Home » Posts tagged 'Jesus Christ'
Tag Archives: Jesus Christ
“Judge Not”: What’s It Saying?
The Context of Matthew 7:1
Matthew chapter seven starts with a very short, memorable command in the midst of a long sermon by Jesus: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” How does that fit into His message? People turn it into a statement against judgment or judgmentalism. But that is not what He was saying.
Jesus exposes His addressed audience, that it falls short of the glory of God. And the glory of God is their standard according to Jesus. “Be ye perfect as the Father is perfect,” He says (Matthew 5:48).
The crowd for Jesus thinks it’s okay because it hasn’t murdered anybody, but it really has murdered in the heart through its contempt for others. It is proud of its giving, its prayer, and its fasting, even though it does these to be seen of men. Its worry or anxiety about what it will eat or what it will wear means it does not seek first the kingdom of God. Without the requisite poverty of spirit, it will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
How Judgment Fits the Context
Comparison
How could the crowd think it was so good? How? It compared itself to other men, that’s how. But Jesus then debunked its false, self-righteous judgment of other men. Even if His audience were held to an identical standard to which it judged others, it would still fall short. It would still find itself failing before God’s holy judgment. Evaluation of one’s self based upon the standard of other men doesn’t change God’s standard of judgment, just shows how self-deceived it is.
People’s own judgment very often becomes their standard of judgment. That’s why they think they’re good. I see this again and again in my evangelism. Most people think they are good. It doesn’t take long in comparing people to God for them to find they don’t stand up to Him.
Contrast
In the next verse, verse two, Jesus says:
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
Jesus expands on verse one. The Apostle Paul later makes a similar point in Romans 2:1-2:
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Jesus Recommends Judgment
Jesus wasn’t saying, “don’t judge at all.” That’s easy to see. That’s not even what He was talking about. Even to make a righteous judgment of others, you can’t be or doing worse than the person you’re judging. All of this exposes the hypocrisy of pseudo-judgment intended to signal virtue and vindicate self. “I’m not as bad as the other guy, so there!”
When Jesus lays out judgment of any person upon any other person, it is for helping that other person. He’s got a moat or a splinter in his eye and you can help him get it out. If he’s beyond help, which we might assume starts with evangelism, Jesus gives an illustration for that. Don’t give something holy to dogs and don’t cast pearls before swine.
In other words, Jesus recommends judgment. He gives two priorities for judgment. One, remove impediments of judgment before you start judging. Two, don’t waste time and energy judging someone whom won’t listen to or use your wise judgment. Good reasons exist for judgment. Using the comparison with other men for self-vindication is not one of them.
A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism (Part Three)
The second point of Calvinism is “unconditional election,” and part two of this series said that election is not predetermined. Instead, God elects according to His foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2). God knows who will believe in Him and elects them before the foundation of the world. Calvinists get unconditional election out of this by changing the meaning of foreknowledge. They say that term means “forelove,” in the sense that “Adam knew his wife Eve” (Gen 4:1) and Joseph did not ‘know’ Mary until after Jesus was born (Matt 1:25).
Turning “foreknowledge” into “forelove” is one of many examples of how Calvinism contorts the meaning of words to get its five points. It really is tell-tale. This stretching of the truth does not comport with the plain meaning of the text. Changing the meaning of “foreknowledge” opens the door to all sorts of new doctrine not taught in scripture. Rather than knowing who would believe, God makes only certain people to believe and others not. It becomes His will to damn people to Hell rather than knowing who wouldn’t believe. This is a big change in the reading of scripture almost entirely through this manipulation of one word.
The first three points of Calvinism are (1) total depravity, (2) unconditional election, and then (3) limited atonement. I named instead the first two (1) each person’s spiritual bankruptcy and (2) God’s election according to his foreknowledge.
3. LIMITED ATONEMENT
More than Atonement
“Limited atonement” is the historical term for this third point. As a bit of an aside to its meaning, I believe that atonement is an Old Testament concept. Christ’s death was more than atonement. His death and shed blood did more than atone for sin. Jesus’ work on the cross removed, took away, or washed away sin. For instance, Israel had a day every year called, Yom Kippur, which means, “Day of Atonement.” This spoke of something that occurred through the blood of animals, which could not take away sin.
In the context of the point of Calvinism, Calvinists say that God atoned only for the sins of the elect. They mean that Jesus died and shed His blood only for the elect. Calvinists don’t take this from any statement in scripture. The Bible doesn’t teach it. It’s what some might call a logical leap that reads like the following paragraph (I’m going to indent it to indicate it is not my position, so as not to confuse).
The Fit Into Calvinism
No spiritually dead person can believe unless God enables them through regeneration. God regenerates those He selects for salvation before the foundation of the world. Since He predetermined whom He would regenerate, Jesus only died for those He would save. He didn’t die for those He wouldn’t save or else that would save them. Therefore, He limits the atonement to only the elect.
Calvinists would say that God gets all the glory for the salvation, because He did everything, start to finish. Some go so far to say that nothing happens, not a single molecule moves, without God causing it. Calvinists would say that if God is sovereign, then He does it all, what they call “monergism.” Again, some Calvinists take this to the extent that if God isn’t doing it all, then man adds something in the nature of works to grace, which is unproveable and false.
Instead of teaching limited atonement, scripture says that God provides an
3. AVAILABLE SUBSTITIONARY SACRIFICE BY CHRIST
Some Calvinists won’t use “limited atonement,” which is a negative sounding descriptor, but “particular redemption.” Even for me, I could embrace something called “particular redemption,” depending on how it’s explained.
I’ve never seen a four point Calvinist reject any other point than this one, perhaps the hardest for Calvinists to believe. It’s a reason why, I believe, for the replacement terminology, “particular redemption.” To make it easier, I also hear Calvinists say that everyone limits the atonement or else God would save everyone. The limitation doesn’t read, however, as though Christ died only for the elect. At worst, God limits the effects of His death — redemption — to only those who believe, or only to the elect. But the latter is not what Calvinists say or mean about or by limited atonement.
Logical Leap
Like with unconditional election, Calvinists take a logical leap with limited atonement. They do it by framing the argument in a way that only their position can stand. It’s however, not how scripture frames this salvation doctrine. Calvinists say that if Christ wasn’t redeeming with His work on the cross then no one is saved. Since He did save, then His cross work must redeem everyone. The Bible does not state this line of thinking or reasoning. At most, it is an inference Calvinists make from scripture, however, one contradicted by verses in the Bible.
Redemption comes through Jesus’ death alone, but only to those who believe in Him. When scripture says that Jesus died for everyone, it does not mean that He provided redemption for everyone. It means He paid the penalty for everyone, but no one gets the benefits of His death without faith. The inference claimed by Calvinists arises from this philosophy of Calvinism already expressed in this series that does not represent a biblical doctrine of salvation.
