One of the most familiar stories in the New Testament is about the woman caught in adultery. What a lot of people don't know is that many scholars do not consider this story to be authentic. I do. But I can't explain all the reasons in this post. Suffice it to say that there is some good textual evidence for its inclusion in John. Having shared that conviction, let me get to the issue that everyone is interested in, that is, what did Jesus wrote on the ground? In order to answer this we have to set the scene.
The Feast of Tabernacles had been going on several days and people had been living in makeshift shelters. A lot of adultery had undoubtedly taken place in these close living quarters. In this context, the Scribes and Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus as He is teaching the Temple. They claim that she had been caught in the very act of adultery and asked Jesus what they should do with her.
The text tells us that they were "testing" Jesus (v 6). They reminded Him that the penalty under the Law was stoning until dead. They also knew that the Romans did not allow this, and that ordinary Jews considered stoning for adultery to be way too excessive a penalty. The Jewish leaders believed that Jesus would not support the law of Moses in this situation, and so they could discredit Him as an impostor. If He was truly the Messiah He would uphold the Mosaic Law.
It is at this point that Jesus stoops down and writes on the ground. Historically, most Christians have taught and believed that He was writing out all the sins of the accusers. This is certainly possible, but I believe that He was simply writing, "You shall not bear a false report" from Exodus 23:1. You see this whole thing was a setup to discredit our Lord. Where was the man? The Law required the woman and man to be brought forward to be stoned (see Leviticus 20:10). The Jewish leaders were malicious in their intentions and not fulfilling all the requirements of the Law. They were as guilty of breaking the Law of Moses as the woman they brought before Jesus.
After Jesus says, "he who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (v 7), He writes on the ground again. This time I believe that He wrote out Exodus 23:7, which says, "keep far from a false charge". Why did He do this? Because when executing the penalty of stoning, the accuser had to throw the first stone and if sometime later it was determined that the charge was in some way false, the accuser was then to be stoned (see Deuteronomy 19:16-19). As result every potential accuser walked away one by one until the adulterous woman was completely alone. Then Jesus told her that He did not "condemn" her (v. 10), but He did tell her to "Go and sin no more" (v. 11).
The point of this story is that Jesus upheld the Law as the Son of God would always do. But He would not support anything that was not fully in accordance with the Law of God. This story is not about grace as many try to make it. It is about Jesus upholding God's Law. He did not condemn the woman because the Law was being perverted. But He also warned her to stop sinning because He is concerned about righteousness. Only Jesus could have handled this difficult situation so well! Truly He is the Son of God!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Headcoverings - I Corinthians 11:5
"Every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head..."
There is a lot of buzz about headcoverings around me these days. So I thought I better discuss them. It doesn't fit with my sermon plans, but it is a topic worthy of addressing. So here I go.
Are headcoverings biblical? Yes. It is clear from I Corinthians chapter 11 that Christian women should wear headcoverings. But at what times or occasions? Some say that women should wear them at all times as a sign of submission to men. Some say that women should wear them in the worship services of the church. But Paul only specifies that women must wear headcoverings when "praying or prophesying". Why not when reading Scripture or singing psalms of praise? Why not when speaking in tongues or interpreting tongues?
It would have been extremely easy for Paul to simply say, "Women should wear headcoverings at all times" or "Women should wear headcoverings whenever they worship". But he didn't. He doesn't say either of these things in this passage. What he says is that men should not have their heads covered when praying or prophesying (v 7) and that women should have their heads covered when doing these things. Why just these two worship practices when there are other worship practices not mentioned and other spiritual gifts not referenced? There must be something very special about "praying and prophesying". Let's start with prophesy.
Paul emphasizes prophesy as one of the most important gifts (see I Corinthians 14:1-5). Prophesy is the spiritual gift of being used of God to speak His very words, that is, the communication of God's revelation to us (see 14:30). Obviously, this is very, very important. What could be more important than speaking the very words of God to the congregation?
Now I realize that some people, myself included, do not believe that the Holy Spirit is giving the gift of prophesy to His people today because the canon of Scripture is complete. I also recognize that some scholars do not view New Testament prophesy as the very words of God. But it makes the most sense to say that because prophesy was giving direct revelation from God to the congregation, if a woman is going to do it, she is required to put on a headcovering as a sign of submission to the Lord, her husband, and the male leadership.
