Theology | A People for His Name

Archives For Theology

Beware of Calling Other Believers “Pharisees”!

May 18, 2013

Calling other believers “Pharisees” is a very serious matter. An examination of Jesus’ dealings with the Pharisees shows why you should beware of doing so.

Jesus’ Rebuke of the Pharisees

Mark 7:1-13 records an incident when Jesus sternly rebuked the Pharisees. The incident began with the Pharisees asking Jesus why His disciples did not follow certain traditions:

Mar 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

² And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

³ For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

⁴ And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

⁵ Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

Jesus responded initially by using Isaiah 29:13 to rebuke them for their hypocrisy:

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

⁷ Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

He continued His stern dealings with them by charging them with neglecting God’s commandments in order to follow human tradition (Mark 7:8). He then rebuked them further for their invalidating God’s Word through their tradition (Mark 7:9-13).

A Closer Look at Jesus’ Response

Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for following certain human traditions instead of keeping the word of God (Mark 7:7), but He did so based on His knowing that their hearts were far from God (Mark 7:6b). He had the supernatural ability to know their hearts, and thereby exposed them as hypocritical and vain worshipers of God.

He thus made known that they were not holding to these human traditions because they thought that they would help them honor God; they knew in their hearts that they were dishonoring God with what they were doing. Moreover, Jesus later explained to His disciples the solemn truth about the true condition of these Pharisees:

Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

¹³ But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

¹⁴ Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Jesus revealed that these Pharisees were not planted by His Father—despite their religiosity, they were unbelievers.

Only Someone Who Can Know the Heart Can Legitimately Call Another Believer a “Pharisee”

When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their following human traditions instead of God’s Word, He did so knowing that their hearts were far from God. He had the supernatural ability to know the true condition of their hearts and thereby excoriated them for being hypocritical unbelievers.

Because no believer has the ability to know the heart of another believer the way Jesus did, it is unrighteous for him to call another believer “Pharisee.” Before you call another believer a “Pharisee,” you should think carefully about your inability to know the heart of that person.

Beware of calling other believers “Pharisees”!

In Discipleship, Exposition, Theology

Are Churches Supposed to Be Judgment-Free Zones?

May 4, 2013

In the American political scene today, many believe in the merits of various places being gun-free zones. Many others, however, hold opposing views.

Although sorting out the truth about that disputed topic is important, of far greater importance is the belief by many in the American religious scene today that churches should be virtually judgment-free zones. Is this view valid?

Key passages help us to answer this question definitively:

1. Believers in Churches Must Judge Themselves When Taking the Lord’s Supper

1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

²⁸ But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

²⁹ For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

³⁰ For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

³¹ For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

³² But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

Every believer must partake regularly of the Lord’s Supper. When doing so, he must judge himself thoroughly by repenting of, confessing, and forsaking his sins. If he fails to do so and yet takes the Lord’s Supper, God will judge him to chasten him until he repents.

2. Believers Are to Judge Themselves So That They Do Not Cause Others to Stumble

Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

¹³ Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

Every believer is going to answer to Jesus Christ one day (Rom. 14:20). Because that will be the case, Paul commands us all to judge ourselves to be certain that we not cause others to stumble. This teaching must guide everything that we do in our churches.

Furthermore, Paul teaches that believers must not give offence either to believers or to unbelievers:

1Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

³² Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

³³ Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

For an example that points to a serious way in which many believers in local churches may be failing in this aspect of judging themselves, see my previous post about the testimony of Meghan O’Gieblyn, Romans 14, and the CCM Debate.

3. Unbelievers or Unlearned People Who Enter Churches Are to Be Judged Through the Prophesying of the Entire Congregation

1Co 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

²⁴ But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

²⁵ And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

Through the corporate prophesying of the entire congregation, God intends that unbelievers and unlearned people who enter a church come under conviction for their sins and become convinced that they will be judged for their sins unless they repent. Being judged by the ministry of the entire congregation, they are to repent and worship God.

A proper church service thus is not supposed to make such people feel good about themselves—God wants them to be convicted of their sins. They are supposed to become burdened about the judgment that they are under for not repenting of their sins.

