’s redemptive history.

In chapter 9, Paul shares his deep anguish over the Israel’s rejection of the gospel. Despite their glorious spiritual heritage as God’s chosen people, they rejected God’s Messiah. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone,” because they pursued righteousness through the conditional, failed covenant of Mosaic law rather than the unconditional Abrahamic covenant of righteousness by faith. God foresaw all their failure and their future rejection of Christ, yet he patiently bore with them for many centuries because he had a different purpose for them. His purpose was to raise up through them a faithful remnant to carry the gospel to his elect among the Jews, and to use the Jews’ majority rejection of Christ to propel the gospel out to the Gentiles.

In the middle of chapter 9, Paul makes a startling claim. He says that underlying reason why the majority of Jews rejected the gospel is that God hardened their hearts. He compares the Israelites to Pharaoh, of whom it is said numerous times (I counted ten times in Exodus chapters 4-14) that God hardened his heart against the message of Moses. Paul repeats the claim in chapter 11, using references from Deuteronomy 29 and Isaiah 29 to show that “God gave them a spirit of stupor” so that they would reject the message.

Paul’s claim is difficult for us to swallow, because it deeply conflicts with our modernistic notions of fairness, freedom, and autonomy of the individual human person. It was also confusing for Christians in the first century, but for different reasons. It conflicted with their understanding of the Old Testament. How could they reconcile this reasoning with God’s numerous promises to Israel? Had God changed his mind and rejected those whom he had chosen? Paul offered some clarifications to help his readers, and it is useful to examine them even if they do not put to rest all the questions and concerns of 21^st century evangelicals. First, Paul notes that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). It is not the physical descendents of Abraham who are reckoned as God’s children, but those among them who accepted his promise of blessing. Second, he says that even if God hardens someone’s heart, it does not absolve them of personal responsibility (9:19-21). Third, even though most of the Jews had at present rejected God’s offer, they had not stumbled beyond recovery (11:11). All of God’s promises throughout the Old Testament still stood; his gifts and promises were irrevocable, which led Paul to believe that the hardening of their hearts was temporary. He still hoped that at some point in the future, many of them would eventually come back into a saving relationship with God, because God’s desire was to show mercy to all (11:25-32). Realizing that this is still very difficult to understand, that we do not at present see exactly what God is doing but must trust his judgments, Paul consigns these teachings to the realm of mystery and exclaims, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” (11:33-36).

Editors of the NIV placed Romans 11:25-32 under a section title, “All Israel Will Be Saved.” Some evangelicals believe that all Jews will ultimately receive salvation, and this is tied to various beliefs about the future of the nation of Israel. Although I do not dismiss these theories, I remain skeptical because I do not know the extent to which Paul’s use of the term “Israel” relates to any modern-day ethnic or religious group or geopolitical entity. Like Paul, I am happy to place this in a file cabinet under “mysterious teachings of the Bible.” I don’t know what the future holds for Israel, but I suspect that however it pans out, everyone will be surprised. (That’s why I call myself a pan-millennialist.)

Although Paul doesn’t answer many of our questions about predestination, he does give us a definitive understanding of God’s overall purpose in election, and he does present a “practical application” of this teaching to his first-century readers. He tells them that, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, their acceptance of the gospel did not “depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (9:16). The historic covenant of law had to fail prior to the coming of the gospel; if it did not, it would have undermined God’s plan to grant people righteousness by faith alone (9:30-33). If the people of Israel had not rejected Christ, then Jewish missionaries who carried the gospel to the Gentiles could still claim ethnic or religious superiority over the people they were evangelizing. The rejection of the gospel by the Jews underscored the fact that the minority, the remnant who accepted the gospel, were chosen not because of their superior character or effort or achievements but by the grace of God alone (11:1-6). And the Gentiles who received the gospel from the Jewish remnant had no right to boast either, because they too were chosen by grace alone (11:13-21). At no point should anyone in Christ feel smug or self-assured in their salvation. No one in the church has achieved standing before God on the basis any decision they have made or any action that they have taken; their standing has always been by grace alone, and if they deny that, they themselves will be cut off (11:22).

The principle of election should foster in everyone a deep, heartfelt gratitude toward God and humility before other people, as Paul says in the next chapter: “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you” (12:3). Although we have been saved by faith, the faith itself is a gift from God. Whether we think of ourselves as having weak faith, strong faith, or no faith, no Christian individual or group at any time has any basis for pride over anyone else, because whatever faith they have was distributed to them by God as an undeserved gift.

This understanding of election leads us inevitably to a rule of love, not a rule of law, as the sole ethic of the Christian life. A Christian must not by driven by desire to achieve a superior status or blessing from God on the basis of anything he is or does; such motivations are incompatible with the gospel. The sole motivation for everything we do must be love for God, for our neighbor, and for our enemy (12:9-21). Love is the fulfillment of the law (13:8-10). Christians who understand election will not pass judgment on one another. Those who seem to be “strong” will never judge those who seem “weak,” or vice-versa, because God accepts all regardless of strength or weakness (14:1-22).

And in a stunning reversal of common sense, Paul uses the term “weak” in chapter 14 to refer to Jewish Christians who, because of their consciences, felt compelled to adhere to dietary and religious laws. I’ll bet that those believers did not consider themselves to be weak. From childhood, they had been trained to think of adhering to their laws (which, by the way, were biblically based) as a sign of holiness, discipline and purity. Paul characterized their reliance upon those disciplines as a weakness and freedom from those laws as strength. But he warned those who were free to be mindful of those who were not. He urged everyone not to impose their moral scruples upon one another, but to respect one another’s consciences, to love one another and live in peace as demonstrated by unity-in-diversity.

Historians have called the early Church “a sociological impossibility.” This description is very accurate. There was no human way for Jews and Gentiles, who in so many ways were polar opposites, to come together as friends and form a loving community. But it happened in the first century, and the reason why it happened is found in the book of Romans. Understanding the doctrine of divine election enabled the Jewish and Gentile Christians to embrace their differences and see why God had put them together in the same church.

Similarly, the world mission command of Acts 1:8 functions as an outline for Acts, and its true meaning cannot be discerned apart from the entire book. As I have previously noted, this verse is not a command but a promise. Jesus said to his apostles: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” What Jesus promised came to pass. The apostles became witnesses of the risen Christ, and the gospel did go out from them to Jerusalem, to all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. As I explained in part 5 of this series, this propagation of the gospel did not come about through the apostles’ visionary planning, effort and zeal. It happened just as Jesus said it would, through the power and initiative of the Holy Spirit.

The preeminent role of the Holy Spirit in missio Dei is one of the great underlying themes of the book of Acts through which we are to interpret the world mission “command” of Acts 1:8.

As I re-read the book of Acts last month, another underlying theme caught my attention. This theme was so obvious that I was shocked that I hadn’t noticed it before. In addition to the work of the Holy Spirit among the apostles, there was another powerful force at work that drove the gospel out from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Can you guess what it was?

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, here’s the answer: It was the rejection of Christ by the Jews.

Not all the Jews rejected Jesus, of course. All of the apostles were Jews. The original 120 disciples, and the 3,000 who were baptized on the day of Pentecost, were overwhelmingly if not exclusively Jewish. So it would be more correct to say that it was the acceptance of Christ by a minority of Jews, combined with the rejection of Christ by the majority, that carried the gospel to the Gentiles.

The author of Acts does not present the Jews’ rejection of Christ as an incidental detail, but as a key piece of the mysterious puzzle of missio Dei. Here is some evidence.

In Peter’s evangelistic message on the day of Pentecost, he told his audience, “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross” (Acts 2:23). Peter did not absolve the people of their responsibility; he declared them to be culpable in Jesus’ death. But he also explained that God deliberately planned for this to happen. It was an integral part of his glorification, a necessary step for him to become our rejected, crucified, risen Messiah.

After the day of Pentecost, the Jewish authorities were not able to stop the apostles from preaching the resurrection of Christ; the apostles had become too popular, and the good works that God was doing through them were undeniable (chapter 4). But a fresh wave of Jewish opposition arose when Stephen, a Hellenistic Jew who had been appointed by the apostles to a position of leadership along with six other Hellenistic Jews, began to preach and perform miraculous signs. Stephen’s ministry (chapter 6) and speech before the Sanhedrin (chapter 7) infuriated the religious leaders and the populace of Jerusalem. In the middle of Stephen’s speech, they dragged him out of court and stoned him to death. The stoning of Stephen was a gross violation of civil and religious law; he had not been convicted of any crime.

Why did Stephen’s speech infuriate them so much? That is a truly interesting question. To answer it well would require a careful exegesis of his speech, which is beyond the scope of this article. But two features of the speech stand out. First, Stephen pointed out that God does not dwell in any building made by human hands (Acts 7:48). He greatly diminished the importance of the temple, inferring that Jerusalem was no longer (and, in truth, never had been) the focus of God’s redemptive history. Second, he declared that the Jews had failed all along to keep the covenant of law that God had given them. All along they been resisting the work of the Holy Spirit, and the crucifixion of Jesus was just the latest and most blatant example of their rejection of God’s purpose for them (Acts 7:51-53). To hear these words from the mouth Hellenistic Jew – and Hellenistic Jews were generally regarded by the Hebraic Jews as worldly, compromised, too liberal in their lifestyles, etc. – struck at the heart of their religious identity. It brought to the surface huge amount of conflict, anger and resentment.