This brings us to the matter of "praying". In the context, coupled with the act of "prophesying", it makes the most sense to me to see this as another very solemn act that is so significant that it requires a headcovering for women. This is not just a woman praying silently during the worship service. This, I believe, is referring to a woman leading the congregation in prayer. She is speaking to God for His people. Whether prophesying or praying, when a woman is leading the congregation by praying to God or speaking for God she has to have her head covered for these solemn acts.
Now you may not agree with my specific interpretation or explanations about prophecy and prayer, and that's all right. But this is why we don't require women to wear headcoverings at our church simply for worship. If as a father or husband your conviction is that you wife or daughter should wear one at all times or for worship...fine. But this passage cannot be used to dogmatically teach anything beyond the specifically stated requirement of head coverings for women who pray or prophesy. This is the only thing one can be certain about. If one takes the headcovering requirement further it lacks a clear scriptural basis.
There is a lot of buzz about headcoverings around me these days. So I thought I better discuss them. It doesn't fit with my sermon plans, but it is a topic worthy of addressing. So here I go.
Are headcoverings biblical? Yes. It is clear from I Corinthians chapter 11 that Christian women should wear headcoverings. But at what times or occasions? Some say that women should wear them at all times as a sign of submission to men. Some say that women should wear them in the worship services of the church. But Paul only specifies that women must wear headcoverings when "praying or prophesying". Why not when reading Scripture or singing psalms of praise? Why not when speaking in tongues or interpreting tongues?
It would have been extremely easy for Paul to simply say, "Women should wear headcoverings at all times" or "Women should wear headcoverings whenever they worship". But he didn't. He doesn't say either of these things in this passage. What he says is that men should not have their heads covered when praying or prophesying (v 7) and that women should have their heads covered when doing these things. Why just these two worship practices when there are other worship practices not mentioned and other spiritual gifts not referenced? There must be something very special about "praying and prophesying". Let's start with prophesy.
Paul emphasizes prophesy as one of the most important gifts (see I Corinthians 14:1-5). Prophesy is the spiritual gift of being used of God to speak His very words, that is, the communication of God's revelation to us (see 14:30). Obviously, this is very, very important. What could be more important than speaking the very words of God to the congregation?
Now I realize that some people, myself included, do not believe that the Holy Spirit is giving the gift of prophesy to His people today because the canon of Scripture is complete. I also recognize that some scholars do not view New Testament prophesy as the very words of God. But it makes the most sense to say that because prophesy was giving direct revelation from God to the congregation, if a woman is going to do it, she is required to put on a headcovering as a sign of submission to the Lord, her husband, and the male leadership.
This brings us to the matter of "praying". In the context, coupled with the act of "prophesying", it makes the most sense to me to see this as another very solemn act that is so significant that it requires a headcovering for women. This is not just a woman praying silently during the worship service. This, I believe, is referring to a woman leading the congregation in prayer. She is speaking to God for His people. Whether prophesying or praying, when a woman is leading the congregation by praying to God or speaking for God she has to have her head covered for these solemn acts.
Now you may not agree with my specific interpretation or explanations about prophecy and prayer, and that's all right. But this is why we don't require women to wear headcoverings at our church simply for worship. If as a father or husband your conviction is that you wife or daughter should wear one at all times or for worship...fine. But this passage cannot be used to dogmatically teach anything beyond the specifically stated requirement of head coverings for women who pray or prophesy. This is the only thing one can be certain about. If one takes the headcovering requirement further it lacks a clear scriptural basis.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Being Ready for the Evil Day - Ephesians 6:13
"Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm." Ephesians 6:13
What exactly is the "evil day"? Is it a particular day during the tribulation? Is it a one time occurrence? What is it referring to? Paul is exhorting the Ephesian believers, and us, to put on the full armor of God so that we can resist Satan's attacks and "schemes". I believe, and I get this from Tony Evans by the way, that the "evil day" is speaking of times when Satan is particularly gunning for us. Spiritual attacks come regularly for me, probably for you as well. But every now and then, Satan throws everything he's got at us. He tries to discourage, tempt, deceive and accuse us all at once. These are the "evil" days. We may or may not be able to fight off Satan when it is a normal spiritual attack. But on the "evil day", if we are not wearing the full armor of God we are going to be a spiritual casualty. That is why Paul says "having done everything, to stand firm."
