Friday, April 23, 2010

Beautiful Scandalous

We sing a song at Bethlehem titled "Beautiful Scandalous Night." The song conveys a paradoxical truth about the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Namely, that it was both beautiful and scandalous. It was horrible and wonderful. It was, as John Piper puts it, "history's most spectacular sin," and it was also history's most vivid act of love. It showed both the depths of Man's depravity and the inexhaustible goodness of God. It was an act of justice and mercy. And there, God poured out both wrath and love...wrath upon His only Son and love upon all who would believe upon His name.

Not everything is revealed to us. There are many "hidden things" that belong to God. We will not be able to understand the intricacies of this event until we meet Him face to face. However, that which has been revealed to us through His Word is fascinating enough to challenge our minds and thrill our hearts for a lifetime.

For me, one aspect of the crucifixion that continues to challenge and thrill, is the Biblical truth that the religious leaders carried out their evil will, and God carried out His perfect will, in the same event... Scandalous and Beautiful.

The Bible makes it very clear that the religious leaders sought to kill Jesus. Their hostility toward Him was twofold. First, they believed He was a blasphemer, which was precisely the charge they brought against him that led to His crucifixion. To be fair, the charges were not completely misplaced. His blasphemy was not normal blasphemy. He was not speaking against God. He was not cursing God. Instead, He was saying that He was God. He was claiming to be one with God. Ultimately, He was claiming to be the Christ. Accordingly, if Jesus claimed to be the Christ, and it were not true, then the religious leaders were just in their charges against Him. In their own minds, they were honoring God by doing away with this blasphemer.

The second reason for their hostility toward Him had to do with the Roman threat. We see this vividly in John 11. As the religious leaders gathered to plot against Jesus, it is clear that they feared that Rome might soon come and destroy Israel. These were credible fears. Jesus had had thousands of people listen to Him. There were rumors that He might possibly be the Christ, the long awaited King that would deliver Israel from all her oppressors. And who was the oppressor at this time? Rome. If Rome had sensed a serious rebellion among the people of Israel, they most certainly would have crushed the rebellion by force.

In John 11, as the leaders expressed their concerns about Rome, something very interesting happened. It was scandalous and beautiful. Caiaphas, who was the High Priest, said to them ,"You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." Now here is the most fascinating part. Regarding Caiaphas' statement, John wrote, "He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." John makes it very clear that Caiaphas' announcement did not originate from him. He prophesied earlier that year that Jesus would die for Israel. John is showing us that God gave Caiaphas this prophecy. It's tragic that Caiaphas did not understand the prophetic utterances that were coming from his own mouth. He wanted salvation from Rome, but God was delivering salvation from the condemnation of sin.

The way it all played out in the end is mind boggling. Some scholars have questioned the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion because the Gospels claim that the religious leaders went to the Roman Governor to seek capital punishment. These scholars say that Israel retained the right to practice capital punishment on their own. In other words, the Jews did not need Rome's permission to execute stoning. Critical scholars would appeal to the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 as a proof text. Several answers have been given to this critique such as enforcement restrictions due to the Passover festival. Nevertheless, whether the Jews had to seek the permission of the Roman authorities or not, I would like to make a speculation. I would like to speculate that the Jewish leadership particularly wanted Jesus to be crucified upon the cross rather than stoned. The reason for this goes back to a text to which I alluded in an earlier blog; specifically, Deuteronomy 21:22-23. The Jewish people, and especially the religious leaders, knew the law. They knew that Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says that a man who is hanged on a tree is cursed by God. As the Jewish people continually saw criminals hanging on Roman crosses along the sides of their roads, they must have been constantly reminded of these verses. I would like to speculate that Caiaphas and the religious leaders had this text in mind as they sought the crucifixion of Jesus. They could have killed Jesus by stoning him, but crucifying Jesus would prove to even His most trusted followers that He was not chosen by God. His body, hanging on the tree, proved that He was not chosen. Rather, He was cursed. Here we find scandalous and beautiful meeting again. God had given Caiaphas a prophecy that Jesus would die for Israel. Caiaphas thought this prophecy meant salvation from Rome, but God was delivering salvation from Sin. It is clear that God, in His sovereignty, purposed for Jesus to be crucified on the Cross. But I believe it is also very probable that Caiaphas and the religious leaders also purposed for Jesus to be crucified on the Cross. Here, the intricacy continues even further, for it was both God's intent, and the religious leaders' intent, to prove that Jesus was cursed by God. In the case of the religious leaders, their intent was scandalous, but in the case of God's design, His purpose was beautiful. The religious leaders sought God's curse upon Jesus so that He would be utterly despised and rejected by men. But God placed our curse upon Jesus so that all who believe upon His name could be completely and unconditionally welcomed as the children of God (Gal. 3:13). O how scandalous and beautiful!