After the murder of Stephen – and it is correctly called a murder, because due process was not followed – a wave of violent opposition broke out against the Jerusalem church, and everyone except the apostles was driven out of the city. As a direct consequence of this persecution, the gospel went out to Judea and Samaria. Philip, another one of the seven Hellenistic church leaders, was instrumental in the evangelization of Samaria (chapter 8). In a very ironic twist, it is Saul of Tarsus, the future Apostle Paul, who is a ringleader in the persecution effort. Even before Paul’s conversion, he was already being used as God’s a divinely elected instrument to drive the gospel toward the Gentiles.

When the Holy Spirit sent Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey, they traveled to Cyprus and regions of modern-day Turkey (chapters 13-14). They intentionally focused their efforts on the Jewish community, preaching in synagogues on the Sabbath. Paul believed that it was God’s plan for the Jews, God’s chosen people, to receive the gospel first (Romans 1:16). A few Jews would respond favorably, but most would reject it. However, the message would be received with great enthusiasm by the God-fearing Gentiles who had not taken the step of conversion to Judaism by being circumcised. This became a recurrent pattern throughout Paul’s missionary journeys.

In hindsight, we can say that the rejection of the gospel by a majority of the Jews was necessary for the Church to develop, both sociologically and theologically. If large numbers of Jews had embraced the message, then Christianity could never have become divorced from Jewish custom and tradition, and a Torah-free gospel could not have been preached throughout the world. The schism in the Jewish community created by the gospel forced the leaders of the early Church to take stock of their theology and clarify what the gospel is truly about (chapter 15). But this rift caused a great deal of personal angst, heartache and pain among the Jewish believers. The rejection of the gospel by the Jewish majority, and the tension between Jewish and Gentile elements in forging the identity of the Church, is one of the most salient issues on the minds of the writers of the New Testament. It strongly colors all four of the gospels and many of the epistles. Given the overwhelming hardness of the Jews toward the gospel, and the rapid spread of the faith among the Gentiles, what was God doing, and what should the Church leaders now be doing? What would the Church look like after one, two, or three generations? Was the apostolic mission to the Jews now finished?

Nowhere is this struggle to understand what God was doing more evident than in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. It is the focus of chapters 9-11, which are difficult to understand but regarded by many scholars as the heart of the book. We will discuss that in the next installment.

The word elect simply means “chosen.” In the Old Testament, God chose the people of Israel and made a special relationship with them. If we examine how this choice is portrayed, two aspects are emphasized. First, the Israelites were not chosen because of their inherent goodness; election came to them by grace alone. Second, election did not confer on them any claim of superior status before God. On the contrary, their election placed them in a position of responsibility and servantship toward other nations. Their failure to live up to God’s covenant led to captivity and humiliation, and that should have further prepared them to receive the gospel of salvation by grace.

Election is also a powerful theme throughout the New Testament. We see it in the interaction between Jesus and his disciples. First-century Jewish society had a well developed culture of discipleship. Young men would gather around popular rabbis to learn the Torah with hopes of becoming rabbis themselves. It was always the disciple who chose the rabbi and initiated the relationship. But Jesus turned the tables completely around. He approached young men of his own choosing and commanded them to follow him. Of course, the disciples had to willingly respond. But they were not the initiators. Jesus called, they followed.

When Jesus appointed the Twelve apostles, he chose the ones he wanted (Mark 3:13). Jesus said to the Twelve, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit…” (John 15:16). When others tried to follow Jesus as the apostles did, Jesus sometimes discouraged them from doing so (Mark 5:19).

Why did Jesus choose these particular men? They had no special education, pedigree or obvious qualifications that set them apart from the rest. They were just regular people from Galilee. It seems that they were chosen specifically because of their ordinariness, to show the world that their election was by grace alone. Even after they were chosen, they did not demonstrate great virtue or faithfulness. Throughout the gospel accounts, their weaknesses are continually laid bare. They abandoned and betrayed Jesus in his hour of need. Their status as apostles was truly undeserved. From start to finish, it was Jesus who bore with them, forgave them and upheld them by grace.

Jesus chose them to be with him and to observe him, and to ultimately become the witnesses of his death and resurrection (Mark 1:14, Acts 1:8). They were to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mark 16:15). Yet Peter, despite his interaction with Cornelius in Acts chapter 10, continued to minister almost exclusively to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). Peter and the other apostles had great difficulty associating with Gentiles. They had been taught from childhood that Gentile ways were inherently unclean. The idea of preaching a Torah-free gospel seemed alien to them; they just couldn’t envision an authentic Gentile Christian lifestyle.

When the gospel finally broke through to the Gentiles, it happened through the most unlikely person. Saul of Tarsus had distinguished himself among the Pharisees for his ultra-strict keeping of the law (Philippians 3:4-6). He had zealously persecuted the Church because he considered the Christians to be a threat to Jewish religious supremacy. But the risen Christ personally appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. Jesus chose him to be his instrument to carry his name to the Gentiles, a mission that Saul would never have chosen for himself (Acts 9:15). The calling of Saul, and his transformation into the Apostle Paul, is another powerful picture of God’s election. Once again, it appears that God chose Paul for this task to demonstrate that his gospel comes to all purely by grace.

Examining the flow of God’s salvation history throughout the Old and New Testaments, it becomes unmistakably clear that his salvation comes to individuals and nations not because of the efforts and virtues of God’s human accomplices but despite them. From start to finish, the mission belongs to God, not to people.

The early Christians knew this principle. The Latin word missio, from which we derive mission, was a theological term for the Father sending the Son into the world, and for the Father and Son sending the Holy Spirit. Mission is an intrinsic part of God’s character. In modern times, however, mission has come to be understood as activity that individuals and churches undertake by their own choosing and initiative. All too often, mission is now seen as a human effort to carry the gospel to the lost people of the world.

In the highly acclaimed book Transforming Mission, David Bosch described how Protestant missionary efforts over the last two centuries have been characterized by a spirit of “voluntarism.” This is exactly what one would expect in a historical period marked by industrialization, free enterprise and scientific positivism. Christians spoke of “the evangelization of the world in this generation!” That phrase became the motto of the Student Volunteer Movement (SVM) of the late 19^th century. SVM leaders appeared to be self-confident, singleminded, and triumphant. With great enthusiasm, they recruited and sent out thousands of missionaries throughout the world. This era of missionary activity peaked around the year 1900, when a huge missions conference was held in New York City with over two hundred thousand participants. Speakers at that conference included several Presidents of the United States. Church leaders spoke of mission in militaristic terms. They confidently predicted that within their lifetimes the forces of darkness would be vanquished and the whole world conquered with the gospel, paving the way for Jesus to return.

In the early decades of the 20^th century, however, SVM and other missionary agencies rapidly declined. A proper analysis of why this happened is beyond the scope of this article. To characterize SVM as a failure would be an overstatement. But the organization was not able to fulfill its ambitious goals, and clearly it was not for lack of effort. The heroism, vision and hard work of SVM and similar organizations masked a great deal of organizational weakness. Bosch wrote (p. 333):

People were challenged to go without any financial guarantees, simply trusting that the Lord of mission would provide… No time was left for timorous or carefully prepared advances into pagan territory, nor for the laborious building up of ‘autonomous’ churches on the ‘mission field.’ The gospel had to be proclaimed to all with the greatest speed, and for this there could never be enough missionaries. It also meant that there was neither time nor need for drawn-out preparation for missionary service. Many who went out had very little education or training…

The movement also suffered from theological deficiencies that were not recognized or corrected. Bosch continues:

The weaknesses of the faith mission movement are obvious: the romantic notion of the freedom of the individual to make his or her own choices. And almost convulsive preoccupation with saving people’s souls before Judgment Day, a limited knowledge of the cultures and religions of the people to whom the missionaries went, virtually no interest in the societal dimension of the Christian gospel, almost exclusive dependence on the charismatic personality of the founder, a very low view of the church, etc.

When mission is seen to flow from the personal choice of the missionary who, of his own volition and charitable nature, decides to carry the gospel to lost people, it places the missionary on a moral high ground relative to those he is trying to evangelize. Bosch concludes:

It spawned an enterprise in which the one party would do all the giving and the other all the receiving. This was so because one group was, in its own eyes, evidently privileged and the other, equally evidently, disadvantaged.

The biblical principle of election, however, declares that the one who carries the gospel is in no way superior to the one who receives it. Arrogance, hubris, overconfidence, and a sense of entitlement before God have no place in mission because they are incompatible with the gospel of grace.

In a voluntaristic missionary movement, participation in the mission is regarded as obedience. Of course, the Great Commission was given to the apostles in Matthew 28:18-20 in the form of a command. Shouldn’t we be obeying that command? This reasoning of obedience to Matthew 28:18-20 was applied by William Carey in his famous 1792 tract An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen. Since that time, Matthew 28:18-20 has maintained a prominent place in the Protestant missionary thinking. It is difficult to argue with this kind of logic. Jesus bids us, “Go,” therefore we must go! If we are not going as missionaries to make disciples of all nations, then aren’t we clearly disobeying Christ?