I just talked with a good friend from our church. He encountered the "evil day" this past weekend. He was attacked in just about every way possible. But he was ready, and knew how to respond, and took a bad situation and with God's help turned it into a spiritual victory. You can too. We don't have to be spiritual supermen (or women), but we have to understand Satan's schemes. We have to know what the armor of God really is, and how to put it on. I wrote an entire book just about the armor of God. Check it out some time. Don't let Satan ruin your life and your witness! Don't let him take away your peace, joy and contentment! Don't let him pull apart your family and relationships! Be ready for the "evil day"!
"...be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might." Ephesians 6:10
What exactly is the "evil day"? Is it a particular day during the tribulation? Is it a one time occurrence? What is it referring to? Paul is exhorting the Ephesian believers, and us, to put on the full armor of God so that we can resist Satan's attacks and "schemes". I believe, and I get this from Tony Evans by the way, that the "evil day" is speaking of times when Satan is particularly gunning for us. Spiritual attacks come regularly for me, probably for you as well. But every now and then, Satan throws everything he's got at us. He tries to discourage, tempt, deceive and accuse us all at once. These are the "evil" days. We may or may not be able to fight off Satan when it is a normal spiritual attack. But on the "evil day", if we are not wearing the full armor of God we are going to be a spiritual casualty. That is why Paul says "having done everything, to stand firm."
I just talked with a good friend from our church. He encountered the "evil day" this past weekend. He was attacked in just about every way possible. But he was ready, and knew how to respond, and took a bad situation and with God's help turned it into a spiritual victory. You can too. We don't have to be spiritual supermen (or women), but we have to understand Satan's schemes. We have to know what the armor of God really is, and how to put it on. I wrote an entire book just about the armor of God. Check it out some time. Don't let Satan ruin your life and your witness! Don't let him take away your peace, joy and contentment! Don't let him pull apart your family and relationships! Be ready for the "evil day"!
"...be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might." Ephesians 6:10
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Does Praying For the Sick Really Work? James 5:14-15
"Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." James 5:14-15
When the issue of prayer and healing comes up, one of the first Scriptures usually mentioned is James 5:14-15. This is one of the very few passages in the New Testament epistles that addresses the issue of healing, and in this passage it is linked not to spiritual gifts or "healers", but the elders of a local church. Believers are exhorted if "sick" to call for the leaders of their church to pray for them. This passage seems very clear and straight-forward about the results if the prayer is "offered in faith". The text explicitly says that this kind of prayer "will restore the one who is sick". There is no ambiguity in this passage at all. Healing will happen. But this leads to a real dilemma. A lot of prayers have been prayed for sick people with a lot more faith than a mustard seed (see Matthew 17:20), but unfortunately most of the people prayed for have not been healed. This should not be disputed as even the Vineyard pastor, John Wimber, admitted in writing that his church only saw about 2% of the people prayed for healed. So what's the problem?
If one studies the word "sick" in verse fourteen, it becomes clear that this word means "weakness" and it can be physical (see Matthew 10:8) or spiritual (see Romans 14:1). The work "sick" in verse fifteen is a different word from the one in verse fourteen, and it refers to physical or spiritual fatigue (see Hebrews 12:3). The point is that one cannot say with certainty that the healing spoken of here is physical. It could be spiritual healing. I lean towards the idea that it is both. I believe that James is addressing the issue of people who are physically ill because of spiritual issues, and in particular, unconfessed sin. This fits great with the following verse, "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed" (vs. 16). It also fits well with the last part of verse fifteen which says that the person's sins will be forgiven.
So what I am saying is that when someone has sinned and as a result of that sin there are physical consequences (see I Corinthians 11:30, for example), that person needs to call for the elders, be willing to confess any known sin, and trust the Lord to heal them physically and spiritually.
This explains why this procedure doesn't work more often than it does. First, there may not be in this age of grace that many people suffering physically because of unconfessed sin, or perhaps, the sins that are causing the illness are not being confessed. There may be a lack of faith occasionally, but as pointed out earlier, only a mustard seed worth is required for healing to take place.