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Chemical, Biological, and Spiritual Warfare

Propaganda is everywhere; especially right now. There is a propaganda war that is raging, particularly in the Western world, because the West (especially the United States) is ruled by two strikingly different sets of principles, simultaneously. On the one hand, we are a highly spiritual people, at least in terms of personal profession of belief in God or a higher power. In June 2008, the Washington Post claimed that 92 percent of Americans claimed to believe in God or a higher spiritual being, and 50 percent claimed to pray daily. On the other hand, however, we are developing an increasingly naturalistic mindset. The naturalistic mindset says that everything can be explained in terms of biology, chemistry, and physics. Even aspects of the human experience that have traditionally been explained in metaphysical terms are now being reduced to chemical and biological brain impulses. Ideologies such as justice, freedom, love, and even faith are explained in terms of a collective chemical impulse in societies in order to sustain human survival. The naturalist says that there is nothing outside of us that defines justice, freedom, love, and faith. These things are not transcendent. They do not come from God. Instead, they come from brain neurons firing in particular patterns. The pervasiveness of this mindset in our culture is obvious when one watches the television, reads the text book, or even goes to the doctor. On the TV, numerous scientific and historical documentaries pound the idea of naturalism into the mind of the one watching. The language may even be subtle, but it is constantly there. The text book is the same; assuming that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for our existence. Even the doctor believes now that the pill is the cure for various mental and emotional ailments. After all, every mental and emotional ailment is physical at the core, because it happens in the brain. Do not misunderstand me. This is not an indictment upon Prozac. It is an indictment upon the mental shift in our culture claiming that what was once primarily spiritual and in the realm of the divine is now physical and in the realm of the brain. This is naturalism, and it is becoming the heartbeat of American culture. The reason that we have two contrasting worldviews simultaneously in the U.S. is because we have two contrasting philosophies concerning the origin of our existence. Worldviews always stem from philosophy of origin. So we have one worldview that believes that God created human beings, and we have another worldview that believes that human beings evolved from a lower life form. The one worldview believes that there once was nothing, God spoke, and then there was something. The other worldview believes that matter has always existed in some form. The one worldview believes that, since God created, He defines and gives meaning. The other worldview believes that only the elements define, and any discussion of meaning is ultimately meaningless. Make no mistake. The naturalistic mindset cannot be reconciled with the spiritual mindset, at least not the Biblical one. The Biblical God cannot be explained in terms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and the like. The elements do not define God. God defines the elements. So we are in the middle of a war of ideas. I am curious to see how this war will unfold in the coming years. The book of Judges teaches a truth that is like a horrific resounding gong. That truth is that we are always just one generation from total apostasy. Naturalism will send the United States into total apostasy if God does not do a mighty work among us. May God work in our culture through the Church, through His Word, by His Spirit, to open the eyes of men and women to the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Secret Sin

Isn't it fascinating that our (mankind's) first response to sin is the same now as it was in the beginning? After all of the thousands of years that sin has been with humanity, it seems that we would have come up with a different way to react to it. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and then were confronted with God Himself, their reflex was to hide (Gen. 3). Today, our reflex is the same. This is what shame does to us. It is easier and more natural for us to attempt to hide our sin and hide from God than to confront our sin and confess to God. And we have made an art of hiding. We are so good at it that we've even invented ways of hiding our sin from ourselves. We keep secrets, we lie, we deny, we wear masks, we blame others, we redefine our actions so as to make them seem not so terrible, we become religiously dutiful, we compare ourselves to others, etc, etc, etc,...