Bosch points out, however, that the command “go and make disciples” can be properly understood only within the greater context of Matthew’s gospel (Chap. 2). The meaning and requirements of discipleship are laid out by Jesus throughout the book, beginning with the Sermon on the Mount, progressing through many parables about the kingdom of heaven, and so on. If the Great Commission is lifted out of this context and made the sole motivation for missions, the movement that ensues becomes a reduction and distortion of what Jesus intended. Indeed, until the early part of the 19^th century, Protestant missionary literature never relied on obedience to Matthew 28:18-20 as the sole motivator; it was always connected to other biblical motifs. But movements of the SVM era applied the Great Commission with greater frequency and vigor, and by the 20^th century it was often presented as sufficient justification for everything that the movements were doing. “It became a kind of last line of defense, as if the protagonists of mission were saying, ‘How can you oppose mission to the heathen if Christ himself has commanded it?'” (pp. 340-341)

In addition to removing these verses from their proper context, Bosch (p. 341) notes two other problems with the Great Commission as the primary motivator for Christian missions. First, it is almost always used as a polemic. Individuals and churches who do not vigorously proselytize are denounced as watered-down, compromised and disobedient. Second, it takes mission out of the realm of gospel and places it in the realm of law. The Great Commission becomes a rule that must be obeyed if one is to be considered a faithful Christian. But mission in the New Testament did not begin with the apostles sitting down together and discussing how to obey the world mission command. Evangelism began with the “explosion of joy” (Newbigin’s term) emanating from the empty tomb. The apostles’ mission was sealed by their encounters with the risen Christ and empowered by the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Mission arrived as a gift, not a law. It came to the apostles by divine election through the grace of God alone.

God cares about relationships. When Jesus ascended to heaven, he didn’t leave behind a book of writings. He left behind a community of witnesses who were filled with the Holy Spirit and entrusted the preaching of the gospel to them (Acts 1:8). As members of this community proclaim the gospel, they invite others to become part of God’s family where their true personhood will be realized. That family is not equivalent to a church organization. It is the body of all people who belong to Christ, the “communion of saints” that is mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed. Evangelism that fails to call people to join this body is alien to the New Testament. Jesus never intended his disciples to be lone wolves. Nor did he intend them to live in small, isolated, parochial clans whose members remain suspicious of everyone on the outside (Mk 9:38-40). He prayed for all his followers to be one, to experience among themselves the loving oneness that has with his own Father in a highly visible way, so that the whole world would see that the gospel is true (John 17:20-23).

So the preaching of the gospel is not just passing a set of teachings from one person to another; it is knitting persons together in grace to heal them, their families, their communities, and the world of the relational brokenness caused by sin. The healing that we experience now through the work of the Holy Spirit is the downpayment, the foretaste, of the full restoration that will be enacted when Jesus returns in power and glory. The present signs of the kingdom, our miraculously restored relationships with God and with one another, are the evidence and the engine of true evangelism.

If God’s plan to restore relationships requires that the gospel be spread from one person to another, one community to another, and one nation to another, then someone has to begin that process. Certain persons, communities and nations must be chosen to receive the gospel and bear it to others. That is the key idea of election as described by Paul in Romans 9-11.

Election wasn’t invented by Paul. It is the storyline of the Old Testament. Out of all nations, God called one nation, the Israelites, for his special purpose. He shaped their history through divine intervention and revelation, preparing them to be the first ones to welcome the Messiah.

In chapter 7 of The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin starts his discussion of election by reminding us of how offensive it sounds to nonbelievers, especially today. The idea that certain individuals and cultures have received special, unique knowledge from the Creator — the one who is Maker of all, whose image is borne by every human being – seems ludicrous. It is especially hard to believe, given that the people who were chosen were not outstanding among the great civilizations of the world; they hardly distinguished themselves by their achievements, scholarship, or virtuous lives. If God cares for all, as we believers claim, then why would he heap special treatment on some, on a small minority of people who do not appear to deserve it?

Election is patently offensive to every generation and culture. If a stranger arrives from a foreign land claiming to have special knowledge of universal truth, that claim is enough to make natives cry, “Missionary, go home!” How do we handle with this thorny problem? First, we should openly acknowledge that it is a problem. Second, we must understand that God’s election was never intended to set one person above another, one group above another, one culture above another. Election does not confer any moral privilege or special standing before God. In fact, the manner in which election unfolds throughout history makes it absolutely clear that salvation comes by grace alone, not through the intrinsic goodness or special qualities of any person or group. Never at any point in God’s history do his elect have any claim to special treatment by him because of their obedience, effort or virtue. The blessings received by the elect never come to them because of their wonderful goodness, but only despite their horrible badness.

When God called Abraham, he said: “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing” (Gen 12:1-2). It is tempting to read this statement as conditional: “If you leave and go, then I will bless you. If you don’t, I will not bless you.” But the blessing is not conditioned on Abraham’s response. God simply announces that he will be blessed, and God invites him to go and see the evidence of that blessing. Abraham does not earn the promise; his obedience is the way that he receives the promise.

The author of Genesis makes it clear that Abraham had no intrinsic virtues that set him above other people. When he went down to Egypt, he acted dishonestly. He appears less honorable than Pharaoh, and yet God rescued and blessed him (Gen 12:10-20). Again, in chapter 20, Abraham is less righteous than Abimelech, but God chose to bless him anyway. This favoritism toward Abraham has a universal purpose: God intends to bless all nations on earth through him (Gen 12:3).

About 430 years later, God made a special agreement with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. This covenant is described in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Unlike the covenant of promise that God made to Abraham, this covenant of law is very conditional. If the Israelites obeyed God fully, then they would receive his special blessings. This covenant of law did not amend, change or supersede the covenant of promise that God gave earlier (Gal 3:17). God’s declarations to Abraham stood regardless of what the Israelites chose to do.

In an article posted last month, David L. correctly noted that Exodus 19:5-6 is a promise made to Israel, not to the Church. Christians who apply these verses to themselves are taking the passage out of context. The covenant described in Exodus 19:5-6 is a failed covenant and was doomed to fail from the start. Even before Moses came down from the mountain, the Israelites had already broken the agreement by worshipping the golden calf (Ex 32). A literal application of Exodus 19:5-6 to ourselves would lead us to believe that if we obey God’s commands, then God will bless us and our nation. If so, then we must not ignore the word fully. The obedience required by this covenant is complete obedience to the law of Moses, all 600 commands, because anyone who places himself under the law is obligated to obey it in its entirety (Gal 5:3).

The covenant of law failed because the Israelites willfully disobeyed. But God, in his sovereign purpose, used their disobedience to demonstrate that, though they were the chosen people, they were no better than anyone else. The division of their kingdom, the destruction of their temple, and their captivity in Babylon should have produced in them a deep humiliation that paved the way for the message of salvation by grace alone. This humiliation of failure, combined with the knowledge of God’s saving grace through Jesus, should have given them an openminded and generous spirit required of missionaries. God was preparing them to go to other nations and say, “We are no better than you. We are not coming with superior strength, wisdom, or moral standards. We were and still are deeply sinful and broken, and in many ways you are better than us. But God, for reasons that we do not understand, walked among our people and revealed to us something about his great salvation plan. We witnessed God’s redemption firsthand through the death and resurrection of his Son. Now we are experiencing his work of restoration. God wants to repair our relationship with you. We are your brothers and sisters, not your elders. We are not attempting to rule over you or change you into Jews like us. We will respect you, accept you and love you as you are, because that is what God has done for us; that is the essence of the gospel. We believe that the Holy Spirit is already hovering over you, working in mysterious ways that we cannot yet understand, and we hope to learn from you what God has been doing among you. We encourage you to respond to the Spirit’s invitation and become equal partners with us in this glorious work of restoration.”

That is the character that God wanted to instill in his chosen people. And, to an extent, that is what happened in the generations leading up to Christ, especially among the Hellenistic Jews scattered across the Empire. While they kept their laws and traditions, they also spoke Greek, and they began to mingle and develop meaningful relationships with the Gentiles around them. Their synagogues began to attract God-fearing Greeks who, for good reason, did not submit to circumcision but nevertheless loved the Lord. Many Hellenistic Jews developed an open and tolerant spirit as exemplified by Stephen and Philip in Acts chapters 6-8.

But in and around Jerusalem, the opposite was happening. In the years leading up to Christ, the rabbinical schools heightened the distinctions between clean and unclean, narrowing the popular conceptions of who was going to be saved. God’s salvation was no longer for all Israel; those were seen as worldly and compromised, such as the tax collectors and public sinners, were excluded. As Pharisees trended toward rigid interpretations and practices of the law, those considered to be elect became fewer and more distant from the rest. And the Essenes, who became so strict in their practices that they considered the Pharisees to be impure, formed monastic communities and withdrew to the caves at Qumran. They labeled everyone outside of their community as “Breakers of the Covenant.”

As these groups increasingly staked their identity and self-worth on the keeping of their traditions and laws, their expectations for the coming Messiah turned toward validation and reward for the elect, combined with punishment for anyone who oppressed or opposed them in any way. The enemies of the Jews were seen as the enemies of God, destined for enslavement or destruction. The late missiologist David J. Bosch (Transforming Mission, p. 19-20) explained:

As the political and social conditions of the people of the old covenant deteriorate, there increasingly develops the expectation that, one day, the Messiah will come to conquer the Gentile nations and restore Israel. This expectation is usually linked with fantastic ideas of world domination by Israel, to whom all the nations will be subject. It reaches its peak in the apocalyptic beliefs and attitudes of the Essene communities along the shores of the Dead Sea. The horizons of apocalyptic belief are cosmic: God will destroy the entire present world and usher in a new world according to a detailed and predetermined plan The present world, with all its inhabitants, is radically evil. The faithful have to separate themselves from it, keep themselves pure as the holy remnant, and wait for God’s intervention. In such a climate even the idea of a missionary attitude toward the Gentile world would be preposterous… At best God would, without any involvement on the part of Israel, by means of a divine act, save those Gentiles he had elected in advance.