4. Believers Are to Judge Unrepentant People in the Church

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

¹⁰ Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

¹¹ But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

¹² For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

¹³ But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians to instruct them not to associate with evil people in the church (1 Cor. 5:10). He reiterated that command to them (1 Cor. 5:11) and made clear that they were not even to eat with those who call themselves brothers but are unrepentant of serious sins in their lives.

In explaining his teaching, Paul used a rhetorical question that demands an affirmative answer (1 Cor. 5:12) to make clear that believers in churches must judge unrepentant people who are among them. Such people must be expelled from the church (1 Cor. 5:13) until they are genuinely repentant.

A Local Church Is Not to Be a Judgment-Free Zone

These passages show that we must allow Scripture to renew our minds about this vital aspect of life in our local churches. Contrary to the seemingly widespread perspective of many believers today, Scripture shows that God does not want churches to be judgment-free zones.

Rather, God intends that our churches be places where we judge ourselves, where unbelievers repent because they become burdened about the judgment they are under for their sins, and where unrepentant professing believers are judged and, if necessary, expelled from the church until they repent. A local church must not be a judgment-free zone.

In Discipleship, Exposition, Theology

Does Your Theology and Practice Properly Account for Hebrews 2:9 and 5:9?

April 24, 2013

Christian theology and practice is only as sound as it is in full keeping with all that Scripture teaches about any given subject or practice. Hebrews 2:9 and 5:9 are two verses that provide a good means of testing the soundness of one’s beliefs and living as a Christian.

Hebrews 2:9

The writer of Hebrews declares, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (2:9). This verse presents some key truths about the death of Jesus, including the following: (1) He became incarnate in order to suffer death; and (2) He tasted death for every man.

What the Scripture writer specifies about the latter truth reveals an even more profound truth—Christ experienced death on behalf of others by the grace of God. With this teaching, he asserts that God’s grace to Jesus was vital in His dying for others.

In my experience, this truth has very rarely been stressed; nearly always, it has been Jesus’ laying down His own life that has been stressed. Hebrews 2:9, however, unmistakably asserts that Jesus died by the grace of God that was granted to Him.

We, therefore, must conceive of the death of Jesus in full accord with all that Scripture reveals about it: not only His laying down His own life of Himself (John 10:18), but also His receiving grace from God to do so. Regardless of whether or not we can understand how both these points can be true, we must maintain in our theology and practice that both are true.

Hebrews 5:9

In chapter five, we encounter another similarly profound truth that we must properly reflect in our theology and practice:

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; ⁹ And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him (5:8-9).

These verses declare that Jesus was made perfect through what He suffered, and that His being perfected in that way was how He became the author of eternal salvation for all those who obey Him.

Strikingly, the author of Hebrews asserts that Jesus provides eternal salvation not simply by virtue of His intrinsic deity, which was true of Him throughout His entire life! Rather, His doing so vitally stems from what resulted from the suffering that He experienced as the God-Man. The profundity of this verse, as with 2:9, thus pertains directly to what we do with the truth of Jesus’ deity in relation to other vital truth about Him.

What a Proper Theology and Practice That Reflects These Truths Looks Like

The immensely profound truths revealed in Hebrews 2:9 and 5:9 require that we not overemphasize the deity of Christ in our theology and practice to such an extent that we fail to give other vital truths their proper emphasis. Discussions of the death of Jesus and His saving work must reflect not just His deity, but also the grace of God at work in His life and His saving people by virtue of what He experienced as the God-Man.

These truths, in particular, must shape how we evangelize people. We must not present Jesus’ death only as His exercising His divine power. Nor should we present Him as able to save people solely because He is God.

Instead, when we evangelize people, we should also emphasize the divine help that He received in His death. Moreover, we should present Him as the glorified God-Man who provides salvation to those who obey Him because of how He as the God-Man was perfected through His sufferings.

In Discipleship, Evangelism, Theology

Jesus Loves Aborted Children

April 13, 2013

Jesus Loves the Little Children, by C. H. Woolston and George F. Root, is a classic children’s song that celebrates His love for little children. The words of Jesus Loves Aborted Children use the same tune to declare and magnify the love of Jesus for the multitudes of precious children who have been mercilessly aborted.