The irony and tragedy in all of this is that, although hiding our sin promises some sort of release or protection from shame, it is particularly in hiding our sin that shame becomes our master. The secret sin harbors shame. It is only the confession of sin that kills shame. But Sin messes with our minds. It causes us to turn things on their heads and to think of things in a skewed way. We are convinced that being secretive about our sin will protect us from shame. We are convinced that if we are truthful about our sin, shame will overtake us. In fact, the Bible teaches us that the opposite is true. If we hide our sin, shame will surely overtake us. But if we are willing to confront and confess our sin, the freedom that we will experience will blow our minds.

But there is an even worse ironic tragedy to hiding our sin than being overcome by shame. It has to do with our perception of God's Grace. This is vitally important because our degree of love for God is directly related to how we perceive His Grace. As Jesus Himself said, "...But he who is forgiven little loves little." (Luke 7:47 ESV) Jesus said this in response to dinner hosts who scoffed at His acceptance of a sinful woman who washed His feet with her tears. He said this, not because the hosts needed less forgiveness than the woman needed, but because they needed just as much forgiveness as the woman needed, but they did not realize it. They had hidden their sin from themselves and others by becoming very religious. Therefore, they could not understand God's grace the way the sinful woman understood it. And since they could not understand God's grace, they could not love God. Here is the point, if we hide our sin, especially from ourselves, we will think that God's grace isn't all that great, so we will not love God all that much. Charles Simeon, a 19th century pastor of the same church for 54 years, understood the indispensability of searching the depths of his own sinfulness. Of his own quest to understand his depravity Simeon wrote, "I have continually had such a sense of my sinfulness as would sink me into utter despair, if I had not an assured view of the sufficiency and willingness of Christ to save me to the uttermost." (The Roots of Endurance, John Piper. pg 107). The greatest tragedy in hiding our sin, especially from ourselves, is that we minimize God's Grace, and as a result, we minimize God's Glory. This is what Simeon understood in a way that we desperately need today. May God grant that we will trust His grace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and may that trust lead us to confront and confess our sin.

Monday, January 25, 2010

The Cursed King

A couple of months ago I started reading through the Old Testament. It's amazing how God's Word seems so fresh and new with every reading. However, it can also be very frustrating, because it's not an easy task to understand the significance of the things we are reading. Sometimes when we read the Old Testament law, the chronologies, or the specifications for building buildings and furniture, it's hard to understand how our lives should be changed by it. So we struggle and work, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to understand the meaning of the text and its implications. It's both exciting and frustrating to know that this is a life-long pursuit. We will continually have more questions answered, but more answers will lead to more questions. So the journey will continue until the day that He returns and we see Him as He is.

But until that day we will continue the struggle, and the excitement of having those "lightbulb" moments will continually draw us back. As our eyes are opened more fully to see what's in front of us, we will grow to love it more and more.

For me, one of those moments came when I read Deuteronomy 22:22-23. At first glance, this passage looks like a simple law placed in the middle of a bunch of other simple laws. Moses has been dealing with a wide range of things from murder to inheritance rights to rebellious children. Then, there is this passage, "And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance." (Deut. 22:22-23 ESV). As I was thinking about this verse, I began to think about the Jewish mindest during Jesus' day. Jesus was a man who stirred up great controversy. He could do things that no one else could do. The people watched in great wonder as he healed the blind, commanded the elements, and even raised people from death to life. But it wasn't mainly what He did that caused the religious leaders to hate Him; it was what He said. Jesus claimed to be the annointed One of God. He claimed to be the Christ, the Messiah, the long awaited King that would sit on the throne of David forever. This is what it meant to be the Son of God. The Christ had to be chosen by God Himself. He could not be a self appointed king. This is what the religious leaders hated so much. They could not accept that God had appointed Him to be their Christ.