Ironically, the religion of the Jews hardened into keeping of laws and traditions which, although apparently based on the Old Testament, ignored the actual flow of OT history. Their faith became increasingly focused on right principles and practices rather than on right relationships with God and other people. Bosch continues (p. 20):

To a large extent Jewish apocalyptic spells the end of the earlier dynamic understanding of history. Past salvific events are no longer celebrated as guarantees and anticipations of God’s future involvement with his people; they have become sacred traditions which have to be preserved unchanged. The Law becomes an absolute entity which Israel has to serve and obey. Greek metaphysical categories gradually begin to replace historical thinking. Faith becomes a matter of timeless metahistorical and carefully systematized teaching.

When Jesus arrived on the scene around 27 A.D., he overturned the popular understanding of election by declaring God’s unconditional saving grace to all Israel, especially those who were marginalized and considered impure. He elected the Twelve to represent pillars of a new chosen people who would embody the gospel and convey it to the nations. But just as the rest of Israel had difficulty embracing the Gentiles, so did the apostles and the early Church. As much as Peter and his fellow church members had to evangelize the nations, they themselves had to be re-evangelized by the nations, by seeing and fully accepting the work of Christ in Gentile believers who were different from them. God’s election does not give anyone a superior status. His election is designed to show the world that, from first to last, salvation comes to all by grace alone.

Here I want to focus on some aspects of election found in Romans chapters 9-11. Paul didn’t write those chapters to settle modern theological debates. He was expounding on the relationship between the Gentiles and Jews. He was trying to explain why the nation of Israel, which had been created and chosen by God to receive the gospel and carry it to the world, rejected Christ and failed to carry out its mission. And he was relating that explanation to his teaching that righteousness must always come by faith alone, not by observing the law. I imagine that if we could ask the Apostle Paul about the merits of Calvinism versus Arminianism, he would respond with a very puzzled look, not because he never heard of Calvin or Arminius, but because to him this debate would sound very odd.

As modern evangelicals, we tend to think of salvation in terms of the rescue of individuals. We imagine humanity as an endless parade of souls marching along on a highway to hell, and our mission is to pluck as many souls as we can off that road and set them on the path to heaven. If we follow this thinking to its logical conclusion, the most faithful Christian is the one who asks everyone he meets, “If you were to die this afternoon, do you think you would go to heaven?” The most effective missionary is the one with the highest number of converts. And the overarching goal of discipleship is to change each person into a lean, mean, soul-saving machine. Other aspects of gospel work — feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the lonely, and so on — are just for the sake of good public relations, to open people’s hearts and prepare them for the “real” purpose of evangelism, which is to close the deal and get everyone converted and baptized before they die.

I am not saying that this individual-rescue idea of salvation is entirely wrong. I do believe that there is a great deal of truth in it. But this is not the way that the gospel is presented in the New Testament. It is the mindset of a 19^th-century tent revivalist, not the language of Jesus, Peter or Paul. One reason why the New Testament doesn’t present the gospel in those terms is that Hebrew people had radically different notions of what it means to be a person.

In our understanding, a person is an autonomous being, one who exercises independence in thought, decision and action. In debates about abortion, for example, one of the key questions is, “When should a fetus be considered a person?” Many have argued that a fetus should be considered a person when it becomes viable and has a reasonable chance of surviving outside the mother’s womb. This modernist notion of persons shows up in that famous statement by Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” His existence as a person is validated when he exercises his own rational thought.

But the Hebrews who wrote the Bible had different ideas about personhood. To the Jewish mind, a person was someone who was had significant relationships with others. At the beginning of Romans 9, Paul wishes that he could be cut off from Christ if only his fellow Israelites would be saved. To us, that desire seems very strange. Who among us would be willing to be condemned for all eternity to save other people, many of whom we have never met? But to Paul it made sense, because he never regarded himself as a lone wolf. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee among Pharisees (Acts 23:6, Php 3:5). His personal identity was so closely bound to his people that he couldn’t imagine himself being separated from them. If being with Christ was going to cut him off from his community, he almost didn’t want to be with Christ.

The other apostles had similar feelings. Before Jesus ascended to heaven, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) When we read this, we tend to scoff at the disciples: “How could they possibly think that way? Didn’t they realize that Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom, not a political one?” But their question was perfectly legitimate. They couldn’t imagine a gospel message that would personally save them without also restoring their nation. Given all the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament, and given what Paul says in Romans 9-11, their question is defensible and biblically sound. The Hebrew God cares about individuals, but he also cares about the nations and especially about his chosen people. How often do the Old Testament prophets speak God’s word not to individuals but to the nations and to Israel?

In chapter 7 of The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin argues that the idea of persons as relational beings is consistent with Scripture and with orthodox Christian belief. It is rooted in the understanding of God as Father, Son and Spirit – three persons in one God. Human beings created in his image share in his relational nature. The first mention of human beings appears in Genesis 1:26-27:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

The Trinitarian God spoke and created people as males and females, designed for relationships with one another. This longing for interpersonal relationship is expressed in sexuality. Sexual attraction, which is hardwired by God into our bodies, minds, emotions and personalities, is the magnetism and glue that creates families. The families produce children and become the building blocks of societies. In addition to these relationships with one another, we were also made to be in relationship with the rest of the created world. Our role in that relationship is to rule over the earth, serving as its stewards and managers (Gen 1:28).

When sin enters the world in Genesis chapter 3, it mars all the relationships that define us as persons. Man’s relationship with himself is broken and he experiences shame. He runs and hides, a sign of his broken relationship with God. Marital intimacy is cracked as the man blames his wife, and they cover themselves with fig leaves. Their relationship with the world is broken when the ground is cursed and rebels against them, producing thorns and thistles instead of food. When the destruction spreads through Adam’s family to his descendants and to all of society (chapters 4-6), God decides to scrub the world by a devastating flood. But the flood doesn’t solve the problem, because human beings remain evil from childhood (Gen 8:21). Human efforts to fix up the world are doomed to fail, as evidenced by the Tower of Babel, and the disunity, conflict and chaos continue (Gen 11:1-9).

If sin destroyed the relationships that make the world run as it should, then shouldn’t the gospel be about repairing relationships and restoring the world? Yes; that is how the Bible is structured. World history is a story with four great acts. Act 1 is creation: God made the world and everything in it; then he created people to love him, to love one another, and to take care of the earth. Act 2 is the Fall: sin entered the world and destroyed our relationships with God, with one another, and with the created world. Act 3 is redemption, which began with Abraham and ended at the cross. God paid the price for sin through the death of his son. Act 4 is restoration, when God remakes humanity and the earth. Restoration begins with the resurrection of Christ, his ascension to heaven, and the coming of the Holy Spirit. In this post-Pentecostal era, the Holy Spirit is working to restore our relationships with God, with one another and with the world. Act 4 will continue until Jesus returns to completely destroy sin and death, to raise our bodies and establish the new heaven and the new earth.

If we see God’s purpose as holistic restoration of mankind and the world, then our understanding of our mission must be broader than saving individual souls so they can go to heaven. The Church must be involved in the healing of relationships at all levels: our relationship with God (evangelism and worship), our relationships to ourselves (physical and psychological healing), our relationships with our spouses and children (healing of families), our relationships with our neighbors and with all society (healing of communities and nations), and even our relationships to the created world (environmental stewardship). No single individual can do all these things effectively, but the Church as a whole can do them by allowing different parts of the Body of Christ to perform their specialized functions. These activities of the Church will not transform the whole earth and usher in the kingdom of God; that will happen when Jesus returns. But the working of the Holy Spirit through the Church serves as a witness, a sign, and a foretaste of the kingdom that is already breaking into the world.

So what does all this have to do with election? That’s a good question…

Sending missionaries is a laudable goal. But a church cannot measure its success, or its degree of obedience to God, solely by the number of missionaries it sends. If we say, “Our mission is to send missionaries,” then we are merely running in circles. We need to clarify what the missionaries are supposed to do. If we say that the missionaries are supposed to make disciples, and those disciples are supposed to make more disciples, then we are again running in circles. The church cannot exist only to replicate itself.

Jesus Christ says to us, “Behold, I make all things new!” (Rev 21:5) The church, through its missionary outreach, should be bringing new believers into the fold. And the fresh working of the Spirit in those new believers, especially those from new generations and cultures, should be breathing vitality and renewal into the church. That is part of God’s grand design. A concept of mission is incomplete if it does not include the church being re-evangelized by its converts. Unfortunately, the way that churches have conceived and carried out foreign missions over the years has often prevented this backflow from happening. Consider the well known missionary hymn We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations by H. Ernest Nichol (1862-1928). The verses of this hymn begin as follows:

1. We’ve a story to tell to the nations…
2. We’ve a song to be sung to the nations…
3. We’ve a message to give to the nations…
4. We’ve a Savior to show to the nations…

The pattern here is unmistakable. From this perspective, mission is about exporting a message but never about importing. It’s giving but not receiving, serving but not being served. In The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin explains how this type of missionary activity, although well intentioned, ultimately quenches the Spirit’s fire (p. 139):

In this case the sending church is insulated from the correction it needs to receive from the new converts. Mission, as I have insisted, is not just church extension. It is an action in which the Holy Spirit does new things, brings into being new obedience. But the new gifts are for the whole body and not just for the new members. Mission involves learning as well as teaching, receiving as well as giving.