Now this raises the question of whether or not it is right and appropriate to pray for those who are sick simply because God has allowed it. My answer, even in light of this passage correctly interpreted, is yes!
Prayer is always appropriate. We may not have a promise that God will heal in these cases, but it is always right o ask for it. Our God is a merciful and gracious God who responds to the prayers of His people. That is why at our church we encourage people to have the elders pray for them even if it is not a case of sin-induced illness. One never knows for sure what God will do, or when. The best thing is always to pray. May God help us to do so!
When the issue of prayer and healing comes up, one of the first Scriptures usually mentioned is James 5:14-15. This is one of the very few passages in the New Testament epistles that addresses the issue of healing, and in this passage it is linked not to spiritual gifts or "healers", but the elders of a local church. Believers are exhorted if "sick" to call for the leaders of their church to pray for them. This passage seems very clear and straight-forward about the results if the prayer is "offered in faith". The text explicitly says that this kind of prayer "will restore the one who is sick". There is no ambiguity in this passage at all. Healing will happen. But this leads to a real dilemma. A lot of prayers have been prayed for sick people with a lot more faith than a mustard seed (see Matthew 17:20), but unfortunately most of the people prayed for have not been healed. This should not be disputed as even the Vineyard pastor, John Wimber, admitted in writing that his church only saw about 2% of the people prayed for healed. So what's the problem?
If one studies the word "sick" in verse fourteen, it becomes clear that this word means "weakness" and it can be physical (see Matthew 10:8) or spiritual (see Romans 14:1). The work "sick" in verse fifteen is a different word from the one in verse fourteen, and it refers to physical or spiritual fatigue (see Hebrews 12:3). The point is that one cannot say with certainty that the healing spoken of here is physical. It could be spiritual healing. I lean towards the idea that it is both. I believe that James is addressing the issue of people who are physically ill because of spiritual issues, and in particular, unconfessed sin. This fits great with the following verse, "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed" (vs. 16). It also fits well with the last part of verse fifteen which says that the person's sins will be forgiven.
So what I am saying is that when someone has sinned and as a result of that sin there are physical consequences (see I Corinthians 11:30, for example), that person needs to call for the elders, be willing to confess any known sin, and trust the Lord to heal them physically and spiritually.
This explains why this procedure doesn't work more often than it does. First, there may not be in this age of grace that many people suffering physically because of unconfessed sin, or perhaps, the sins that are causing the illness are not being confessed. There may be a lack of faith occasionally, but as pointed out earlier, only a mustard seed worth is required for healing to take place.
Now this raises the question of whether or not it is right and appropriate to pray for those who are sick simply because God has allowed it. My answer, even in light of this passage correctly interpreted, is yes!
Prayer is always appropriate. We may not have a promise that God will heal in these cases, but it is always right o ask for it. Our God is a merciful and gracious God who responds to the prayers of His people. That is why at our church we encourage people to have the elders pray for them even if it is not a case of sin-induced illness. One never knows for sure what God will do, or when. The best thing is always to pray. May God help us to do so!
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Why Atheism Is Foolish (Part Two) Psalm 14:1-3
"The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'. They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." Psalm 14:1-3
In my last post I explained why atheism is foolish. It is a negative belief system that has killed far more people in history than all religious zealots combined. It is also a belief system that cannot be proven any more than a religious one. An atheist cannot say with certainty, "There is no God". That is a statement of faith. He cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than a Christian can prove that He does. The best that an atheist can accurately say is "I don't think or believe there is a God", and that is agnosticism.
In this post I want to further explain why atheism is foolish, and it has to do with the issue of being "good".
Atheists today are working very hard to prove that they are "good" people. Even though history shouts against this, and logically, atheism leads to moral relativism and all kinds of bad behavior, atheists nevertheless claim that they are "good" people.
Now the first problem with this argument is that God says "there is no one who does good, not even one." But, of course, to accept this as true one has to accept that there is a God, and that the Bible is His inerrant Word. So, even though I believe that this is true simply because the Creator God has said it, let's look at this issue rationally, logically and practically.