Availability of Salvation
If Christ died only for the elect, then how could the Apostle Paul write what he did in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3?
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.
Paul declared the gospel when he arrived in Corinth. Not everyone received, but those who did receive it (verses 1 and 2) were “saved” (verse 2). However, the message he preached to an unsaved audience, not all of which received it, was “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” By “the scriptures,” perhaps Paul was referring to Isaiah 53:5:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
This teaches Christ’s substitutionary death. If someone believes that Christ died only for the elect, is he telling the truth in preaching that Christ died for the sins of that audience? This was the typical gospel preaching of Paul and it included, “Christ died for you.” I continue to preach that to everyone and mean it.
Scripture Not Limited Atonement
The combination of many different verses proclaim that Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice is available for everyone.
Romans 5:6, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.”
2 Corinthians 5:14-15, “14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Hebrews 2:9, “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 Peter 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
1 John 2:1-2, “1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
I agree with the truth from Jesus “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn 3:15). Jesus would preach that message to unbelievers, many of whom never went on to believe (John 12:46). The system of Calvinism clashes with obvious New Testament teaching.
Christ Died for Everyone
Christ died for all men in that His substitutionary sacrifice was available to everyone, if they would believe on Him. And, everyone is without excuse as to believing on Him (cf. Rom 1:20). It would sound like a legitimate excuse from someone, if he said, “Christ didn’t die for me,” if that’s what really happened.
When Jesus explains why people don’t receive salvation, He doesn’t say what Calvinism says: not predetermined, didn’t get irresistible grace, and He didn’t die for them. No, He says things like we see in Luke 13:3, “Except ye repent.” Or, He says the culprit is hard, thorny, or stony hearts (Matt 13). Explaining even apostates, Peter says ‘they deny the Lord that bought them.’ He bought them and they still denied Him. Calvinistic inferences contradict the plain teaching of scripture. Explicit statements outdo, undo, and exceed inferences and even something greater than inferences, implications. If you’re a believer, you’ve got to go with what God says. That’s your doctrine.
Faux Intellectualism
These opaque, murky points of Calvin should recede in the face of unadulterated true statements of God. Their continued embrace seems a desperate grasp of faux intellectualism. The following may trigger some, but it also sounds to me like a kind of virtue signal. It lays out an intricate contraption of theology impressive in the nature of Rube Goldberg. It takes just those types of twists and turns to end a pristine quest of human ingenuity.
The points of Calvinism wilt like day old salad in the face of not many mighty or noble are called, because to wrap your brain around Calvinism requires egg headed genius orbiting in an intellectual satellite thousands of miles above earth. Calvinism has the mighty and noble on speed dial. The foolishness of preaching is not incomprehension and contradiction.
More to Come
Christ’s Genealogies: Eusebius / Africanus on Matthew & Luke
The genealogies in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke both record the family history of the Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew traces the Lord’s genealogy back to Abraham, while Luke traces the geneology back to Adam. Critics have argued that there are insoluble contradictions between the two genealogies. This blog has looked at other alleged contradictions in the Bible in other posts. (Also see here, where a video discussing a different attack on these genealogies is referenced; see also the videos here.) Are they correct?
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke
Matthew wrote:
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:1-17)
Luke wrote:
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:23-38)
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: Joseph’s and Mary’s Line?
There are a variety of options Christian scholars have offered to reconcile these two accounts. Gleason Archer, for example, proposes that Luke records the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph. Thus, the Lord Jesus would be part of the line of David through both of His human parents–both His adopted human father, Joseph, and His human mother, Mary, were descendants of king David:
Matthew 1:1–16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned. Notice carefully the wording of v.16: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (NASB). This stands in contrast to the format followed in the preceding verses of the succession of Joseph’s ancestors: “Abraham begat [egennēsen] Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc.” Joseph is not said to have begotten Jesus; rather he is referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom [feminine genitive] Jesus was born.”
Luke 3:23–38, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself, carried all the way back beyond the time of Abraham to Adam and the commencement of the human race. This seems to be implied by the wording of v.23: “Jesus … being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This “as was supposed” indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though this was commonly assumed by the public. It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16). Mary’s line of descent came through Nathan, a son of Bathsheba (or “Bathshua,” according to 1 Chron. 3:5), the wife of David. Therefore, Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon. (Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982], 316).
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: The Legal Line and The Blood Line?
Other scholars have offered other solutions. For example, Smith’s Bible Dictionary argues:
The New Testament gives us the genealogy of but one person, that of our Saviour. This is given because it was important to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies spoken of him. Only as the son and heir of David should he be the Messiah. The following propositions will explain the true construction of these genealogies:—
1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i.e. of Jesus Christ as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary.
2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke’s is Joseph’s private Genealogy, exhibiting his real birth as David’s son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon’s crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heir to David’s and Solomon’s throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all.
3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph her husband. Thus: Matthan or Matthat Father of Jacob, Heli Jacob Father of Mary = Jacob’e heir was (Joseph) Heli Father of Joseph JESUS, called Christ. (Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, rendering (Luke 3:23) thus: Jesus “being (as was suppposed) the son of Joseph, (but in reality) the son of Heli.” In this case Mary, as declared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the grandfather of Jesus. Mary’s name was omitted because “ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.” So we often find in the Old Testament the grandson called the son. This view has this greatly in its favor, that it shows that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; and it would be very strange that in the gospel accounts, where so much is made of Jesus being the son and heir of David and of his kingdom his real descent from David should not be given. (“Genealogy of Jesus Christ,” in William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 1884).
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: An Ancient Explanation by Africanus Recorded in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History
The early church historian Eusebius records a fascinating option for reconciling the genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Eusebius reproduces information from the Christian writer Africanus, who was born in the second half of the 2nd century A. D. What is this explanation of the two genealogies that derives from the A. D. 100s?
Africanus … [was born] AD 170, or a little earlier, and died AD 240, or a little later. … [He] ranks with Clement and Origen as among the most learned of the ante-Nicene fathers. … His great work, which was intended to give a comparative view of sacred and profane history from the creation of the world, demanded an extensive range of reading; and the fragments that remain contain references to the works of a considerable number of historical writers. … his letter to Aristides, of whom nothing else is known, [comments] on the discrepancy between our Saviour’s genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. … Africanus insists on the necessity of maintaining the literal truth of the Gospel narrative, and … proceeds to give his own explanation, founded on the levirate law of the Jews, and professing to be traditionally derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan, it is said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the house of Nathan, married the same woman, whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by Africanus), having died childless, his uterine brother Jacob, Matthan’s son, took his wife and raised up seed to him; so that the offspring Joseph was legally Heli’s son as stated by St. Luke, but naturally Jacob’s son as stated by St. Matthew. (George Salmon, “Africanus, Julius,” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines [London: John Murray, 1877–1887], 54-55)
Eusebus, in his Ecclesiastical History, records the words of Africanus:
1 Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he gives the account which he had received from tradition in these words:
2 “For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law,—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;—
3 whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both—of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
4 Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.