During the 20^th century, the flow of evangelizing missionaries from mainline churches, particularly those in western Europe, slowed down or stopped entirely. This coincided with the decline of church attendance and overall secularization of European society. Clearly these two trends are linked. A church that is shrinking and fighting for its survival can hardly be expected to send large numbers of missionaries overseas. Over the years, however, I have heard Christians claim that those churches shrank because they neglected foreign missions: “European churches didn’t keep their mission; they stopped sending missionaries, and that’s the reason why they declined.” If I had a penny for every time someone told me that, I would have many pennies. Is that a sensible or reasonable analysis?

Here is a common metaphor: “Water flows into the Dead Sea, but not out; that’s why the Dead Sea is lifeless.” By implication, a person or church that lives selfishly, continually receiving but never giving, cannot survive for long. Perhaps that is so. But what happens to a body of water that has streams flowing out but none flowing in? Sooner or later, that lake will run dry.

The gospel was never intended to flow just from proselytizer to proselyte, from evangelist to evangelee. (Is that a word? It ought to be.) If we think that it does, we miss one of the huge themes of the New Testament, a theme that addresses some of the deepest mysteries of the Bible:

• Why God chose Israel and covenanted her to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:5-6)
• Why Israel failed to keep this covenant and, in a sense, was destined to do so
• Why the Jewish nation as a whole rejected Christ and, in a sense, was destined to do so
• Why Jesus had to ascend to heaven and entrust the preaching of the gospel to his young disciples
• Why Jesus appeared to the most outrageously legalistic Jew and appointed him to carry the gospel to the Gentiles
• Why in the fullness of time the gospel will ultimately flow from Gentiles back to Jews

That theme is the doctrine of election. Stay tuned; there’s more to come.

Here I am using the terms “evangelized” and “conversion” in a broad sense. Peter was not receiving the gospel for the first time. He already was a genuine Christian in a personal relationship with Christ. But through his encounter with Cornelius, his character and faith were transformed again as he came to a new and deeper awareness of the gospel.

Before then, Peter had always assumed that belief in Christ should be accompanied by visible changes in lifestyle, changes that would turn people into devout, observant Jews like him. He had assumed that God’s mission was the same as bringing lost sheep into the church that he knew and loved, the merry band of Jewish disciples founded a decade earlier by Jesus himself. What Peter did not realize was that, as God was bringing sheep into the fold, he was also working powerfully to recreate the church. Peter’s previous knowledge of the gospel wasn’t wrong, but it was woefully incomplete.

In The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, missiologist Lesslie Newbigin writes about the meeting between Peter and Cornelius (pp. 59-60):

It is not as though the church opened its gates to admit a new person into its company, and then closed them again, remaining unchanged except for the addition of a name to its roll of members. Mission is not just church extension. It is something more costly and more revolutionary. It is the action of the Holy Spirit, who in his sovereign freedom both convicts the world (John 16:8-11) and leads the church toward the fullness of the truth that it has not yet grasped (John 16:12-15). Mission is not essentially an action by which the church puts forth its own power and wisdom to conquer the world around it; it is, rather, an action of God, putting forth the power of his Spirit to bring the universal work of Christ for the salvation of the world nearer to its completion. At the end of the story, which runs from Acts 10:1 to 11:18, the church itself became a kind of society different from what it was before Peter and Cornelius met. It had been a society enclosed within the cultural world of Israel; it became something radically different, a society that spanned the enormous gulf between Jew and pagan and was open to embrace all the nations that had been outside the covenant by which Israel lived.

This distinction between God’s mission and church extension is not a small matter. It has enormous implications for how we see and talk about ourselves and how we act toward others in a pluralistic and multicultural world. Before talking about that, however, we ought to first ask whether this view of mission is biblically supported. Do missionaries and converts truly evangelize one another? Or does the gospel flow in one direction as believers go out and make disciples, then those disciples go out and make more disciples, and the process continues ad infinitum until every nation has been reached and Jesus returns in power and glory?

In Acts 1:8, Jesus says to his apostles: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” This verse is a mini-outline of the whole book of Acts. The apostolic witness began in Jerusalem (chapter 2), then it spread to Judea and Samaria (chapter 8), and eventually it went out to other nations (chapter 13). We see a linear progression as Jesus’ disciples made more disciples. But if we don’t pay close attention to how it actually happened, we will miss a key point that Luke is making throughout the book.

Many evangelicals think of Acts 1:8 as “the world mission command.” Indeed, in Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15, the Great Commission is given as a command. But Acts 1:8 presents it as a promise. Jesus states as a fact that it is going to happen, not by the volition of the apostles, but by the sovereign will and power of the Holy Spirit. And as we read through the book, that’s exactly how it happens. The apostles do not adopt Acts 1:8 as their mission statement and then formulate a strategy to carry the gospel to the nations. Rather, the entire movement is orchestrated by the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost, it is the rushing wind-song of the Spirit that causes a great crowd to gather and makes them ask, “What does this mean?” (Acts 2:1-12) The spread of the gospel to Judea and Samaria is precipitated not by an intentional decision by the apostles, but by persecution that broke out after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:1). And the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas as missionaries was a direct response to the command of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:2).

The church portrayed in the book of Acts is not an army of well trained soldiers executing a military-style campaign to conquer unbelieving nations with the gospel. Nor is it a board of corporate executives launching an advertising blitz to market the gospel to consumers. The church in Acts never fully takes hold of the mission, nor does it ever really grasp the mission, because the mission is not theirs. Moment by moment, the apostles respond in obedience as the Holy Spirit leads. But they are never qualified to direct the mission because they do not understand everything it entails. What they fail to realize that the mission is not just about discipling the nations; it is also about transforming them. As the Spirit is bringing new sheep into the fold, he is also prying open the minds and hearts of church leaders and members to welcome newcomers unconditionally as Jesus welcomed them. This process of assimilation is painful and awkward. It tests the limits of their faith and dependence on God. But through these birthpains, the Spirit brings forth an amazing new community the likes of which the world had never before seen. It is a community of genuine unity-in-diversity. A place where Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, truly connect with one another and become one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). A place of genuine, radical freedom, where ethical standards, laws and commands are replaced by love (Gal 5:14).

The mission is never the property of the church; it is always missio Dei, God’s mission. Newbigin writes (p. 61):

At this point the church has to keep silence. It is not in control of the mission. Another is in control, and his fresh works will repeatedly surprise the church, compelling it to stop talking and to listen. Because the Spirit himself is sovereign over the mission, the church can only be the attentive servant. In sober truth the Spirit is himself the witness who goes before the church in its missionary journey. The church’s witness is secondary and derivative. The church is witness insofar as it follows obediently where the Spirit leads.

That is exactly what happens in Acts chapter 10. Peter didn’t approach the home of Cornelius with the intention of giving him the gospel. The Spirit carried a hesitant Peter there to show him what he had already been doing, something which Peter never imagined. Peter’s job was to obediently share what he knew, to observe what the Spirit did, and to welcome the new Gentile believers as they were.

The distinction between church expansion and God’s mission is not a small matter. It is fundamental to grasping the nature of the gospel. The distinction is especially important as we reach out to the next generation. Young people have been taught to frame history, politics and religion in terms of power struggles between groups. They believe that racism, bigotry, and war result whenever one group believes it is superior to other groups. So if you approach a young person and talk about your faith, she does not see you as an individual person talking to her. She sees you as a member of one group – say, a religious conservative Christian – trying to bring her into your group in order to expand your group’s membership rolls to increase its prestige and power. That is why so many have grown skeptical and weary of all evangelists and of all “organized religion.”

And who can blame them? Throughout the centuries, Christians of many stripes have tried to carry the gospel throughout the world. And so often, those efforts were confounded with military campaigns, colonialism, economic opportunism and cultural imperialism. They were tainted by the desire to build up one church, organization or denomination at the expense of other groups while violating the dignity of individual persons (e.g., through conversion and baptism by force). When today’s young people hear us equate God’s mission with the expansion of our own church, they react against it strongly and viscerally. When they hear us speak of God’s mission in paramilitary terms as conquering the nations and religions of the world (e.g., Muslims) they will have none of it. When they hear us speak of evangelism and discipleship in terms of saving those who are poor, ignorant, blind and disobedient by transforming them into Christians who so conveniently happen to resemble ourselves, they will have none of it. They instinctively feel that it is not the gospel. And they are correct; it is not the gospel.

The gospel does not elevate Jew over Gentile or Gentile over Jew. It does not elevate a denomination that is better, purer or more faithful over another denomination that is liberal, worldly or compromised. It does not elevate a Christian over a Muslim, Hindu or atheist. The gospel brings everyone to the foot of the cross where the ground is absolutely level, where salvation comes to all by the grace of God alone.

What today’s postmoderns instinctively know is something that the church has too often forgotten: that God’s mission is not equivalent to church expansion. Yes, the mission does involve welcoming new sheep into the fold. But it is also about continually reforming and recreating the church into something new and more beautiful, a preview of God’s rule and of the glorious world to come. None of us knows exactly how that ought to look. If we try to invent that new community by ourselves, we build something that too closely resembles us, the creatures that we are right now rather than the creatures that Christ wants us to be. That is why we can never fully set the course of our own mission. Yes, we must remember what God has done and faithfully build upon the foundations laid in the past. But we must also be willing to put aside our current ideas and follow the Spirit wherever he leads, because the mission always belongs to him.