Do people who are atheists do "good"? I would say 'yes' from a human perspective. I have no doubt that atheists at times do very good things by human standards. Some are wonderful parents. Some are very nice neighbors. Some are honest business people, just to give a few examples. However, why are they "good"? I would say that it has nothing whatsoever to do with being an atheist. Atheism as a system does not logically lead to goodness. Rather, some atheists do good because they were raised according to Judeo-Christian ethics and they continue to live by them even though those ethics are contrary to the tenets of atheism. Some atheists do good out of self-interest. They treat others well because they want to be treated well. Other atheists do good because of the legal and practical consequences of not doing good. They are afraid of getting caught. Still other atheists are proud. They do good to prove that they are just as good, if not better than all the religious folks. Whether it is social conditioning, self-interest, fear or pride, all the goodness done by atheists, and everyone else for that matter, is ultimately not because people are intrinsically good, but because of other much less noble reasons that are not to our credit. That is why God has said, "there is no one who does good." From His perspective, people are not intrinsically good. We are all selfish, sinful and proud! Not just atheists, all of us! That is why Christ had to come and die; to pay for what we have all done wrong in the eyes of a holy God. Christians are not any better or any more deserving of God's love and forgiveness than atheists. It's all grace. The difference is that Christians realize we are not "good" and so we have put our trust in the only person who was ever truly, completely good...the Lord Jesus Christ!
In my last post I explained why atheism is foolish. It is a negative belief system that has killed far more people in history than all religious zealots combined. It is also a belief system that cannot be proven any more than a religious one. An atheist cannot say with certainty, "There is no God". That is a statement of faith. He cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than a Christian can prove that He does. The best that an atheist can accurately say is "I don't think or believe there is a God", and that is agnosticism.
In this post I want to further explain why atheism is foolish, and it has to do with the issue of being "good".
Atheists today are working very hard to prove that they are "good" people. Even though history shouts against this, and logically, atheism leads to moral relativism and all kinds of bad behavior, atheists nevertheless claim that they are "good" people.
Now the first problem with this argument is that God says "there is no one who does good, not even one." But, of course, to accept this as true one has to accept that there is a God, and that the Bible is His inerrant Word. So, even though I believe that this is true simply because the Creator God has said it, let's look at this issue rationally, logically and practically.
Do people who are atheists do "good"? I would say 'yes' from a human perspective. I have no doubt that atheists at times do very good things by human standards. Some are wonderful parents. Some are very nice neighbors. Some are honest business people, just to give a few examples. However, why are they "good"? I would say that it has nothing whatsoever to do with being an atheist. Atheism as a system does not logically lead to goodness. Rather, some atheists do good because they were raised according to Judeo-Christian ethics and they continue to live by them even though those ethics are contrary to the tenets of atheism. Some atheists do good out of self-interest. They treat others well because they want to be treated well. Other atheists do good because of the legal and practical consequences of not doing good. They are afraid of getting caught. Still other atheists are proud. They do good to prove that they are just as good, if not better than all the religious folks. Whether it is social conditioning, self-interest, fear or pride, all the goodness done by atheists, and everyone else for that matter, is ultimately not because people are intrinsically good, but because of other much less noble reasons that are not to our credit. That is why God has said, "there is no one who does good." From His perspective, people are not intrinsically good. We are all selfish, sinful and proud! Not just atheists, all of us! That is why Christ had to come and die; to pay for what we have all done wrong in the eyes of a holy God. Christians are not any better or any more deserving of God's love and forgiveness than atheists. It's all grace. The difference is that Christians realize we are not "good" and so we have put our trust in the only person who was ever truly, completely good...the Lord Jesus Christ!
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Why Atheism Is Foolish (Part 1) Psalm 14:1
"The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God".
I don't think about or address atheism very much. Why? Over 90% of Americans, and probably about that same percentage of people around the world believe there is a God. Atheism is not much of a threat to Christianity. Never has been, and never will be. Historically, wherever atheism has been the official "religion", like China or Russia for instance, eventually Christianity makes a comeback and is stronger and more vibrant than before. Atheism as a system of belief has several problems. First of all, it is basically a negation of a positive, life-giving concept. People will embrace a negative for a time. But after a while, they want something positive to stand for, not just something to be against. Atheists have tried to build a positive case for their perspective. But ultimately, it is still a negative, and the positive contributions of atheism are illusionary. The negatives, on the other hand, are huge and a matter of historic record.