5 But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.
6 Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
7 Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.
8 By Estha then (for this was the woman’s name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her, as before said, and begat a son Eli.
9 Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
10 Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But Luke, on the other hand, says: ‘Who was the son, as was supposed’ (for this he also adds), ‘of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi’; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression ‘he begat’ he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.
11 For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
12 And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune, was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
13 But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.
14 A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.
15 Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing. better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.”
16 And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: “Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.”
17 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here. (Ecclesiastical History 1.6.1-17, cited in Eusebius of Caesaria, Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series [New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890], 91–94)
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke:
A Proven Contradiction? Which Explanation is Correct?
This post has looked at three explanations for the differences in the genealogies of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew and Luke. Are they sufficient to set aside the claim of contradiction? Certainly the answer is “yes.” The critic alleging contradiction must prove that there is no possible way of reconciling the two genealogies. He must not only prove that the three explanations given above are unsatisfactory, but that there is no other explanation that ever has been, or ever will, be able to reconcile the two accounts in a satisfactory manner. Such genuine contradictions abound in uninspired religious texts that claim to be from God, such as (for example) the Mormon religious books, which unambiguously teach monotheism in the Book of Mormon and just as unambiguously teach polytheism in the Pearl of Great Price, although both texts are allegedly unchanging truth from the Mormon god (or gods). Unlike such texts, no proven contradictions are found in God’s infallible Word, the Bible.
The three explanations above for the genealogies also illustrate another important fact. There may be simple options, such as the one offered by Archer and the second one offered by Smith, while the truth itself may be a more complicated option that we would not easily think of. Until I read Africanus’ explanation I do not believe it ever crossed my mind–yet, as a very old explanation that claims to have been received from the descendants of Mary and Joseph themselves, it deserves to be taken seriously. Thus, even if we cannot think of a good explanation for an alleged contradiction at the moment does not mean that one does not exist.
So which explanation is correct? I am not sure which explanation is correct, but I am sure that there is an explanation, because God does not contradict Himself or lie. I lean towards the explanation of Africanus as recorded in Eusebius because it seems reasonable that the children of Joseph and Mary would know their own family history and it likewise seems probable that Africanus has reliable information. However, the most important point is not which explanation is correct, but that there is an explanation, for God does not lie or contradict Himself.
–TDR
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Four)
Being Intentional
When you intend to do something — some people today call that “being intentional” — you might plan it or schedule it. Does scripture regulate or legislate intentionality? This thing of being intentional even has a definition: “making deliberate choices to reflect what is most important to us.” King David begins Psalm 101 with intentionality:
1 I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O Lord, will I sing.
2 I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.
3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
When you intend to do it, you might schedule it. That’s good. It’s how you ‘redeem the time’ (Eph 5:16). How do you seek something first? You’ve got to move it up in priority on purpose. You will and then do of God’s good pleasure. This is sanctification. It’s how you keep something holy.
If I want to ensure I do something, I put it on a “to-do” list. For the year, I write those actions on a calendar. For an entire church, as a church leader, I have a church calendar. What goes on that calendar? I could put a “Jumper Day” on the calendar with intentionality. Jumpers are those inflatable fun houses, serving as a kind of trampoline. Let’s say instead, I intentionally schedule into the year of the church a spiritual emphasis. Let’s call it a “liturgical calendar.” Every year the church emphasizes scriptural events in the life of Christ and other biblical themes.
Using the Calendar
The Psalms are a guide for writing hymns. The prayers of the Bible are a guide for what to pray. In the Old Testament, God weaves into the year a means by which Israel will remember what God did. This included the weekly Sabbath and then festivals. This is a model, not for continuing to follow a Hebrew calendar, but for what to do with a calendar.
Israel began to observe also an event the occurred after the completion of the Old Testament, the Feast of Dedication. It celebrated an event in the intertestamental period. Israel then added that Feast to the Hebrew calendar. Jesus too observed the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22ff). Like the other Feasts, the Feast of Dedication helped Israel remember what God did in saving Israel during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Macccabees.
The New Testament church schedules services on Sunday. Scripture doesn’t say how many, but many churches meet three times on Sunday: Sunday School, Sunday morning, and then Sunday evening. They might hold a midweek time too. Through example, scripture regulates a Sunday gathering for the elements of New Testament worship. It does not regulate how many meetings.
Keeping Holy
A believer can keep his speech holy. He can keep his deeds holy. A true Christian can keep his thoughts holy. He can also keep his motives holy.
Paul says the believer can yield his members, his body parts, as instruments of righteousness unto God or yield them as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin (Romans 6:13). Yielding his body parts as instruments of righteousness unto God is how he presents his body holy unto God (Romans 12:1). Someone can “worship God in the spirit” (Philippians 3:3) or not do that.
Sanctification in the Truth
Sanctification in the truth starts with thinking and understanding what God says in His Word. More than a hearer, he must also be a doer. This requires volition, a readiness of will. It also means a delight in what God said, a holy affection.
Sanctification in the New Testament follows the example of Jesus. In John 17:19, Jesus prayed to God the Father:
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Jesus provided the perfect example to follow, and the Apostle John writes in his first epistle (2:6):
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
Walking as Jesus walked is not arbitrary. It is looking to the scriptural example of Jesus. Also as John Owen wrote:
To see the Glory of Christ is the grand blessing which our Lord solicits and demands for his disciples in his last solemn intercession, John 17: 24.
The Glory of Christ
In 2 Corinthians 4:6, regarding sanctification, the Apostle Paul writes:
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
A church centers on the Person of Jesus Christ and Christ changes the church by its seeing of Him. To conform to the image of the Son a church must see the image of the Son.
I’m contending for purposeful, intentional seeing, thinking, and understanding the glory of Christ. The New Testament emphasizes certain events in Christ’s life. To be sanctified by the example of Jesus, to walk as He walked, and to see His glory, you must focus on Him. Jesus appeared on earth in real history in real time. He was here. In His time here, He accumulated important events in His life. The gospels, Acts, the epistles, and Revelation talk all about them. Put those on the calendar.