McGavran noticed that some agencies were successful at making converts, but others were stagnant and barely growing. He set out to discover why. After careful observation, he found that the stagnant agencies exhibited some common features. He called their strategy a “mission station” approach. A mission station resembled a North American or European church. Western values and customs were on display, giving the church a decidedly non-Indian look and feel. Converts of these missionaries had powerful conversion experiences, but the converts were few and far between. In The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, missiologist Lesslie Newbigin explains why (p. 122):

In the “mission station” approach, as McGavran sees it, converts are detached from the natural communities to which they belong, attached to the foreign missions and institutions, and required to conform to ethical and cultural standards that belong to the Christianity of the foreign missionary. The effect of this policy is twofold. On the one hand the convert, having been transplanted into an alien culture, is no longer in a position to influence non-Christian relatives and neighbors; on the other hand, the energies of the mission are exhausted in the effort to bring the converts, or more often their children, into conformity with the standards supposed by the missionaries to be required by the gospel. Both factors have the effect of stopping the growth of the church.

I’ll bet that the leaders of the “mission station” agencies didn’t like McGavran’s analysis. I can almost hear them saying, “We focus on quality rather than quantity.” They may have justified their approach by noting that their converts, though few, looked like outstanding examples of Christian discipleship because they had been so thoroughly transformed. Indeed, in the way that they spoke, dressed, and acted, they resembled miniature versions of the missionaries themselves! I suppose that these missionaries had the best of intentions. They were sincere, sacrificial, loving and devout, never imagining that they were imposing western cultural values. From their perspective, their standards were matters of biblical principle, right versus wrong. They imagined they were reading the Bible straight, interpreting Scripture just as it is. Whatever they taught the converts to do was just what they had done when they were converted and discipled.

McGavran concluded that the “mission station” approach was based on a faulty reading of the Great Commission. In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Based on those verses, McGavran said that the mission of the church has three aspects: discipling, baptizing, and perfecting. (Note that McGavran’s use of the term “discipling” is quite different from the way we use it in UBF. To us, “discipling” suggests discipleship training, helping converts to obey the teachings of the Bible. In McGavran’s terminology, that kind of training is called “perfecting”, and “discipling” means to help them make the initial commitment to identify themselves as followers of Christ.) McGavran believed that the order of the three activities in Matthew 28:19-20 is very significant, reflecting an order in time and priority. He thought that the missionary should focus on discipling and baptizing, and leave the task of perfecting to leaders of the indigenized church. The “mission station” agencies lose their effectiveness when they spend their time, resources and energy on perfecting rather than discipling and baptizing.

Personally, I disagree with some of McGavran’s conclusions. I am not convinced that Matthew 28:19-20 implies an order of priority, and the distinction between discipling and perfecting seems artificial. But McGavran’s basic observations are compelling. Lesslie Newbigin, who was also a missionary to India, agreed with McGavran’s assessment (p. 124):

The criticism of the “mission station” strategy has a great deal of force. It is also true that missions have, in McGavran’s phrase, tended to put perfecting before discipling and thereby fallen into the old legalist trap. They have become proponents of a new law rather than a liberating gospel. The church has been made to appear more like a school where examinations have to be passed than a place where the community meets to celebrate its freedom.

My purpose in writing this article is not to make hidden, indirect criticisms of UBF. To avoid any misunderstandings, I will tell you directly what I think. Speaking as a North American disciple of UBF missionaries, I have seen the missionaries’ dedication and sacrifice firsthand. I respect and love our missionaries. It is obvious that they have passed on many cultural influences to their converts. That is an inevitable result of cross-cultural witness, and it is not inherently bad. The fertilization of one culture with gospel seeds from another is, in my opinion, an essential part of God’s overall plan for the people and nations of the world. This cross-cultural aspect of UBF was very helpful in my own spiritual development.

Yet it is impossible to look at UBF chapters in North America and not see resemblances to the mission stations. Any North American who visits a UBF worship service for the first time instinctively feels that we are different, and we wear those differences as a badge of honor. Newcomers hear this message loud and clear: “You are very welcome here. But if you enter this fellowship, we expect you to become like us. Your standing in our community will rise and you will be rewarded as you accept and adopt our methods, manners, standards and traditions.” Of course, we never think of them as our traditions; we call them “God’s” mission,” “God’s” commands, and “Bible” principles. By the language that we use, we canonize and absolutize our ways of doing things. Use of that language is itself rewarded and taken as a sign of growing faith and commitment to Christ. But anyone who makes significant contact with Christ-loving people outside of UBF knows that many of the things that we hold dear are not absolutes but simply our own manners, methods and traditions.

When I came into UBF nearly three decades ago, I was, as McGavran observed, detached from my American Christian heritage and transplanted into an alien culture. I neglected and severed relationships with friends, family and neighbors. This detachment from my own people was a consequence of the way that Samuel Lee ran the ministry during the 1980’s and 1990’s. It drastically changed my life and brought me to Christ, but it left me emotionally isolated from people and confused about my identity, and it limited my influence and Christian witness to society outside of UBF. Now that I realize what has happened, I am trying to recover that lost identity and repair relationships with people whom I wrongly ignored.

And to me it seems undeniable that the factors cited by McGavran are stifling growth. It has just been reported that our average Sunday worship attendance in North America increased about 4% in 2010. I wonder what that figure would be if you remove the effect of inflow of missionaries from Korea and the natural increase from children born to UBF families coming of age. Regardless, we have not been seeing the growth that many had hoped for, and we have fallen far short of the target of doubling the ministry by 2010. To what do we attribute this slow growth? Reading through the yearly reports appearing on ubf.org, the top reasons cited by our missionaries for falling short are not praying enough, not studying the Bible enough, and so on. These ideas are reinforced by messages from leaders that exhort members to work harder, sacrifice more, recover zeal for the gospel, have an absolute attitude, etc. Everywhere I look, the assumption is that our mission strategy is impeccably sound, and all problems are due to individuals who did not get with the program and carry it out with enough intensity and sincerity. There is an elephant in the room, but no one seems willing to talk about it. That elephant is our overall mission strategy. This is the reason why I have been claiming that we lack a coherent theology of mission. We lack this theology because we trained ourselves not to discuss it, not even to think about it.

The mission station strategy is built on the assumption that the gospel message travels in just one direction, flowing from the missionaries to the converts. Sooner or later, as the community matures, there must be a backflow as the missionaries are re-evangelized by the converts. We see that happening in the early church beginning in Acts chapter 10. The passage that is often titled “The Conversion of Cornelius” could just as well be called “The Conversion of Peter.” The divinely arranged encounter between the centurion and the apostle shook Peter to the core. It challenged his lifelong assumptions about purity and righteousness and brought him to a new, deeper understanding of the gospel. Peter’s first reaction to the Holy Spirit’s vision was, “Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean” (Acts 10:14). That reaction reveals that, although he was a committed follower of Jesus, he still regarded his adherence to the law as a badge of honor, something that made him better than others in the sight of God. To see a non-law abiding Gentile be instantly accepted into God’s family made him realize that, even after being a Christian for many years, his own standing before God was still not based on anything he does but on what Christ has done for him. The gospel of Jesus Christ is, from first to last, a gospel of grace and faith alone.

The tensions in a cross-cultural ministry are inevitable. Eventually there must be a Jerusalem Council, an open dialogue between foreign missionaries and native converts, to inquire of God and enlarge their understanding of the gospel. I think we can all agree that the gospel must bring tangible, visible change to the lives of those who receive it. But what should the fruit of the gospel look like? Should the fruit of the gospel planted on Korean soil look just like the fruit on American soil? How different can they be?

The participants at the original Jerusalem Council thought hard about this and concluded that Jewish and Gentile Christians should look different. Yet they were also aware of the need for compromise to maintain friendships and spiritual unity. In the letter that James drafted to the Gentile Christians, he urged them “to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:29) That list of prohibitions includes behavior that we still regard as sinful (sexual immorality) and behavior that we now see as benign (eating of blood — Have you ever tried “black pudding”? It’s quite, um, interesting). So even the outcome of the Jerusalem Council was not an absolute ruling that could remain in place for all time. I take that as a meaningful principle. The ethical requirements of the gospel can never be fixed. Some aspects will remain constant over time, but other aspects will have to change.

And that raises another very important question. Who gets to decide what those ethical requirements are? That is not an easy one. So the series shall continue…

First, circumcision of males was the definitive sign of being counted among God’s people. Hebrews who refused to be circumcised were no longer Hebrew (Gen 17:4). And throughout the Old Testament, the term “uncircumcised” is used as a synonym for ungodly (see, for example, 1Sa 17:16). Uncircumcised men could not enter the temple, nor could they eat the Passover (Ex 12:48). The Passover depicts salvation and deliverance. The fact that the Passover lamb – a powerful symbol of the crucified Jesus – could not be eaten by uncircumcised men suggests that circumcision may still be applicable under the New Covenant.