Stanza 1 magnifies the life of rejoicing in His presence that they live now! Stanzas 2 and 3 emphasize the truth of their living again physically some day before the throne of Jesus.

These words should be sung slowly and meditatively:

Jesus Loves Aborted Children

1. Jesus loves aborted children;

They now suffer no more pain;

Knowing Him who once was dead,

They live through Him who has bled.

Bowing at His throne,

Rejoicing they remain!

2. Jesus loves aborted children;

They’ve been mercilessly slain.

He will raise them from the dead;

Those who slew them will regret,

When before His throne,

They face them once again.

3. Jesus loves aborted children;

They will never die again.

They will rise up from the dead;

They will praise Him as their Head;

When before His throne,

They know life once again.

You may use this song in a ministry context provided you do not change any of the words and you provide copyright information to anyone whom you distribute it. Please contact me for any other use of the song.

In Music, Theology

Is Jesus As the Judge "The Bad News" about Jesus Christ?

April 12, 2013

The world detests the message that Jesus is the Judge. Sadly, many believers also may often have a mindset that views the truth of Jesus as the Judge as “the bad news.” Is the truth of Jesus as the Judge “the bad news”? If so, how is it bad news and for whom?

John 5 is a key passage in the Gospels that emphasizes the truth of Jesus as the Judge. A close examination of this passage provides a clear answer to our question.

The Primary Truth about Jesus in John 5

John 5 records at length Jesus’ interaction with an impotent man and certain Jews in Jerusalem. Jesus healed the man on the Sabbath. He did so as the Son of Man with the authority to forgive sins on the earth.

Observing the man who was healed carrying his bed on the Sabbath, the Jews confronted him about his actions, which they regarded as unlawful (5:9-10). The man defended himself by saying that the One who had healed him also ordered him to take up his bed and walk (5:11). The Jews inquired who it was that directed him to do so (5:12).

The man did not know who it was because Jesus had left the location (5:13). Later, Jesus found him in the temple and sternly charged him, “Behold, you are made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come to you” (5:14). The man left and informed the Jews that Jesus had made him whole (5:15). The Jews, therefore, persecuted Jesus and sought to kill him (5:16, 18) because He healed the man on the Sabbath and because they rejected His saying that God was His own Father (5:17-18).

The entire conflict between these Jews and Jesus concerned what was and was not lawful to do on the Sabbath. The Jews judged Jesus as a lawbreaker and wanted to kill Him for what they regarded as His unlawful actions and for His stupendous assertion that they regarded as His making Himself equal with God (5:18).

Jesus’ response to them comprises one of the lengthiest records of His words (5:17; 19-47; 30 verses). The great length of direct discourse by Jesus that John records here stresses this passage greatly.

In effect, Jesus defended Himself before these Jews by making known that His actions were not unlawful because He is the One to whom the Father has given all judgment (5:22, 27). As the God-appointed Judge, He is thus the Lawgiver who decides what is and is not lawful.

Seen in this light, the entire passage (5:1-47) is primarily about Jesus as the God-appointed Judge. His explicit statement that what He said to these Jews was so that they might be saved (5:34) shows that this passage is an evangelistic account. Jesus’ profound emphasis on His judicial agency (explicit statements in 5:22, 27, 30; contextually throughout the passage) in His evangelizing these hostile Jews shows that Jesus held that His judicial agency was the central truth that He wanted them to receive in order that they might be saved (5:24).

John 5 Illumines What the Good News Is in Act 10

This analysis of John 5 provides help for us to rightly interpret Peter’s climactic statement at Gentecost that stated that Jesus is the One appointed by God as the Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42). Far from being the bad news to the Jews (John 5) and to the people at Gentecost (Acts 10), the truth of Jesus as God’s judicial agent was the central truth that sinners had to hear and receive at these occasions to be saved.

How can this possibly be? A closer look at Jesus’ words to the Jews reveals just how this was the case.

The God-Appointed Judge Who Raises People to Eternal Life!

In brief, Jesus emphatically and repeatedly asserted His judicial agency with great solemnity (“Verily, verily”; three times, John 5:19, 24, 25). As part of His explanation of His judicial agency, He taught that an hour is coming when all who are in the graves would hear His voice as the Son of Man to whom the Father has given authority to execute judgment (5:27-28). Those who would hear His voice would come forth to one of two fates: a resurrection of life or a resurrection of damnation (5:29).