Keep Your Year Holy
Validity and Value
Don’t emphasize the events of Christ’s life according to their traditional dates on the calendar. Do emphasize them on their traditional dates. I like my emphasis on the calendar better than your no emphasis.
Putting the events of Christ’s life and other important biblical themes on your calendar is a way to keep your year holy. I’m saying there is a value to it. It is a means by which to accomplish many requirements for the believer from the New Testament. It’s not the putting it on a calendar that accomplishes the seeing, thinking, and understanding of the truth. It is the actual doing of seeing, thinking, and understanding.
Words mean things. The keeping in keeping something holy means something. This year I handed out a Bible reading calendar. Scripture doesn’t regulate the calendar I handed out. The calendar is how someone might keep things holy. Someone can have a calendar and remain unholy. I’m saying a calendar is valid and of value.
Remember and Emphasize
I didn’t hand out a fun-time-a-day calendar to our church. Our calendar did have one verse for each week for scripture memory. Scripture doesn’t regulate that. Does scripture regulate scripture memory? I’m guessing people won’t be arguing over a Bible reading calendar and a scripture memory calendar. Neither are in the Bible.
Believers should assume that they can keep something holy. They are told to keep things holy. Yes, in the Old Testament God instructs Israel to keep the Sabbath holy (Exodus 20:8). By what I read some people write, you might think that I’m writing this series for the purpose of keeping the word “Christmas” holy or keeping a date for Christ’s birth holy. I’ve not written anything like that.
I believe it’s been clear what I’m advocating. Some argue against it with what seems to be red herrings and straw men. I say, let’s be purposeful about remembering or emphasizing the events of Christ’s life during the year. A church can schedule more than that, but I support the use of a liturgical calendar to keep the church year holy.
Scripture Is Science
Science
The English word “science” occurs only once in the New Testament, referring to “science falsely so-called” (1 Tim 6:20). What is often called “science” really is “science falsely so-called.” What is science? Merriam-Webster online gives the following definitions:
1 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
4 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
“Science” translates gnosis in the King James Version, a Greek word that appears 29 times in the Greek Textus Receptus. Every other time, the KJV translators translated it “knowledge.” The English word “science” comes from the Latin scire, “to know,” and so science lays claim to knowledge. That doesn’t clash with definitions that I see for science in Merriam Webster, unless someone wanted to get more technical. I’m especially talking about the definition that includes obtaining and testing something with the scientific method.
Scripture Is Scientific?
In an earlier piece, I wrote, “Scripture is scientific.” After a friend challenged me, I changed that to, “Scripture is science.” I’m not sure I would want to call scripture, scientific, because that means something different. That is based on the principles and methods of science, which I don’t think is true of scripture.
One usage of gnosis is Colossians 2:3, which speaks of Jesus Christ, saying: “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Paul reveals that all the treasures of knowledge are in Jesus. Obviously Jesus knows everything, all mysteries and all knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:2). When we listen to Jesus, and He says nothing in scripture about something, it is less important than other knowledge. He still knows it all and gives whatever someone needs.
Is observation or the testing of the scientific method the only way of knowing what we know? Someone might challenge the Genesis account of creation as science, because it isn’t observable or testable. In that way, scripture isn’t scientific. However, if science is knowledge, can we say we know the origin of everything? I’m not saying, believe it, but know it. We do know it from reading Genesis 1. Scripture is science.
The Hearing of Faith
Scripture says a lot of “I know,” “we know,” and “ye know.” What scripture calls the “hearing of faith” (Galatians 3:2, 5) is knowledge. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Scripture is the superior means of knowledge and the basis of faith. What God says in His Word is always true. What God says, we know, because it is true. He wants us to believe what we know from scripture, and belief comes after knowing.
Abraham questioned God’s covenant because he and Sarah were childless and old. God reaffirmed His promise in Genesis 15:4-5, and Abraham “believed in the LORD” (Genesis 15:6). God “counted it to him for righteousness.” God promised, “I will make of thee a great nation” (Genesis 12:2) and “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).
Abraham questioned God in Genesis 15:1-2 because his empirical “knowledge” said “no children.” If he went to a doctor, a scientist of sorts, that doctor would say, “No on child birth for you and Sarah.” How would he know? After God spoke to Abraham, Abraham believed what He said. God counted it for righteousness. What God said was science.
Was Abraham righteous? Did he know that? Yes, because God said he was. When Abraham was to offer Isaac in Genesis 22, he would offer him. Why? Hebrews 11:19 explains. He knew God was able to raise Isaac up. He knew that. Is that science? Would an empiricist have raised the knife to sacrifice his son? God Himself also offered his own Son and raised Him up.
True Science
If one considers empiricism, Eve saw that the tree was good for food (Genesis 3:6). Scoffers in 2 Peter 3 thought highly of their knowledge, mocking the truth of the second coming. God prohibited the tree to Eve. And He promised the second coming. Those are knowledge. 2 Peter begins with this teaching on science (knowledge) [1:3]:
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue
In Genesis 22:18 God said, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” The Apostle Paul comments on this promise from God in Galatians 3:16:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Paul reports that “seed” is singular. It’s speaking of Christ, which parallels with Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Incorporate Galatians 3:8 with the above:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
God would justify the heathen through faith. The heathen would believe in the seed, that through the seed they shall be blessed. Their faith also counts for righteousness.
The way to blessing for the world is through Jesus Christ. That’s not what science says. Science says population decline, one world government, the center for disease control, and reducing emissions in farming. The hearing of faith proceeds from knowledge. Knowledge informs of the truth of eternal blessing.
10,000 Out of 10,000
God backs up scripture with mathematical probability. Everything He said would happen, happened. All that He says will happen, will happen. 100 out of 100. 1,000 out of 1,000. 10,000 out of 10,000. Nothing else brings that kind of record. We know what He says. It’s why the Apostle Paul could and should say (2 Timothy 1:12):
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
This isn’t a leap in the dark. We know. God holds us accountable, based upon knowledge.
Transcendent
Transcendental truth, goodness, and beauty are outside of what men call the “scientific method,” process, and peer consensus. Someone can know the transcendentals, but they come by means of the revelation of God. They are self-evident, because God revealed them. They dovetail with the miracles of the Bible. God upholds all things. He intervenes in what He made and according to His will or His purposes.
As one example, God commands us, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” (Ephesians 4:29), without informing us what corrupt communication is. The Lord assumes we know what it is. Some still deny it, but this is truth suppression. God reveals this knowledge and requires another hearing of faith.
Pleasing God requires knowledge. The knowledge informs the faith that pleases God. This is not a secret knowledge, but it won’t be found by those who refuse to seek it with their whole heart (Jeremiah 29:13-14).