Now some of you might be saying, “Circumcision is just a ceremony and an outward symbol; what God really wants is for people to circumcise their hearts.” Yes, that is true; the physical sign of circumcision should point to an inner reality. But the fact that circumcision has a deeper meaning does not mean that the physical sign should be abandoned. (The fact that baptism and the Lord’s Supper have deeper meaning does not mean that they are useless or unnecessary. On the contrary, it is precisely because these signs are deeply meaningful that Christians have practiced them from the beginning.) Although the Old Testament repeatedly mentions circumcision of the heart, the physical sign is still always present. For example, in Ezekiel 44:9, God commands, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary.”

Others may say, “Christians are not bound by the law, because Jesus has fulfilled the law.” Perhaps. But let’s put aside the writings of Paul, because his letters had not yet been written at the time of the Jerusalem Council. (Galatians could have been written about that time. But even if it was, it would not yet have been accepted as authoritative, because the purpose of that Council was to decide whether Paul’s view of circumcision was correct.) What did Jesus say? Did Jesus overturn the law? In Matthew 5:17, he said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Does the fact that we live under a gospel of grace mean that we should ignore the law? Many Christians would say that we are bound to keep the Ten Commandments. The context of Matthew 5:17 is the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus actually strengthens the requirements of the law, holding Christians to an even higher standard.

In certain cases, Jesus did overturn laws. He nullified the dietary laws, declaring that all foods are clean (Mk 7:19). He modified our understanding of the Sabbath by declaring, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27-28). But he didn’t say anything against circumcision. Even if we claim that Jesus overturned the whole law of Moses, that would still not settle the matter, because circumcision predates Moses by about 500 years.

And we cannot ignore the most obvious piece of evidence: Jesus was circumcised! His parents circumcised him in accordance with the law (Lk 2:21). If Jesus submitted himself to this requirement, shouldn’t his disciples follow his example?

The stance that some Christians adopt toward the Bible is reflected in the saying: “God says it, I believe it, that settles it!” They think it is best to approach the Bible without thinking too hard, without getting too complicated or too intellectual. If we read the text plainly and literally, just as it is, then shouldn’t the meaning and implications be obvious? If only it were that simple! The Bible is the inspired word of God, and it has an amazing capacity to speak to people of all ages and backgrounds. One does not need a Ph.D. in theology to receive understanding from the Bible and be transformed by it. But there is a flipside to that reality. If one does happen to have formal education, a background in theology, or a long history of personal experience and interaction with the Bible, then a plain, simple, uncomplicated reading of Scripture may not settle the matter at all; it may only raise deeper questions that should not be ignored, because they are the very questions that the Holy Spirit wants us to consider. The simple understanding that inspires and empowers early in our spiritual journey may be woefully inadequate later in life. That principle applies both to individuals and to communities. It is the very reason why we have to keep going back to the Bible, not just to reinforce what we already have learned, but to question it, to refresh and deepen our understanding and wrestle with the fundamental issues of faith.

Fortunately for us, the matter of circumcision was decided in Acts chapter 15 and was thoroughly explained by the apostle Paul, and those writings are now part of the Scripture record. At the Jerusalem Council, the widespread understanding of the Bible was overturned by the witness of the Spirit. The Apostle Peter stood up and recalled how, several years earlier, the Holy Spirit led him to Cornelius, a God-fearing uncircumcised Gentile. Against all of his Jewish sensibilities, he entered the home of Cornelius and explained the gospel. The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household, and they began to speak in tongues. Peter ordered that they be baptized, and Peter stayed with them for several days, eating Gentile food which was decidedly unclean (Acts 10:1-48). Peter’s mind was changed when he saw the undeniable work of the Holy Spirit among the uncircumcised. When Peter finished speaking, Paul and Barnabas told of “signs and wonders,” further evidence of the working of the Spirit among the uncircumcised (Acts 15:12). The decision was sealed when James, the brother of Jesus and highly respected leader of the church in Jerusalem, lent his support, drawing upon the prophetic words of Amos 9:11-12.

The Jerusalem Council is the high-water mark, the theological crescendo of the book of Acts. If the apostles’ decision had gone the opposite way, Christianity would never have broken out of the Jewish mold; it would have remained a sect of Judaism and could not have spread across the globe.

In a comment on Part 2 of this series, Henoch wondered if these situations still arise today. We now have the writings of Paul and the other apostles; the New Testament is complete, and the canon of Scripture is closed. Given what we now see in the whole Bible, is it still possible for the witness of the Holy Spirit to overturn the prevailing understanding of what Scripture means?

The answer to this clearly yes. The creative ministry of the Holy Spirit continues to breathe fresh understanding into the Church, sometimes contradicting the assumptions of the past. A great example of this is human slavery. For eighteen centuries, Christians persisted in believing that slavery was acceptable, or at least allowable. A plain reading of Scripture can easily support that view. Through the prophetic witness of William Wilberforce (1759-1833) and many others, the church finally came to believe that slavery is fundamentally incompatible with the gospel of Christ and the God-given dignity of human beings.

I am not arguing that we should throw away our Bibles and assume that whatever pops into our heads, or whatever seems to be happening in the church today, is a movement of the Holy Spirit. That is not what I mean, not by a long shot. We should never throw away our Bibles. What we should throw away is the notion that understanding and interpreting the Bible is easy. What we desperately need today is deeper, more thoughtful Bible study combined with greater sensitivity to the witness of the Spirit. We need this not merely as individuals, but as a community. Scripture was given to the Church as a whole, and the Holy Spirit was given to the Church as a whole. Interpreting the Bible and discerning the work of the Spirit are tasks to be undertaken by the Christian community. And that Christian community is not static. It expands and changes over time as the kingdom of God grows and spreads.

Which brings me to my next point. The early Christians would never have had to deal with circumcision if Paul and Barnabas had not obeyed the calling of the Holy Spirit to carry the gospel to the nations. It was not until the Church engaged in cross-cultural witness that it had to consider these fundamental issues of how the gospel relates to law. If Christians remain in isolated in sectarian, monocultural ghettos, they are easily lulled into thinking that they already know everything, and that their present understanding of the Bible is ultimate truth. But when they leave their ghettos and get out in the world – when they enter into relationships with sincere believers who look, act, speak and behave very differently from them – then the work of the Holy Spirit that they encounter begins to challenge their assumptions and their theology. When they encounter converts whose doctrines seem questionable, and whose lifestyles appear to be worldly, compromised, unholy, and wrong, and yet see that these people really love Jesus, the encounter can be deeply unsettling. It may lead to a Wall, a crisis of faith. But out of that crisis something beautiful can grow.

It is at the treacherous three-way intersection of hermeneutics, pneumatology and missiology — Word, Spirit and Mission — that the gospel really comes alive. This is where we begin to see how outrageous and scandalous are the teachings of Jesus, and how shocking are the implications of the gospel, both for the unconverted world and for the Church. This is why I think it is exciting to be in UBF today. The problems and tensions that we are experiencing should, in light of Acts chapter 15, be a prelude to exciting developments in our ministry and in the greater Body of Christ. But to allow those developments to come, we will need to carefully watch and listen to the witness of the Spirit. We must be openminded enough to see how the Spirit is working among young converts and disciples, the next generation whose experiences and perspectives are very different from the first.

In case you are wondering, I am not just making this stuff up in my head. This series of articles on Word, Spirit, Gospel and Mission is loosely based the insights of the missiologist Lesslie Newbigin, especially those in his book The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission.

In the next installments of this series, we will travel (virtually, of course) to India and to Africa and see what the triumphs and mistakes of western missionaries reveals about the nature of the gospel. Stay tuned…

So what do we do when a Bible translation is significantly revised as in the case of the NIV? Should we upgrade or remain with the tried and true translation? Should we consider a newer and different translation altogether such as the ESV? Knowing that there is no perfect translation, should we all learn Hebrew and Greek?

I love the NIV 1984. I grew up with it. A friend of my father’s was in charge of marketing the NIV. My dad still has an old promotional copy of the book of John from the 70’s. So I gave UBF bonus points immediately when I discovered that everyone uses the NIV. We’ve all read it, studied it, memorized it. Does the NIV translation committee really expect us to change to the NIV 2011?

I’m amenable to this revised edition of the NIV for three reasons: language, audience and, for lack of a better term, freshness.

First, language. The English language evolves so quickly that revisions to Bible translations are necessary every few years. The English language is not the same as it was in 1984. The NIV 1984(I’ll call it the ONIV) was the NIV’s first attempt at the translation. After years of usage, i.e, preaching, Bible study, and scholarly input, surely the NIV can improve upon their first translation. For example, the committee has changed the word “Christ” in Acts and other places to “Messiah.” “Messiah” is more accurate since it is the term that the disciples would have been using, especially since their first audience was Jewish. For another example, take Luke 1:18. The ONIV says that Mary was “with child.” What does that mean in contemporary English? It means that she was pregnant, which is exactly how the NIV 2011 renders that verse. I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase “with child” to refer to a pregnancy.

Now, “with child” may be a literal translation, but literal is not always the clearest or most lucid. The word for word translations are generally the ESV, NRSV, and the favorite of all Greek students, the NASB. I’m in favor of using literal translations for my Bible study and personal readings to get a deeper sense of a particular passage. However, I’m not crazy about the more literal translations to use in a church service. But, you may object, UBF is a Bible study centered ministry, we can handle the more stilted language of the literal translation. Yes, but we are also focused on evangelism. For new Christians and even non-Christians, a dynamic equivalent translation of the Bible (e.g., the NIV), where meaning, lucidity and readability are all taken into consideration, is the necessary choice. That brings us to the next point.