Jesus thus taught that He as the God-appointed Judge is the One who would raise all dead people and that they would thereafter enter into their eternal destiny (5:25-29). The ones that had done good would enter into the resurrection of life; the ones who had done evil would enter into damnation (5:29). He closed this section of His witness to them by yet another explicit statement of His judicial agency by saying that He could not do anything of His own self; as He had heard of the Father, He did (5:30a). He added that His judgment was just because He did not seek His own will, but the will of the Father who had sent Him (5:30b).

With this teaching, Jesus made known that He as the God-appointed Judge would decide the fates of all dead people. Some He would raise to eternal life and the others He would raise to eternal damnation. His judicial agency, therefore, is only “bad news” to those who have done evil and die refusing to repent of their sins and believe in Him.

For those who have done evil and then repent of their rejection of Jesus’ equality with God by believing in Jesus as the One whom the Father sent with all authority to execute judgment, His judicial agency is the greatest good news that they could possibly hear. He is the Judge who will raise everyone one day and give eternal life to those who do good by hearing His word and believing on Him who sent Him to be that Judge (5:24)! To do so is to do good because they thereby honor the Son even as the Father, which is the purpose of the Father’s giving all judgment to the Son (5:22-23).

They will not enter into condemnation because He as the Judge will not condemn them (5:24). They have passed from death to life (5:24) because He as the Judge has already quickened them (cf. 5:21) and will one day assuredly raise all of them who die to the resurrection of life (5:29).

The Good News of the God-Appointed Judge Who Saves Those Who Repent and Believe in Him!

Based on this analysis, we understand that Jesus as God’s judicial agent is not “the bad news of Jesus Christ” to sinners who repent and believe the good news that He is the One to whom the Father has given all judgment. His judicial agency is the central truth that both Jesus and Peter gave to sinners that they might be saved in the two accounts treated above.

The Jews rejected His judicial agency and were not saved. The lost people at Gentecost believed in Him as that God-appointed Judge (Acts 10:42) and were therefore forgiven their sins by Him (Acts 10:43). They were saved by believing in the name of the One whom the Father sent as the Son of God (John 5:25), the Son (5:26), and the Son of Man (5:27), His judicial agent (5:22, 27, 30)!

By virtue of the judicial authority that the Father has given Him (5:22, 27, 30), Jesus gives eternal life to as many as the Father has given Him (17:2). He does so for those who believe that He died for their sins and that God raised Him from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3-5; Rom. 10:9-10). Hear His own words about His judicial agency, acknowledge that you have done evil and are repenting, believe on the Father who sent Him with all judicial authority, and you will have everlasting life! You will never come into condemnation; you will have passed from death to life!

As the Son of Man, He has the judicial authority to forgive your sins (Luke 5:24; cf. Acts 7:56-60; 10:42-43) and to give you eternal life (John 5:24-29). He will save you by doing these things and much more (Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1). Believe the good news of Jesus Christ that includes the glorious truth that He is the God-appointed Judge and you will be saved!

In Evangelism, Exposition, Theology

Additional, Unique Evidence for the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

March 30, 2013

Human denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead has plagued the Church from its beginning (Matt. 28:11-15; cf. 1 Cor. 15:12). In addition to its clear direct testimony to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the Gospel of Matthew provides additional, unique evidence that implies that truth (Matt. 27:52-53).

To better assess this unique evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, we will consider it in relation to some of the other evidence in Matthew for bodily resurrection of the dead.