Sometimes I hear that tired, old, mistaken canard that more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause. The truth is a lot of people have killed others in the name of religion, even Christianity. I admit that, and it is a terrible shame. But I am happy to say that when people kill innocent people in the name of Jesus, they are going against His book and His explicit teachings (see Matthew 5:21,22,38,39, 43,44). However, when people kill in the name of atheism, it fits perfectly with a totally godless system. Afterall, if there is no God, there are no moral absolutes, and logically, anything is acceptable, including murder, especially mass murder.
Stalin, one of the most consistent atheists who ever lived, said that "if one person is killed it is a tragedy. If a million people are killed, it is a statistic." He alone killed millions more people than were ever killed by those claiming religion, and that's not even counting Mao Tse-tung and Pot Pol. A lot of people like to call Hitler a "Christian" but as someone who has literally read thousands of pages about him, I can tell you with great certainty, he was at best an occultist. He was not in any way a Christian. He did in fact put many fine Christians to death.
The truth is that atheism has killed many more people than all religions combined. It's not even close. That's the natural, logical outcome of atheism. This is one of the biggest problems that atheism has, but it is not the biggest. The biggest is that atheism which proclaims itself so rational, so intelligent, so logical, actually is foolish. As Psalm 14:1 points out, the person who says "there is no God" is a fool. Why? Because as someone so accurately pointed out to me years ago, atheism cannot be proven with any degree of certainty. When a person says "there is no God", how does he or she know that? In order to state that with certainty one would have to know everything. Really, this is a statement of faith. Unless someone knows everything and has been everywhere in the universe, one cannot say with certainty, "there is no God". Therefore, logically, rationally, intelligently, the best one can say is "I don't think or believe there is a God." One can be an agnostic. But no mere mortal knows enough to say, "there is no God". That is foolishness.
I don't think about or address atheism very much. Why? Over 90% of Americans, and probably about that same percentage of people around the world believe there is a God. Atheism is not much of a threat to Christianity. Never has been, and never will be. Historically, wherever atheism has been the official "religion", like China or Russia for instance, eventually Christianity makes a comeback and is stronger and more vibrant than before. Atheism as a system of belief has several problems. First of all, it is basically a negation of a positive, life-giving concept. People will embrace a negative for a time. But after a while, they want something positive to stand for, not just something to be against. Atheists have tried to build a positive case for their perspective. But ultimately, it is still a negative, and the positive contributions of atheism are illusionary. The negatives, on the other hand, are huge and a matter of historic record.
Sometimes I hear that tired, old, mistaken canard that more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause. The truth is a lot of people have killed others in the name of religion, even Christianity. I admit that, and it is a terrible shame. But I am happy to say that when people kill innocent people in the name of Jesus, they are going against His book and His explicit teachings (see Matthew 5:21,22,38,39, 43,44). However, when people kill in the name of atheism, it fits perfectly with a totally godless system. Afterall, if there is no God, there are no moral absolutes, and logically, anything is acceptable, including murder, especially mass murder.
Stalin, one of the most consistent atheists who ever lived, said that "if one person is killed it is a tragedy. If a million people are killed, it is a statistic." He alone killed millions more people than were ever killed by those claiming religion, and that's not even counting Mao Tse-tung and Pot Pol. A lot of people like to call Hitler a "Christian" but as someone who has literally read thousands of pages about him, I can tell you with great certainty, he was at best an occultist. He was not in any way a Christian. He did in fact put many fine Christians to death.
The truth is that atheism has killed many more people than all religions combined. It's not even close. That's the natural, logical outcome of atheism. This is one of the biggest problems that atheism has, but it is not the biggest. The biggest is that atheism which proclaims itself so rational, so intelligent, so logical, actually is foolish. As Psalm 14:1 points out, the person who says "there is no God" is a fool. Why? Because as someone so accurately pointed out to me years ago, atheism cannot be proven with any degree of certainty. When a person says "there is no God", how does he or she know that? In order to state that with certainty one would have to know everything. Really, this is a statement of faith. Unless someone knows everything and has been everywhere in the universe, one cannot say with certainty, "there is no God". Therefore, logically, rationally, intelligently, the best one can say is "I don't think or believe there is a God." One can be an agnostic. But no mere mortal knows enough to say, "there is no God". That is foolishness.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Lessons from John 11: Part Three
When my brother Graham was about ten he went to camp for a week in northern Michigan. There are two things I remember to this day about his return. First, my mother was appalled to discover he hadn't changed his clothes during the entire time, and even worse, when he was given the assignment to memorize any verse in the New Testament, he chose John 11:35. In case you are not familiar with John 11:35, it is the shortest verse in the New Testament, and in fact, the whole English Bible. It simply says, "Jesus wept".