But what does this have to do with Deut. 22:22-23? The religious leaders in Jesus' day would have known this law very well. How fitting, that the Jews were under the authority of the Roman government, whose favorite form of execution was crucifixion. I wonder how this played into the minds of those who hated Him. If only He could be charged with blasphemy, then He could be hanged on the Roman cross, and it would be proven once and for all that this man is not the Christ of God. After all, how can someone be chosen by God and cursed by God at the same time?

God's plan is so amazing! It blows my mind. The Chosen One would become the Cursed One for our salvation and for His glory. The religious leaders were right. Hanging on the Roman Cross did prove that Jesus was cursed of God. But they did not know that it was God's plan for Jesus to become the curse in our place (Gal. 3:13-14). Because of His obedience even to death on the Cross, the cursed King was given the Name above all names. He is the Christ!

Friday, January 15, 2010

Presumption and Sovereignty

In an earlier post, I made an attempt at addressing the difference between having faith in the grace of God and presuming upon the grace of God. Looking at Romans 2:4, I tried to demonstrate that trusting in the grace of God leads to repentance, but presuming upon God's grace leads to more sin. It is important to distinguish between the two because presumption pretends to be faith, yet as faith leads to life, presumption leads to wrath. It is fearful to think that someone could have confidence that they have Biblical faith, when all they truly have is presumption. But the evidence of true faith is repentance, and it is only in having a repentant heart that we can be confident that our faith is real.

I began to think about this a little further, and I began to question how presumption might take the place of faith in other areas. When presuming upon God's grace, presumption leads to more sin. But what about presuming upon God's sovereignty? I do believe there is a difference (one that should be noted) between trusting in the sovereign hand of God and presuming upon His sovereignty. I began to ask this question particularly as I was having a conversation with my Pastor about evangelism. I've found that every time the topic of evangelism and God's sovereignty comes up, the same questions are asked. How should we understand God's sovereignty in evangelism? How should we understand our own role in evangelism? Do what I say and do even matter? Is God going to save who He is going to save no matter what? These are legitimate questions, especially for someone who believes that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation. I won't attempt to answer them here. What I am more concerned about is the state of mind, or condition of heart that we have when we consider God's sovereignty. If we consider that God is sovereign over all things, is it presumption, or is it true faith? The distinction between presumption and faith is difficult here for the same reason that it was difficult in the previous discussion. Just as presumption upon the grace of God pretends to be faith in the grace of God, so presumption upon the sovereignty of God pretends to be faith in the sovereignty of God. And here too, presumption looks like faith on the exterior. The reason for this is that presumption can easily be mistaken as trust, and trust is a vital part of faith.

As I was thinking through this, I realized that the answer to this question is the same as the answer to the earlier question. We found earlier that faith in the grace of God leads to repentance, but presumption upon the grace of God leads to more sin. There is a contrast in the evidence concerning God's sovereignty as well. For faith in the sovereignty of God empowers one to obedience, but presumption upon the sovereignty of God leads one to be idle. In other words, the person who truly trusts that God is sovereign over all things, has no need to fear when sharing the Gospel. He is empowered to be obedient in evangelism, knowing that God is the Author and Finisher of faith. He does not need to worry that he might stumble and say the wrong thing, or be too ignorant to share with someone else and so condemn them to eternal Hell. He only has to trust that God has commissioned him to make disciples, and God is sovereign over it. But the person who presumes upon God's sovereignty is idle. He is empowered to laziness, for he says in his heart, "God is going to save who He is going to save, and what I do doesn't matter." This is the heart of presumption, not of faith.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Who's the Man?