Evidence for Bodily Resurrection of the Dead before the Death of Jesus

1. Jesus Raised a Ruler’s Daughter (Matt. 9:18-26)

2. Jesus Authorized and Commissioned His Twelve Disciples to Raise the Dead (Matt. 10:1, 8)

3. Jesus Warned of the One Who is Able to Destroy Both Soul and Body in Hell after Death (Matt. 10:28)

4. Jesus Testified of the Dead Who Had Already Been Raised Up as Proof That He Was the Christ (Matt. 11:5)

5. Jesus Repeatedly Predicted That He Would Be Raised from the Dead (Matt. 16:21; 20:19; etc)

6. Jesus Taught That God Spoke about the Resurrection of the Dead Long Ago (Matt. 22:31-32)

7. Jesus Promised That He Would Drink Again with His Disciples of the Fruit of the Vine in His Father’s Kingdom (Matt. 26:29)

Each of these seven points shows that Jesus affirmed the reality of bodily resurrection of the dead. Several of them also point, either directly or implicitly, to Jesus Himself bringing about such a resurrection of people.

Evidence for Bodily Resurrection of the Dead after the Death of Jesus

Matthew relates several remarkable events that took place when Jesus died and afterwards:

Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

⁵¹ ¶ And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

⁵² And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

⁵³ And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

He is the only one to record the opening of the graves of many saints (Matt. 27:52a). He specifies that the bodies of those who slept arose (Matt. 27:52b).

He asserts that they came out of their graves after the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 27:53a). Moreover, they went into Jerusalem (the holy city) and appeared unto many people (Matt. 27:53b).

Given the preceding context of the book and Matthew’s explicit statement that their bodies arose, the reader of Matthew has every reason to believe that these saints experienced bodily resurrection from the dead. In fact, there is no legitimate basis for believing otherwise.

Importantly, Matthew testifies that they did not come out of their graves until after Jesus rose, which means that His resurrection preceded theirs. Their exiting the grave and appearing after Jesus arose implies that His resurrection was the basis for theirs, which is in keeping with His plain assertions elsewhere (John 5, 11).

To hold then that Jesus experienced only some kind of spiritual resurrection but these saints experienced a bodily resurrection would make no sense at all. In order to assert validly that there was such a radical difference between His resurrection and theirs, a person would have to provide extremely compelling evidence that would overrule both the entire preceding context of bodily resurrection in Matthew and the close relationship between Jesus’ resurrection and theirs.

Because there is no such compelling evidence, the bodily resurrection of these saints implicitly testifies to the bodily resurrection of Jesus. This interpretation of the significance of Matthew’s mentioning their resurrection is strengthened by Matthew’s direct testimony to Jesus’ rising bodily, which he provides in Matthew 28.

Evidence for the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus after His Resurrection

Matthew provides much evidence about the bodily resurrection of Jesus in his last chapter.

1. The women came to the tomb, saw where He was laid, and did not find the body (Matt. 28:1-7). In fact, an angel affirmed to them that He had risen just as He said that He would and directed them to verify that fact by looking at the place where He had been laid (Matt. 28:5-6).

2. Jesus then appeared to the women (Matt. 28:9a). They grabbed His feet and worshiped (Matt. 28:9b), clearly proving that He had risen bodily.

3. His enemies were unable to produce the body and had to concoct a ridiculous story to explain that inability (Matt. 28:11-13). Their inability powerfully testifies to the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

4. Jesus appeared to the eleven who had proceeded to Galilee and commissioned them (Matt. 28:16-20). This appearance confirmed the truth of what the angel had directed the women to testify to them (Matt. 28:7), which further verifies that He rose bodily.

Jesus Arose Bodily!

The unique Matthean information about the resurrection and appearances of many saints implicitly corroborates both the implicit and the explicit evidence in Matthew for the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Truly, Jesus arose bodily!

In Exposition, Theology

Does Matthew 21:13 Record That Jesus Was Claiming to Be Deity?

March 25, 2013

After His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:1-11), Jesus went into the temple and proceeded to cleanse it (21:12-13). A closer look at what took place on this occasion calls into question a common understanding of this account.

What Did Jesus Claim by What He Said When He Cleansed the Temple?

Entering the temple, Jesus discovered people there who were selling and buying there. He violently acted to disrupt their activities, overturning the chairs and tables of those who were defiling the temple by their corrupt mercenary practices (21:12).

As He did so, He pronounced judgment on them by declaring that these people were thieves: “It is written, ‘My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” (21:13). In saying the words, “My house,” was Jesus claiming to be Deity Himself by asserting that the temple was His house?

Whose House Was Jesus Claiming the Temple to Be?