As I write this post I am happy to report that although Graham's health is still very precarious, he is feeling better and about to be discharged from the hospital. I am very thankful that today I am not mourning his loss. This brings me to John 11:35.
Jesus deliberately delayed coming to Lazarus' house so that Lazarus would die and He would raise him from the dead. Jesus knew that Lazarus was going to die. There was no doubt about it. As the God/Man, Christ knew this with perfect certainty. And yet, Jesus did not grieve this loss ahead of schedule. He talked with the disciples about the death of Lazarus without emotion (see vs.11,15). He spoke to Martha with hope, not tears (vs. 23-26). It was not until he saw Mary weeping along with their Jewish friends that He was "deeply moved in spirit" and then proceeded to the tomb where He wept openly.
Two truths I see here in the life of our Lord. First, there is "a time to weep" (Ecclesiastes 3:4). There should be no doubt in any Christian's mind that grieving the loss of a loved one is not only acceptable, but encouraged, given our Lord's example. Yes, I know that some scholars think that Jesus wept because He was grieved about the lack of faith on the part of the mourners. Verse thirty-three could be interpreted in that way. But I believe that Jesus was empathizing with those who were profoundly affected by this sad situation. Based on verse thirty-six; "see how He loved him", and the nature of our Lord, I believe that Jesus was grieved by the pain and suffering of his good friend, even knowing that within minutes he would be alive and well again! Grieving is a Christian response to death. Yes, the person is better off if he or she knows Christ as Savior. Yes, we will see him or her again if we are trusting in the Lord. But grieving the death of a friend or loved one is good, right and appropriate for Christians. Our Lord is our best example. We don't need to make excuses, apologize or be ashamed of our tears.
Having said that, it is also clear to me that the time for grief is not until someone has died. While there is life, even though death is certainly coming, we need to enjoy our time with the person who is leaving us. We need to speak of life, not death. We need to focus on God's goodness and purpose. We must not bury people too soon.
Last week some folks had my brother all but buried. But he is still kicking and hopes to keep doing so for a while longer. I am rejoicing that He is still with us, and I will be happy for every day he can remain with his family and live for our Lord. There is a time to weep, but not yet...not yet.
As I write this post I am happy to report that although Graham's health is still very precarious, he is feeling better and about to be discharged from the hospital. I am very thankful that today I am not mourning his loss. This brings me to John 11:35.
Jesus deliberately delayed coming to Lazarus' house so that Lazarus would die and He would raise him from the dead. Jesus knew that Lazarus was going to die. There was no doubt about it. As the God/Man, Christ knew this with perfect certainty. And yet, Jesus did not grieve this loss ahead of schedule. He talked with the disciples about the death of Lazarus without emotion (see vs.11,15). He spoke to Martha with hope, not tears (vs. 23-26). It was not until he saw Mary weeping along with their Jewish friends that He was "deeply moved in spirit" and then proceeded to the tomb where He wept openly.
Two truths I see here in the life of our Lord. First, there is "a time to weep" (Ecclesiastes 3:4). There should be no doubt in any Christian's mind that grieving the loss of a loved one is not only acceptable, but encouraged, given our Lord's example. Yes, I know that some scholars think that Jesus wept because He was grieved about the lack of faith on the part of the mourners. Verse thirty-three could be interpreted in that way. But I believe that Jesus was empathizing with those who were profoundly affected by this sad situation. Based on verse thirty-six; "see how He loved him", and the nature of our Lord, I believe that Jesus was grieved by the pain and suffering of his good friend, even knowing that within minutes he would be alive and well again! Grieving is a Christian response to death. Yes, the person is better off if he or she knows Christ as Savior. Yes, we will see him or her again if we are trusting in the Lord. But grieving the death of a friend or loved one is good, right and appropriate for Christians. Our Lord is our best example. We don't need to make excuses, apologize or be ashamed of our tears.