The Requirement of Censorship with the Separation of Church and State: The Truth of the Bible Requires Institutional Adherence
Recent Twitter Files reveal widespread and coordinated censorship there. Where vile language acceptable, those speaking truth have lost their jobs. Long before, state institutions censored the most important truths in human history without recrimination.
Before you continue, I offer you a guide. This post will move outside of most people’s box. I ask you not to delve into the establishment clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution. Before you jump to practical ramifications, consider the truth of the post.
The Truth, the Logos
When you read Genesis 1 in the Bible, you are reading the account of the beginning of all time, space, and matter. Everything originates with God out of nothing. That is the explanation for everything. It does not even exist without Him, but He also sustains it.
The Bible record is truth as well as is the truth. Scripture presents itself as the truth. Jesus, God the Son, said to His Father God in John 17:17, “Thy Word is truth.” It might make you feel good and help your life, but that is just a byproduct of its truth. It works because it is the truth. The truth is one, because God is one. Nothing in this record contradicts any other part. God does not deny Himself.
God created man in His image and with His likeness. He intended man to reflect Him in his nature. Men should treat and look at the world in every aspect like God would. They should follow what God says, the truth, for and about everything. God expects men to view the world, see it, like He does.
Modernists speculate a fully naturalistic origination and continuation of all things. They opine this as progress from the superstition of ignorance. In fact, the premoderns had it right. It never was a natural world. The Greeks were right in their concept of cosmos, which they called logos, an intelligence that permeated all space and matter and in contrast to random and chaotic naturalism.
People in John’s day understood his Logos in John 1:1, who He said was Jesus Christ, was the source for this cohesion, intelligence, and order. Paul wrote that in Christ were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3) and that by all things consisted (1:17). That was the Logos.
No Bifurcation of Truth
Paul was also emphatic in the truth of Christ’s bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Jesus showed Thomas the wounds in His hands. He was one, whole Person. A physical body was the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Both body and spirit glorified God. This contradicted a pagan dualism, that separated truth into separate spheres of the spiritual and physical.
This New Testament presentation matches the Old Testament concept of truth, “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Every aspect of knowledge falls under the purveyance of God’s truth. Even though someone may divide the truth into various fields such as government, economics, math, and biology, it still is one cohesive, orderly truth proceeding from the one mind of one God.
Whatever field or region under the sovereignty of one truth splinters from the one, or whenever it does, it becomes distorted, superficial, meaningless, and subjective. The greatest advancements today in philosophy and science come in what Stephen Meyer calls “the return to the God hypothesis.” The universe is fine tuned. A cell is irreducibly complex. In philosophy, only God explains the existence of everything that exists. It’s impossible for something that exists not to have a reason for its existence.
Separating the truth from government, art, music, and economics, leaves any one in chaos and moral relativism. The gospel does not stand apart from all the truth of the Bible. And the gospel itself cannot and should not be divided into separate components of different degrees of subjective value. For instance, it is good for social reasons and perhaps psychological ones but not to reconcile to God and appease His holy wrath.
Religion the Truth, Equal with Facts
The state is good with religion as long it isn’t the truth. If it becomes the truth, it is equal with facts, science, math, and engineering. True religion cannot just stop with the true definitions of a man and of a woman. Next it says you go to Hell if you reject Jesus Christ. Even worse it limits your marijuana use.
Much of the philosophical conversation today revolves around what I here write. One faction, even considered conservative now, bemoans the loss of Western Civilization and its advantages. It is the water in which we swim, even if no longer Judeo-Christian ethics.
Classically liberal intellectuals warn readers and listeners. They won’t like the disappearance of Christianity, hearkening Nietzche’s prophecy about the death of God in the 19th century. However, if you remove the resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Christ, the consummation of all things in the future literal, physical reign of Jesus Christ, you eradicate all of Christianity. It is a whole that cannot be separated into disjunctive parts.
Total Truth
For a long time Christians self-censored by backing away from total truth (the title of Nancy Pearcey’s book). They stopped bringing the truth to all the subjects and every institution, all ordained by God. The dismissal of one is the dismissal of all.
A moral statement is either true or false. True moral statements come from the Word of God. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, nothing else the Bible says is true. Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 15. You cannot chop the Bible up like that. The moral values become meaningless without the truth of the history and the scientific declarations.
The table of nations in Genesis 10 is the truth. The prophecies of Daniel 11 are the truth. What scripture says all over about men and women is the truth. These are not subjective and relativistic. They are objective. They are true. All these writings should be taught everywhere as truth, not in religion class as an alternative along side the lies of other religions.
The separation of church and state, which is not in the United States Constitution, necessitates censorship. Anything church related is only church related and stays in the church. Only state stuff belongs in the state, which as many of you know, includes everything in the world, including biblical issues like marriage and parenting practices. Then the state labels all of theirs science and facts and outside of the state, unless cooperating with the state, subjective, private, and even conspiracy. If it is truth, it is your truth, subjective truth, which is fine as long as you keep it outside of institutions.
Take Moses into the Supreme Court Building
For awhile the state has been fine with a sculpture of Moses with the two tablets on the Supreme Court building. It is a decoration. It is a ritual. Maybe it’s even an archetype into which you read whatever you want. They cannot use it as grounds for decision making, even if its self-evident truths form the basis for logic, argument, and morality.
Perhaps a government and big business or oligarchical complex now joins in widespread censorship. Let’s just say that complex does censor the citizenry of the United States and other Western countries. Christians already censored themselves by segregating themselves away from God’s world and keeping the truth away from its institutions, whose very existence arises from that truth.
God requires more than talking about the truth at church. He requires adherence to the truth in every institution. This is the teaching of all nations. True discipleship requires national adherence. Churches at least should adhere, but their goals are further than that. They want the knowledge and dominion of His truth everywhere.
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 3
Whatever came between two parties that was a barrier for reconciliation most often continues to be why they need a mediator. Before they can reconcile, they must come together, but they cannot even come together without mediation either. The two sides need a mediator before a conversation can or will occur that could lead to a restoration in the relationship.
A first party says the fault is on the other side. The second party says the first party is the one at fault. Both sides dig in or stiffen their backs. They both at the same time say, “It’s not my fault! He started it!” Now they cannot even listen to each other. It’s possible that emotion and personal grievance disallows either side from seeing their own fault.
I grew up playing chess, but not enough to be any good. Even when I did, I played with a self-destructive myopia. I was so focused on my own pieces and where I would move them, that I missed what the other player was doing. I lacked perspective to see all that happened or was happening.
A mediator has an opportunity to see both sides and to call out either one. All each can see is his own side of the board, to go with the chess analogy. He does not see the big picture. He does not see his own offenses, only the ones of the other party. The other side is solely responsible for this break in relationship.