At least two aspects of this account call into serious question the interpretation that Matthew 21:13 records that Jesus was claiming to be Deity. First, Jesus did not just say, “My house . . .” He said, “It is written . . .” In other words, Jesus was quoting Scripture when He said the words, “My house.”

“My house . . .” therefore, was a declaration that the house that belonged to God was being corrupted by these people. Through His actions and His words, Jesus was asserting God’s authority over the house that belonged to God.

Second, the remainder of the account shows a conspicuous absence of a response from His enemies that would be fitting with their having perceived that He had made the stupendous claim of being God Himself:

Mat 21:14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

¹⁵ And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,

¹⁶ And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

¹⁷ And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.

Had Jesus citation of the words, “My house,” been a claim to His being Deity Himself, we would expect that His enemies would have immediately exploded with charges against Him that He had blasphemed. Matthew, however, does not say anything about a hostile response from them.

The parallel account in Mark does inform us that there was a hostile response from the Jewish religious leadership on this occasion; however, it explains that their response was for a different reason: “And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine” (11:18). The religious leaders thus feared Jesus’ influence with the people.

Had Jesus plainly claimed on this occasion that He was God, the leaders would not have had to sway the people into opposing Him because they themselves would have turned against Him for making such a claim. Neither Matthew’s account nor the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, however, seem to provide any clear indication that what Jesus said on this occasion provided the Jewish leadership or the people with an occasion to charge Him specifically with blasphemy.

In light of these considerations, I conclude that Matthew 21:13 is not a record of Jesus’ claiming directly to be God. Although His words and actions on this occasion do imply that truth, the passage is not handled properly when people speak of its pointing to His Deity as the main point of the passage.

What Jesus’ Words and Actions Actually Stressed on This Occasion

What then did Jesus’ words and actions on this occasion stress? Clearly, Jesus was claiming that He was the Messiah whom God had chosen and authorized to judge all those among His people who were sinfully perverting the righteous ways of God. Jesus claim to have such God-given judicial authority over the established Jewish leadership is thus the actual main point of Jesus’ words and actions at this time.

This interpretation does not deny that the passage has implications for Jesus’ own deity, which is clearly taught in many other passages as well as plainly implied in many other passages. Rather, it stresses that the main point of the passage is about Jesus being the Christ who rendered judgment for God.

Jesus’ own words on the earlier occasion of His cleansing the temple provide strong support for this interpretation because John writes that on that occasion “His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up’ (John 2:17). John thus made known that His disciples viewed Jesus’ cleansing of the temple as His acting in zeal for the glory of His Father’s house, which shows that He did what He did on that occasion as God’s agent of judgment.

As Jesus did in His first cleansing of the temple (John 2:13-22), so He rendered similar judgment on those who were perverting His Father’s house later (Matt. 21:12-17). Both accounts of Jesus’ cleansing the temple stress Jesus’ judicial authority as God’s Christ.

In Exposition, Theology

O Theophilus, Jesus Will Restore Again the Kingdom to Israel!

February 23, 2013

Together, Luke-Acts comprises a larger portion of the New Testament than do the writings of any other Scripture writer (unless Paul wrote Hebrews). Because Luke wrote both books to the same man, Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-2), he has the unique distinction of being the one person to whom the Spirit directed more of the New Testament than He did to any other person.

Luke ends his Gospel with an account of Jesus’ instructing His disciples prior to His Ascension (Luke 24:15-49). He begins Acts by reminding Theophilus of what he had previously written to him, including an explicit reference to Jesus’ instructing them before He ascended: “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen” (Acts 1:1-2; cf. Luke 1:1-4). The explicit references to Jesus’ instructing them before His Ascension (at both the ending of Luke and the beginning of Acts) underscored to Theophilus the importance of that instruction.

JESUS’ FOCUS ON THE KINGDOM PRIOR TO HIS ASCENSION

Luke then related to Theophilus that prior to His ascension to heaven, Jesus appeared repeatedly to His disciples over a 40-day period: “To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). This statement communicated to Theophilus that during that entire time, Jesus was speaking to them about the things concerning the kingdom of God. In fact, Luke said that His appearing to them and His speaking to them about precisely that subject were the infallible proofs that He was alive after His passion.