What does it mean to be a human being? What does it mean to be a man or a woman? How do we define ourselves? And who has the authority to give the definition?

It may not seem apparent at first glance, but these are some of the most important questions we could ever ask. And I believe, of all the times of the year, that Christmas particularly begs us to ask these questions. After all, we are celebrating the incarnation. We are celebrating the Biblical truth that God became a man and dwelt among men. Why did He do this? Was it really necessary? If it was necessary, why?

Let's start with this question first, "Who has the authority to define humanity?" This may seem to be a silly question, but I would say that it is more important and pressing than we might think. We live in a world where people have claimed the authority to define themselves. The debate over "Gay marriage," for example, is a definition debate. The mental consensus used to be that the definition of marriage came from beyond us. There was a higher authority who gave the definition, and our role was to hear it and submit to it. If the Bible is the authority that defines marriage, then the term "Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron. It's no different than saying "Married Bachelor." But we are culturally morphing into a people who no longer listens to Biblical definitions, and the only alternative is to define things for ourselves, or beg the State to define things for us. So it is important, first, that we establish who has the authority to define humanity. If we are a people who believe the Bible, then we know that we do not have the authority to define ourselves. Only God has that authority. When God created Adam and Eve, He created them in His own image, and this is where our definition and identity are found.

"But what does all of this have to do with Christmas?" you might ask. Simply put, we celebrate Christmas because Jesus succeeded where we failed. God defined humanity in a certain way, but due to our sin, we did not live up to His definition. We skewed God's image. I would even say that in some ways we became sub-human because of sin (remember who defines humanity). So when we fail, instead of saying, "I'm only human," maybe we should say, "I'm not quite fully human yet." In this sense, Jesus is the only Man that has ever lived up to the real definition of humanity. He is the perfect image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). The incarnation made it possible for humanity to finally be what it was originally intended to be. So, just as in Adam all have sinned, and therefore all die; Jesus has overcome sin for all who are united to Him (Romans 5:12-21). Therefore, they shall live. In His death for our sins and his resurrection to give us life, Jesus became the firstborn of the new humanity. Colossians 1:18 says, "And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." (ESV)

I hope that in the midst of presents, lights, trees, nativity scenes, carols, and way too much food, we will consider that this baby, born of a virgin, was the perfect Man. He is the true humanity. May we long for the day when we will be like Him. May we long for the day when we will join Him as His brothers and sisters. May we long for the day when we will see Him face to face. Merry Christmas.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Giving Thanks

"Anything I cannot thank God for for the sake of Christ, I may not thank God for at all; to do so would be sin." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

This past week I was able to spend some needed time with my family. I have always believed that my family is a unique and special blessing from God, but as I have grown older, that belief has become more real to me. So I want to give thanks to God. Every good gift comes from Him. And it is possible for us to receive from His hand because Jesus has made it possible through the work that He accomplished on the Cross.

But as I give thanks, I want to make sure that I do it the right way. Psalm 69:30 says "I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify him with thanksgiving." (ESV emphasis added) There is a simple truth in this verse that is extremely important and powerful. That truth is, thanksgiving magnifies. Or another way to say it is, thanksgiving glorifies. This is always true. When thanksgiving is offered, the result is magnification, glorification, praise, honor, etc. The question is, "who or what is the recipient?" Bonhoeffer's
statement reminds me that I must be careful to watch my own motives when I pray, because my temptation is to cherish God's gifts in such a way that, even in giving thanks, I magnify the gifts rather than the giver. When I pray, am I simply asking God to take care of the gifts that He has given me? Does my thanksgiving prove that houses, lands, friends, wife, children, career, ministry, security, and reputation are the treasures of my heart? In giving thanks to God, do I really bring Him dishonor? Father, please work in my heart in a way that, whenever I give thanks, it will be to magnify the name of Jesus.