Second, audience. Who is our audience? Our official evangelistic focus is college students. I was one of them. Generation X and younger generations have been raised in gender inclusive language environments. They’ve used gender inclusive language throughout their education. Ask a college student what would happen if he or she only used the male pronoun to refer to men and women. Since gender inclusive language is so normal to me and to college students, shouldn’t we use it in our sermons and Bible studies?

Take a look at John 14:23. The ONIV says, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching.” The “he” makes me a little uncomfortable having been raised in a gender inclusive language environment. I much prefer the NIV 2011, which reads, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.”

I know some grammar mavens get vexed when plural pronouns are used in the same sentence as singular ones. Take a look at the entire verse, “²³ Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” We’ve got “anyone” and “them.” The translators say that this is a pragmatic or usage issue. This is an acceptable translation since this is the way that people talk. People will say “someone” and then say “they” referring back to “someone.” People talk like that all the time, even the grammar mavens.

Now, the issue of gender inclusive language isn’t about whether or not Generation X is comfortable with male only pronouns, the issue is whether or not gender inclusive language is biblically accurate. Mark Strauss, author of How to Choose a Translation for all it’s Worth, calls gender inclusive language in the NIV 2011 “gender accurate.” He writes,

“the Greek word anthropos can mean “person” (its primary meaning) or “man” (a secondary sense), depending on the context. While the NIV translated Romans 3:28, “For we maintain that a man (anthropos) is justified by faith,” the NIV 2011 more accurately renders, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith.” Virtually everyone agrees that anthropos here means “person,” so the NIV 2011 translates it that way.
The NIV 2011 does not eliminate gender distinctions (as some critics claim) but rather clarifies them. References to females remain feminine. References to males remain masculine. But when the inspired authors are referring to both men and women, an inclusive term like person is used. This is just good translation policy—the kind of meaning-based translation practiced by Bible translators around the world.”

Gender accurate language is also nothing new in the biblical world. For more than twenty years translators have been using gender accurate language in their revised versions. These include the New Revised Standard Version, the Good News Bible, The Message, the Contemporary English Version, and the New Living Translation among many others.

Third, freshness. Switching to the NIV 2011 will knock us all out of the comfortable world of the ONIV. Many of us have memorized significant portions of the ONIV, not to mention the gospel key verses, yearly key verses, and life key verses. Some second gens have grown up memorizing the ONIV in CBF Bible memorization contests. We could settle down and be comfortable with the ONIV for the rest of our lives. However, the NIV 2011 gives us a unique opportunity to use a fresh and yet familiar translation. Some of the verses we’ve memorized will remain the same. Some revised verses will challenge us to look at them in a new light. A friend of mine told me that he prepared a thematic workshop on marriage. Since everyone uses the ONIV at his church, he decided to use other translations for some familiar verses he was using in his presentation. His plan worked—people read the verses as if they were reading them for the first time.

Making the switch to the NIV 2011 doesn’t mean we have to abandon the ONIV. Switching to the NIV 2011 will only make our Bible study that much richer and deeper. When the NIV 2011 renders a verse differently than the ONIV, we’ll be compelled to figure out the reason. Is the new rendering more literal? Was the old rendering confusing or convoluted?

Are you going to make the switch?

To feel the full impact of what happened at the Jerusalem Council, we need to read history forward, not backward. From our present vantage point, we already know how it turned out. With twenty centuries of church history and theology behind us, the “correct” course of action seems perfectly obvious. But at that meeting, the outcome was far from certain. Church members were genuinely confused, and faithful servants of God had staked out positions on both sides. Try to put aside what you already know and stand in the shoes of those who were there. Weigh the arguments as fairly as you can, and honestly ask yourself the question, “If I were at the Jerusalem Council, what would I have been thinking, and what decision would I have made?”

About five years earlier, Paul and Barnabas were sent out from Antioch to carry the gospel to other places (Acts 13:1-3). Whenever they entered a city, they looked for a Jewish community and went to the synagogue. For them, this was not a matter of practicality but of theology. Paul understood that the Jews were God’s chosen people, those whom God had specially prepared to receive the gospel and bear it to the world. So Paul made it a point to always preach to the Jews first (Ro 1:16).

Diaspora Jews had settled throughout the world, and Greek-speaking Gentiles took notice of them. Quite a few Greeks were attracted to Judaism. They could see that it bred sincerity, piety and virtue. But Greeks found it extremely difficult to convert, and for good reason. To convert meant, first of all, that a man had to be circumcised. Circumcision was the sign of entering God’s family, and it was considered non-negotiable. To refuse circumcision was to be cut off from God’s people (Gen 17:14). Second, the new convert had to commit to keeping the law of Moses. Faithful keeping of the law would radically change every aspect of one’s personal and public life. Law-abiding Jews could not freely associate with non-Jews. They could not entire a Gentile’s house without becoming unclean, and to eat with a Gentile would become unthinkable (Acts 11:3). If a Gentile actually converted to Judaism, it would effectively cut him off from his friends and his family (unless they converted too), and it would pull him out of the community he had known all his life. For this reason, there were many Gentiles who were “sitting on the fence.” They were attracted to Judaism and loved the teachings of the Bible. But they found it impossible to take that final step of conversion; the personal, social cost was just too high. These Gentiles were called “God fearers” (e.g., Acts 13:26). Nearly every synagogue had at least some Gentile God-fearers who came regularly and sat in a place that had been specially reserved for them.

When Paul and Barnabas would enter a synagogue and speak about Jesus, the response of the Jews would be tepid and mixed. But to the God-fearing Gentiles, the message was sweet music in their ears. They were amazed to learn that God would accept them as they were. By grace alone they could be welcomed into his kingdom if they put their trust in Jesus Christ. Coming to Jesus did not require them to sever their relationships or give up their cultural identity. This teaching created such a stir among God-fearers that enormous crowds of Gentiles would show up at the synagogue to hear the Apostle Paul. When the Jews saw great hordes of Gentiles pouring into the synagogue, they felt terrified and threatened (Acts 13:44-45). They realized that if what Paul was saying was true — that the door of salvation was now open to anyone by faith in Jesus Christ alone — then their faith community would be overrun by people with lifestyles radically different from theirs. These new believers, with their worldly customs and lenient attitudes, might cause community standards of holiness to slip. The synagogue leaders knew they would lose control. It would spell the end of the synagogue as they knew it.

The predictable result was that, when Paul preached in a synagogue, most of the Jews and especially the leaders would reject the gospel message. But large numbers of Gentiles would receive it with joy. The new believers in Christ would have to leave the synagogue and meet somewhere else, setting up their own faith community nearby. Very soon after the new church was established, Paul would appoint leaders and elders and leave the matter of running the church to them. He would hug them and say goodbye and go on to a new place. But he would continue to pray for them and stay in touch through occasional letters and visits.

After Paul’s departure, however, many questions would arise. At the heart of them all was one huge question: What were the ethical implications of the gospel? The gospel placed everyone under the Lordship of Christ. To follow Christ was to be called out from the old ways of sin to a new life of holiness and obedience in love. (The Greek word ekklesia, which we translate as “church,” literally means “called out.”) Everyone could agree on that in principle. But what was the new community supposed to look like? How were Christians actually supposed to live? The converts who knew the Scriptures best were the Jewish Christians who had studied the Bible all their lives. They had strong notions about what constituted a holy and pious life. With their strong cultural identity and superior knowledge of the Bible, it was inevitable that Jewish expressions of devotion and piety would begin to emerge as the multicultural church struggled to define itself. Those expressions would be reinforced by church leaders who visited from Jerusalem, the birthplace of the gospel and the center of Jewish Christianity.

So within just a few years, or even a few months, this idea began to take hold: The Gentile converts ought to be circumcised.

This idea was opposed by Paul from the beginning. But other leaders were not so sure. No one had worked out a coherent theology of how the gospel was supposed to interact with human culture. Friendships and loyalties were severely tested as different opinions swirled about. Even the Apostle Peter and Barnabas had been pressured and swayed by those who claimed that uncircumcised believers were not full members of the Christian fellowship (Gal 2:11-14).

As the tensions and tempers began to flare, I have no doubt that believers began to ask, “What does the Bible have to say?” Perhaps the wisest among them were saying, “Let’s go back to the Bible.” And others would have appealed to WWJD: “What would Jesus do?” Or better yet, “What would Jesus have us do?” Surely they were asking the apostles, “Did Jesus ever say anything about this?” It is likely that none of the gospels and none of the epistles, except possibly Paul’s letter to the Galatians, had been written by this time. Believers must have combed through the Old Testament and the oral traditions of Jesus with great sincerity, looking for clues and divine guidance. As they did so, what would they have found?

Try to put yourself in their shoes. Try to erase from your mind — and from your Bible — everything that comes after Acts chapter 14. Suppose you had been asked to render an opinion on what the biblically correct position is. Suppose that you were chosen for this task because you have extensive knowledge of the Scriptures. Therefore it is likely that you are a Jewish Christian, a circumcised male and keeper of the law. You place great value on spiritual disciplines such as daily prayer and Bible reading, because those disciplines have kept you grounded in faith since you were a child. Factor in your personality and how you have approached similar situations in your own life thus far. Factor in your beliefs about the authority of Scripture, how you feel about your own group’s religious traditions and spiritual heritage, your ideas about holiness (remember: holy can mean “separate”), the need to maintain ethical and moral principles and standards, and your understanding of the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20).

Be honest, and don’t peek at Acts chapter 15. What do you think you would have done?