Based on this singular emphasis of Jesus’ communications to His disciples during this 40-day period, Theophilus understood that the preeminent subject in the minds of both Jesus and His disciples during that entire period was the kingdom of God. Keeping this fact in mind is vital for a proper interpretation of the subsequent events.

THE DISCIPLES’ QUESTION ABOUT JESUS’ RESTORING THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL

Theophilus learned next that Jesus gathered His disciples together and commanded them to stay in Jerusalem and wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit that the Father had promised (Acts 1:4-5). In response to His interactions with them throughout this post-Resurrection, pre-Ascension period and specifically to His specific instructions to wait for the giving of the Spirit, His disciples asked him, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).

Noting the earlier emphatic statement about Jesus’ speaking about the kingdom to His disciples (Acts 1:3), Theophilus certainly would have understood this question in relation to that emphasis. He would thus have known that the disciples were not bringing up a matter that was important only to them but not so to Jesus.

JESUS’ ANSWER TO HIS DISCIPLES

Theophilus then read of Jesus’ answer and of His Ascension:

“And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when He had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight” (1:7-9).

Clearly, he would have interpreted Jesus’ answer and Ascension from the standpoint of not just the disciples’ question but also from the standpoint of Jesus’ singular emphasis on the kingdom of God throughout that 40-day period. On this reading of Acts 1:1-9, we can only interpret Jesus’ answer properly by seeking to understand it in the same way that Theophilus did.

A “THEOPHILIC” UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISCIPLES’ QUESTION AND JESUS’ ANSWER

To assess rightly how Theophilus understood Acts 1:6-9, we must consider key truths about the kingdom from both Luke and Acts, the two books that Luke wrote specifically to him:

(1) In his Gospel, Luke informed Theophilus that an angel instructed Mary to name Him Jesus before He was even conceived and explained the significance of that naming in a way that can only be rightly understood as pointing to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Luke 1:30-33). Theophilus therefore would have believed that Jesus’ sitting on the throne of His father David and ruling forever over the house of Jacob was central to the mission that His name reveals (Luke 1:32-33).

(2) Theophilus learned at the end of Luke that the disciples expected Jesus to redeem Israel (Luke 24:21), which certainly hearkened back to the confident expectation that he had read about of Israel’s national deliverance from those who were oppressing her (cf. Zacharias’ Spirit-filled prophecy that spoke of his thanking God for redeeming and saving him and his people (Israel) from their enemies and from the hand of all those who hated them [Luke 1:68-79]).

(3) Theophilus did not read in Acts 1:7-8 that Jesus told His disciples that they were mistaken in thinking that Israel still has a glorious national future. Nor did he read that Jesus informed them that they were wrong in expecting that He would be the One to bring about the glorious restoration of the kingdom to them.

(4) Instead, what Luke wrote to Theophilus told him that Jesus pointed them to the Father’s sovereignty over the timing of that glorious event and instructed them that they were not to focus at this time on the timing of that event.

Viewing Jesus’ answer to His disciples from this “theophilic” (the consistent focus on the kingdom from Luke 1 to Luke 24 to Acts 1) viewpoint, we should understand that Jesus upheld to them the validity of their expectation but redirected their focus to the present priority of their testifying for Him throughout the world. Doing so, they would faithfully occupy until He would gloriously return to restore the kingdom to Israel, just as He said (implied in Acts 1:6).

WHY THE OPPOSING VIEW IS WRONG

Many deny this understanding of Jesus’ answer because it does not fit with their overall theological understanding of Scripture. They hold that Israel has no national future. As seen above, however, a consideration of how Theophilus, the original recipient of both Luke and Acts, would have understood this matter shows that this view is erroneous.

CONCLUSION

Despite the arguments of those who for theological reasons deny that Israel has a national future as a kingdom, Jesus’ answer interpreted through the eyes of Theophilus shows that Luke wrote to him to inform him (and us) of this glorious truth: Jesus will restore again the kingdom to Israel at the precise time and season that the Father has put in His own power. O Theophilus, Jesus will restore again the kingdom to Israel!