The Olive Branch
Real peace does not come through the threat of destruction or annihilation. It comes by offering what some people call the “olive branch.” The olive branch is a symbol that comes from the Bible, because the dove, which also symbolizes this peace, came back to Noah’s ark, signaling a future on earth for Noah and his family. Through the intermediary, the dove, God offered man an olive branch. Noah and his family offered God a sacrifice.
God had already offered man a way out, a way of salvation through the ark. Noah preached over a hundred years, warning man of his predicament. But man rejected reconciliation and the mediating work of Noah. Later in 1 Peter 3, Peter says that Jesus Himself preached through Noah to those people.
A mediator is an olive branch. The offer of an olive branch, a mediator, says, I want this relationship. I am even willing to sit under judgment, but it must be neutral, it must be just. When the mediator is rejected, that says, I do not want this relationship.
For my lifetime, I have always judged rejection of mediation as rejection of reconciliation. This is not in the nature of a good and loving God, who provided a mediator. It is the opposite of Him. Nothing characterizes God more than forgiveness and reconciliation. The opposite is also true.
Fear or Rejection of Mediation
I understand the fear of mediation. We like to be in control. We want a conversation to turn out like we want it to turn out. That might even seem right to us. “We know the truth and everyone else should believe it like we do. Others just need to kowtow to us, because we have an ethic and method that surpasses others. The mediator would just mess things us. There is a risk that the mediator will say that I have been wrong. I know I’m not wrong.”
Both parties may think the other is proud, both pointing their fingers at the other’s pride. Mediation is a tonic. The proud reject the mediator. He cannot submit to another authority than himself.
No doubt two sides must agree to a good mediator, a neutral arbitrator. True mediators are out there. This is the classic Elijah statement of 7,000 not bowing the knee to Baal. Not every possible mediator has yet bowed the knee to Baal. Some possible mediators have departed from the faith, but not everyone.
Mediation within the church should stay in the church. This is 1 Corinthians 6. When the two parties reside in different churches, however, then a third party comes in. True mediation, just and fair mediation, is very unlikely when the mediator comes from one of the sides. Mediation requires neutrality. No one should hand pick a mediator for his bias.
In my past, I have agreed to mediation from the other side. I just wanted a mediator. A hand picked mediator by only one side is not a good way to go, definitely not the best, but in my opinion it was better than nothing.
The Peacemaker
For my salvation, I trust Jesus Christ. I trust my advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. For earth, I trust someone who I do believe loves both sides. He will obey the truth. I would want him to know the Bible. Use it. He should be strong enough to stand up to either side, unlike the debate moderator I talked about earlier.
Reconciliation, mediation, forgiveness, and restoration are greater than the grievances, the felt personal wrongs. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (Eph 4:26). Jesus said, Turn the other cheek (Mt 5:39). Someone turned the other cheek after someone had slapped him. Cheek slapping produced a personal grievance. With mediation, a neutral arbitrator, two people can trade in their grievances for restoration.
The peace of reconciliation contradicts anger. Peace relates to at least two truths. One, peace erases the barrier. Two, peace is an effect of calm or tranquility. Anger keeps from peace and peace solves the anger.
As you read this, I hope you consider or reconsider mediation of a relationship for the purpose of reconciliation. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Like all the other beatitudes, this is strong language. Children of God want a peacemaker. It characterizes them to want it. A tougher question is, what is a person who does not want a peacemaker? Peacemaking in the Bible means a mediator most of the time. May we consider or reconsider once again by the grace of God.
More to Come
Charles Spurgeon: My Conversion Testimony
Have you ever read the conversion testimony of the famous Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon?
It is a blessing to read. Here it is:
I sometimes think I might have been in darkness and despair until now had it not been for the goodness of God in sending a snowstorm, one Sunday morning, while I was going to a certain place of worship. When I could go no further, I turned down a side street, and came to a little Primitive Methodist Chapel. In that chapel there may have been a dozen or fifteen people. I had heard of the Primitive Methodists, how they sang so loudly that they made people’s heads ache; but that did not matter to me. I wanted to know how I might be saved, and if they could tell me that, I did not care how much they made my head ache. The minister did not come that morning; he was snowed up, I suppose. At last, a very thin-looking man, a shoemaker, of tailor, or something of that sort, went up into the pulpit to preach. Now, it is well that preachers should be instructed; but this man was really stupid. He was obliged to stick to his text, for the simple reason that he had little else to say. The text was,—
“Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth” [Isaiah 45:22]
He did not even pronounce the words rightly, but that did not matter. There was, I thought, a glimpse of hope for me in that text. The preacher began thus:—“My dear friends, this is a very simple text indeed. It says, ‘Look’. Now lookin’ don’t take a deal of pains. It ain’t liftin’ your foot or your finger; it is just, ‘Look.’ Well, a man needn’t go to College to learn to look. You may be the biggest fool, and yet you can look. A man needn’t be worth a thousand a year to be able to look. Anyone can look; even a child can look. But then the text says, ‘Look unto Me.’ Ay!” said he, in broad Essex, “many on ye are lookin’ to yourselves, but it’s no use lookin’ there. You’ll never find any comfort in yourselves. Some look to God the Father. No, look to Him by-and-by. Jesus Christ says, ‘Look unto Me’. Some on ye say, ‘We must wait for the Spirit’s workin’.’ You have no business with that just now. Look to Christ. The text says. ‘Look unto Me.’ ”
Then the good man followed up his text in this way:—“Look unto Me; I am sweatin’ great drops of blood. Look unto Me; I am hangin’ on the cross. Look unto Me; I am dead and buried. Look unto Me; I rise again. Look unto Me; I ascend to Heaven. Look unto Me; I am sittin’ at the Father’s right hand. O poor sinner, look unto Me! look unto Me!”
When he had gone to about that length, and managed to spin out ten minutes or so, he was at the end of his tether. Then he looked at me under the gallery, and I daresay, with so few present, he knew me to be a stranger. Just fixing his eyes on me, as if he knew all my heart, he said, “Young man, you look very miserable.” Well, I did; but I had not been accustomed to have remarks made from the pulpit on my personal appearance before. However, it was a good blow, struck right home. He continued, “and you always will be miserable—miserable in life, and miserable in death,—if you don’t obey my text; but if you obey now, this moment, you will be saved.” Then, lifting up his hands, he shouted, as only a Primitive Methodist could do, “Young man, look to Jesus Christ. Look! Look! Look! You have nothin’ to do but to look and live.” I saw at once the way of salvation. I know not what else he said,—I did not take much notice of it,—I was so possessed with that one thought. Like as when the brazen serpent was lifted up, the people only looked and were healed, so it was with me. I had been waiting to do fifty things, but when I heard that word, “Look!” what a charming word it seemed to me! Oh! I looked until I could almost have looked my eyes away. There and then the cloud was gone, the darkness had rolled away, and that moment I saw the sun; and I could have risen that instant, and sung with the most enthusiastic of them, of the precious blood of Christ, and the simple faith which looks alone to Him. Oh, that somebody had told me this before, “Trust Christ, and you shall be saved.” Yet it was, no doubt, all wisely ordered, and now I can say,—
“E’er since by faith I saw the stream
Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme,
And shall be till I die.”
I do from my soul confess that I never was satisfied till I came to Christ; when I was yet a child, I had far more wretchedness than ever I have now; I will even add, more weariness, more care, more heart-ache, than I know at this day. I may be singular in this confession, but I make it, and know it to be the truth. Since that dear hour when my soul cast itself on Jesus, I have found solid joy and peace; but before that, all those supposed gaieties of early youth, all the imagined ease and joy of boyhood, were but vanity and vexation of spirit to me. That happy day, when I found the Saviour, and learned to cling to His dear feet, was a day never to be forgotten by me. An obscure child, unknown, unheard of, I listened to the Word of God; and that precious text led me to the cross of Christ. I can testify that the joy of that day was utterly indescribable. I could have leaped, I could have danced; there was no expression, however fanatical, which would have been out of keeping with the joy of my spirit at that hour. Many days of Christian experience have passed since then, but there has never been one which has had the full exhilaration, the sparkling delight which that first day had. I thought I could have sprung from the seat on which I sat, and have called out with the wildest of those Methodist brethren who were present, “I am forgiven! I am forgiven! A monument of grace! A sinner saved by blood!” My spirit saw its chains broken to pieces, I felt that I was an emancipated soul, an heir of Heaven, a forgiven one, accepted in Christ Jesus, plucked out of the miry clay and out of the horrible pit, with my feet set upon a rock, and my goings established. I thought I could dance all the way home. I could understand what John Bunyan meant, when he declared he wanted to tell the crows on the ploughed land all about his conversion. He was too full to hold, he felt he must tell somebody. (C. H. Spurgeon, C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Compiled from His Diary, Letters, and Records, by His Wife and His Private Secretary, 1834–1854, vol. 1 [Cincinatti; Chicago; St. Louis: Curts & Jennings, 1898], 105–108.
Note that Spurgeon was not told to come to the front of a church building and repeat a sinner’s prayer, or told to ask Christ to come into his heart–those methodologies did not yet exist, as Dr. Paul Chitwood demonstrates in his history of the sinner’s prayer. Spurgeon was directed to embrace Christ directly by repentant faith–the right thing sinners should be counseled to do today, and which, enabled by the Holy Spirit through the power of Scripture, will lead to multitudes of true conversions.
Note as well that in Isaiah 45:22 the word translated “Look” commonly means “turn.” One turns from his sin to look to Christ alone for salvation–repentance is implicit in saving faith.
Spurgeon directed people to embrace Christ directly by faith, rather than telling them that if they sincerely repeated the words of a prayer they would be saved, throughout his ministry. Here are some examples of the evangelistic counsel he gave to seeking sinners, from his book Around the Wicket Gate (cited from here):
When the Lord lifts His dear Son before a sinner, that sinner should take Him without hesitation. If you take Him, you have Him, and none can take Him from you. Out with your hand, man, and take Him at once! When inquirers accept the Bible as literally true and see that Jesus is really given to all who trust Him, all the difficulty about understanding the way of salvation vanishes like the morning’s frost at the rising of the sun.
Two inquiring ones came to me in my vestry. They had been hearing the Gospel from me for only a short time, but they had been deeply impressed by it. They expressed their regret that they were about to move far away, but they added their gratitude that they had heard me at all. I was cheered by their kind thanks, but felt anxious that a more effectual work should be brought about in them. Therefore I asked them, “Have you indeed believed in the Lord Jesus Christ? Are you saved?” One of them replied, “I have been trying hard to believe.” This statement I have often heard, but I will never let it go by me unchallenged. “No,” I said, “that will not do. Did you ever tell your father that you tried to believe him?” After I had dwelt a while upon the matter, they admitted that such language would have been an insult to their father.
I then set the Gospel very plainly before them in as simple language as I could, and begged them to believe Jesus, who is more worthy of faith than the best of fathers. One of them replied, “I cannot realize it: I cannot realize that I am saved.” Then I went on to say, “God bears testimony to His Son, that whosoever trusts in His Son is saved. Will you make Him a liar now, or will you believe His Word?” While I thus spoke, one of them started as if astonished. She startled us all as she cried, “O sir, I see it all; I am saved! Bless Jesus. He has shown me the way, and He has saved me! I see it all.” The esteemed sister who had brought these young friends to me knelt down with them while, with all our hearts, we blessed and magnified the Lord for a soul brought into light. One of the two sisters, however, could not see the Gospel as the other had, though I feel sure she will do so soon.
Did it not seem strange that, both hearing the same words, one should remain in the gloom? The change which comes over the heart when the understanding grasps the Gospel is often reflected in the face and shines like the light of heaven. Such newly enlightened souls often exclaim, “It is so plain; why is it I have not seen it before this? I understand all I have read in the Bible now, though I could not make it out before. It has all come in a minute, and now I see what I never understood before.”
The fact is, the truth was always plain, but they were looking for signs and wonders, and therefore did not see what was there for them. Old men often look for their spectacles when they are on their foreheads. It is commonly observed that we fail to see that which is straight before us. Christ Jesus is before our faces. We have only to look to Him and live, but we make all manner of bewilderment of it, and so manufacture a maze out of that which is straight as an arrow.
The little incident about the two sisters reminds me of another. A much-esteemed friend came to me one Sunday morning after service to shake hands with me. She said, “I was fifty years old on the same day as yourself. I am like you in that one thing, sir, but I am the very reverse of you in better things.” I remarked, “Then you must be a very good woman, for in many things I wish I also could be the reverse of what I am.” “No, no,” she said, “I did not mean anything of that sort. I am not right at all.” “What!” I cried, “Are you not a believer in the Lord Jesus?” “Well,” she said, with much emotion, “I, I will try to be.” I laid hold of her hand and said, “My dear soul, you are not going to tell me that you will try to believe my Lord Jesus! I cannot have such talk from you. It means blank unbelief. What has He done that you should talk of Him in that way? Would you tell me that you would try to believe me? I know that you would not treat me so rudely. You think me a true man, and so you believe me at once. Surely you cannot do less with my Lord Jesus.”
Then with tears she exclaimed, “Oh, sir, do pray for me!” To this I replied, “I do not feel that I can do anything of the kind. What can I ask the Lord Jesus to do for one who will not trust Him? I see nothing to pray about. If you will believe Him, you shall be saved. If you will not believe Him, I cannot ask Him to invent a new way to gratify your unbelief.” Then she said again, “I will try to believe.” But I told her solemnly I would have none of her trying; for the message from the Lord did not mention trying, but said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31). I pressed upon her the great truth, that “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life” (John 3:36); and its terrible reverse: “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).
I urged her to full faith in the once crucified but now ascended Lord, and the Holy Spirit there and then enabled her to trust. She most tenderly said, “Oh sir, I have been looking to my feelings, and this has been my mistake! Now I trust my soul with Jesus, and I am saved.” She found immediate peace through believing. There is no other way.
There are numbers of resources that can help churches follow the Biblical evangelistic methodology of Spurgeon today, rather than the corrupt “1-2-3, pray after me, 4-5-6, hope it sticks” salesmanship of people like Jack Hyles. May the number of Baptist churches who counsel the lost Biblically increase greatly for God’s glory and for the multiplication of true conversions.
–TDR
“They Will Reverence My Son”
In a story told by the Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, He said in Mark 12:6:
Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
The Regular History of Clever New Interpretations, Teachings, or Takes on and from Scripture: Socinianism
One way to get a Nobel prize in something, you’ve got to break some new ground or discover something no one has ever seen. In the world, the making of a printing press or light bulb changes everything. People still try to invent a better mousetrap. It happens. The phone replaced the telegraph and now our mobile devices, the phone.
Everyone can learn something new from scripture. You might even change or tweak a doctrine you’ve always believed. On the whole, you don’t want to teach from the Bible what no one has ever heard before. The goal is the original intent and understanding of the Author.
From the left comes progressivism. The U. S. Constitution, just over two hundred years old, means something different than when it was written. Loosely constructed, it has a flexible interpretation into which new meanings arise. Hegelian dialectics say a new thesis comes from synthesis of antithesis and a former thesis. Everything can be improved.
Early after the inspiration and then propagation of the Bible, men found new things no one ever saw in scripture. Many of these “finds” started a new movement. People have their fathers, the father of this or that teaching, contradictory to the other, causing division and new factions and denominations. Some of these changes become quite significant, a majority supplanting the constituents of the original teaching.
At the time of the Reformation, it was as if the world first found sole fide and sole scriptura. Men often call justification the Reformation doctrine of justification. This opened a large, proverbial can of worms. Many could read their own Bible in their own language. Others now dug into their own copy of the original languages of scripture. Skepticism grew. “If we didn’t know this before, what else did they not tell us?” It became a time ripe for religious shysters and this practice hasn’t stopped since then.
Socinus
The Italian, Laelius Socinus, was born in 1525 into a distinguished family of lawyers. Early his attention turned from law to scripture research. He doubted the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Socinus moved in 1548 to Zurich to study Greek and Hebrew. He still questioned established doctrine and challenged the Reformers. Laelius wrote his own confession of faith, which introduced different, conflicting beliefs. They took hold of his nephew, Faustus Socinus, born in 1539.
Faustus rejected orthodox Roman Catholic doctrines. The Inquisition denounced him in 1559, so he fled to Zurich in 1562. There he acquired his uncle’s writings. His doubt of Catholicism turned anti-Trinitarian. The Reformation did not go far enough for Socinus. His first published work in 1562 on the prologue of John rejected the essential deity of Jesus Christ.
Socinus’s journeys ended in Poland, where he became leader of the Minor Reformed Church, the Polish Brethren. His writings in the form of the Racovian Catechism survived through the press of the Racovian Academy of Rakow, Poland. His beliefs took the name, Socinianism, now also a catch-all for any type of dissenting doctrine.
Socinianism held that Jesus did not exist until his physical conception. God adopted Him as Son at His conception and became Son of God when the Holy Spirit conceived Him in Mary, a Gnostic view called “adoptionism.” It rejected the doctrine of original sin.
Socianism denied the omniscience of God. It introduced the first well developed concept of “open theism,” which said that man couldn’t have free will under a traditional (and scriptural) understanding of omniscience.
Socinianism also taught the moral example theory of atonement, teaching that Jesus sacrificed himself to motivate people to repent and believe. His death gave men the ability to be saved by their own works, who weren’t sinners by nature anyway.
Unitarians
The work of Socinus lived on in the belief of early English Unitarians, Henry Hedworth and John Biddle. Socinian belief was helped along also by its position of conscientious objection, a practice of refusing to perform military service. This principle was very popular with many and made Socinianism much more attractive to potential adherents. The First Unitarian Church, which followed Socianism as passed down through its leaders in England, was started in 1774 on Essex Street in London, where British Unitarian headquarters are still today.
As the Puritans of colonial America apostatized through various means, Unitarianism, a modern iteration of Socinianism took hold in the Congregational Church in America. After 1820, Congregationalists took Unitarianism as their established doctrine. The doctrine of Christ diminished to Jesus a good man and perhaps a prophet of God and in a sense the Son of God, but not God Himself.
Spirit of Skepticism
I write as an example of the diversity in the history of Christian doctrine and why it takes place. When you read the beliefs of Socinians, you easily see them in modern liberal Christianity. They influence on religious cults that deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
A limited amount of skepticism wards away the acceptance of false doctrine. Better is a Berean attitude (Acts 17:11), searching the scripture to see if these things are so, and what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, proving all things, holding fast to that which is good.
As I grew up among fundamentalists and independent Baptists, I witnessed regular desire to find something new in the Bible. Many sermons espoused interpretations I had never heard and didn’t see in the text. A preacher often said, “God gave it to me.” You should know God used the man because no one had seen such insights into scripture.
The same spirit of doctrinal novelty continues today in many evangelical churches. The same practice led Joseph Smith in his founding of Mormonism. Many cults arose in 19th century America under the same spirit of skepticism of established historical doctrines.
The Temptation of Novel Teaching
The temptation of novel teaching preys on anyone. Faustus Socinus accepted many orthodox doctrines of his day. He rejected Christ as fully God and fully human because it was contrary to sound reason (ratio sana). This steered Socinians toward Enlightenment thinking, where human reason took the highest role as arbiter of truth.
Warren Wiersbe wrote that H.A. Ironside, longtime pastor of Chicago’s Moody Church, said, “If it’s new, it’s not true, and if it’s true, it’s not new.” Elsewhere I read that Spurgeon first said that. I don’t know. Clever new interpretations, teachings, and takes on and from scripture corrupt and overturn scriptural, saving doctrines in the hearts of men. They condemn them through all eternity.
Recent Comments