Having said that, it is also clear to me that the time for grief is not until someone has died. While there is life, even though death is certainly coming, we need to enjoy our time with the person who is leaving us. We need to speak of life, not death. We need to focus on God's goodness and purpose. We must not bury people too soon.
Last week some folks had my brother all but buried. But he is still kicking and hopes to keep doing so for a while longer. I am rejoicing that He is still with us, and I will be happy for every day he can remain with his family and live for our Lord. There is a time to weep, but not yet...not yet.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Lessons from John 11: Part Two
When Jesus finally arrived at the home of Lazarus after delaying His coming, the following dialogue took place between Martha and Jesus,
"Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give You. Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again'. Martha said to Him, 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day'. Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' She said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God...'" (John 11:21-27)
Here is Martha believing that Christ could heal her brother of a terminal disease. She believes that her brother would be supernaturally resurrected sometime in the future, and she believes that Jesus is "...the Christ, the Son of God..." And yet, she doesn't completely comprehend who she is talking to. Everything she believes is true, but she doesn't fully understand all that Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of God" means. She "believes", but her belief is incomplete. Even after Christ tells her that "I am the resurrection and the life" (that just blows me away every time I read it!), she still doesn't get it! (see verse 39). Jesus is not just "the Teacher" (v. 28), not just a person who can "ask of God", He is God! He can do anything, at any time, because He is God in the flesh!
Now I am not just picking on Martha. There are a lot of people even today who say, "I believe in Jesus!" People that even say "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." But what do they mean by that? They do "believe". I am not denying that they "believe". The question is what is the the context of that belief and is it sufficient to save? (See my post on Luke 8 for more on this subject).
The point is that Jesus delayed his coming so that Lazarus would die (Jesus did not cause him to die, by the way), and He could raise Lazarus from the dead and give Martha and others an opportunity to fully understand and believe who He is. As a result "many...believed in Him" (v. 45). But "some of them", in spite of what they saw did not believe (v. 46). Instead, they went to the religious leaders who heard from eyewitnesses what Jesus had done, and "they planned together to kill Him" (v. 53).
This is one more interesting truth from this passage. People could accept that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, and yet not believe that He is "the Christ, the Son of God".
The bottom-line is that people can "believe" a lot of things about Jesus, but still fall short of complete belief. Complete belief involves trusting in Christ as the God/Man who died in our place for our sins and rose from the dead (see I Corinthians 15:3-4). Anything less may be belief, but not saving faith.
"Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give You. Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again'. Martha said to Him, 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day'. Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' She said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God...'" (John 11:21-27)
Here is Martha believing that Christ could heal her brother of a terminal disease. She believes that her brother would be supernaturally resurrected sometime in the future, and she believes that Jesus is "...the Christ, the Son of God..." And yet, she doesn't completely comprehend who she is talking to. Everything she believes is true, but she doesn't fully understand all that Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of God" means. She "believes", but her belief is incomplete. Even after Christ tells her that "I am the resurrection and the life" (that just blows me away every time I read it!), she still doesn't get it! (see verse 39). Jesus is not just "the Teacher" (v. 28), not just a person who can "ask of God", He is God! He can do anything, at any time, because He is God in the flesh!
Now I am not just picking on Martha. There are a lot of people even today who say, "I believe in Jesus!" People that even say "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." But what do they mean by that? They do "believe". I am not denying that they "believe". The question is what is the the context of that belief and is it sufficient to save? (See my post on Luke 8 for more on this subject).
The point is that Jesus delayed his coming so that Lazarus would die (Jesus did not cause him to die, by the way), and He could raise Lazarus from the dead and give Martha and others an opportunity to fully understand and believe who He is. As a result "many...believed in Him" (v. 45). But "some of them", in spite of what they saw did not believe (v. 46). Instead, they went to the religious leaders who heard from eyewitnesses what Jesus had done, and "they planned together to kill Him" (v. 53).
This is one more interesting truth from this passage. People could accept that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, and yet not believe that He is "the Christ, the Son of God".
The bottom-line is that people can "believe" a lot of things about Jesus, but still fall short of complete belief. Complete belief involves trusting in Christ as the God/Man who died in our place for our sins and rose from the dead (see I Corinthians 15:3-4). Anything less may be belief, but not saving faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)