In Exposition, Theology

A Bible Principle That Would Help Curb Certain Kinds of Violence in Professional Sports

February 20, 2013

Yesterday, Marion Hossa, a star forward on the Chicago Blackhawks ice hockey team, was knocked out of a game by a dirty play by a player on the Vancouver Canucks. As I was pondering last night and this morning what the NHL should do to curb this kind of dirty play, a Bible principle came to my mind that I think would go a long way towards helping with such problems.

Exodus 21 reveals a number of principles governing situations involving personal injuries. Concerning men who quarrel, God says,

Exo 21:18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:

¹⁹ If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.

With this revelation, God made known that those who injured others non-lethally were to be held responsible to pay for the loss of time of the injured party and they were to see to it that the injured party would be cared for until he was completely healed.

Applying this principle to professional athletes who intentionally injure other players, the league would force the guilty player to pay the injured player’s salary for however long the player remains injured. Moreover, the guilty player would have to pay all the medical expenses for any treatment that the injured player would require until he is completely recovered from his injuries.

In situations where a player injures another player in such a way that it ends his career, the guilty player would have to pay for the injured player’s salary for however long the player would normally have been expected to play, on average, in the league. He would also have to pay for the medical and other expenses of the injured player for the rest of his life.

Any expenses that a guilty player is unable to pay in a situation where he injures another player intentionally would have to be borne by the player’s team.

These disciplinary measures would be enforced on both players and teams in addition to the other penalties already existing in league rules, such as suspensions, fines, etc. Hitting dirty players and teams in their pocketbooks in this way surely would help curb some of their wretched violence.

In Interpretation, Theology

Did an Unholy Spirit from God Torment Saul?

February 14, 2013

When king Saul rebelled against God, God judged Him by rejecting him from being king of Israel (1 Sam. 15:23). After Samuel anointed his successor, David, the Holy Spirit came upon David from that day onward (16:13). By contrast, “the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him” (16:14).

Was the spirit from God that tormented Saul an unholy spirit or was he an angel who was sent by God to distress Saul? Some believers are troubled to think that this spirit was actually an evil spirit in the sense of being a demon. For them, for God to use such a spirit creates theological problems with their view of God and His separateness from sin.[1]

An examination of many similar Scripture passages helps to answer the question of the identity of the spirit that tormented Saul.

1. Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan, who could only have assaulted them had God permitted him to do so (see point 2 for Scriptural support for this interpretation):

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.

2. Job was assaulted by Satan on more than one occasion when God gave him permission to do so:

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Job 2:6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.

3. Because of his sinfulness, God judged king Ahab through a lying spirit:

2Ch 18:18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

¹⁹ And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.

²⁰ Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?

²¹ And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.

²² Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

4. Paul’s affliction at the hands of Satan was divinely given him:

2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

The use of the divine passive (“was given”) shows that God was the One who allowed Paul to be afflicted by Satan.

5. God will judge many people in the future who will have rejected His truth by sending strong delusion upon them, which will be the work of evil spirits:

2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

⁹ Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

¹⁰ And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

¹¹ And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

¹² That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

These five passages provide ample biblical support for holding that king Saul was tormented by an unholy spirit from God and not just a “distressing spirit” (1 Sam. 16:14 in the NKJV). In addition, the Spirit’s departure from Saul prior to the evil spirit’s coming upon him also points to his being an unholy spirit that came to torment Saul once the Holy Spirit was no longer upon him (cf. 1 Sam. 10:6).

[1] Additionally, the identification of this spirit as an evil spirit versus a distressing spirit has vital bearing on determining the moral character of the instrumental music that David played for Saul (see my post Correcting a Wrong Handling of the Accounts of David’s Music Ministry to Saul).

In CCM, Interpretation, Music, Theology

Archives For Theology

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

JESUS’ FOCUS ON THE KINGDOM PRIOR TO HIS ASCENSION

THE DISCIPLES’ QUESTION ABOUT JESUS’ RESTORING THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL

JESUS’ ANSWER TO HIS DISCIPLES

A “THEOPHILIC” UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISCIPLES’ QUESTION AND JESUS’ ANSWER

WHY THE OPPOSING VIEW IS WRONG

CONCLUSION

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: