Explore the Bible: Joshua 1:1-9

Explore the Bible: Joshua 1:1-9

One of the areas of study that fascinates me is the origin and transmission of the Bible. From its writing to its preservation, from its beginnings to today, the way that we have received the Word of God in writing is a truly remarkable process. The long span of time covered by the writing of Scripture- about 1500 years- is amazing in historical context. To put it in perspective, 1500 years ago there was still a Roman empire, the prophet Mohammed had not yet been born, the AD/BC system for dating had not yet been invented, and Christianity had not yet split into its Eastern and Western branches (and the Protestant Reformation was still a millennium away!).

One of the questions that arises when examining the history of the Bible is how the books that eventually were recognized as the official canon of Scripture were treated when they were first written. We have hints that at least some were accepted as coming from God at an early date, while others took a while for the church to fully recognize. Occasionally we find passages of Scripture that provide us with clues to this process.

In Joshua 1, we have some indications of the beginning of the recognition of the writings of Moses as an authoritative book of law (instruction, in the ESV). Moses had just died, and Joshua, as his assistant, would have had access to all that he had written during Israel’s wilderness wanderings. It’s even possible Joshua might have helped in the writing, as a secretary or amanuensis, but we are not told this in the Bible. Still, given that Deuteronomy is largely a long sermon by Moses, it isn’t hard to imagine that Joshua at least “took notes” as he spoke.

What we do clearly see in Joshua 1 is that the Lord instructs Joshua to take the book that Moses has written and to read and meditate on it daily. We break Moses’ writings down into five books, but as a collection they are called the Torah (Law) by Jews, and the Pentateuch (five books) by many Bible students. This book was now the guide Joshua was to follow as he took over the leadership of Israel from Moses. Within a few years of its composition, or even just a few weeks or months of the writings at the end of Deuteronomy, Joshua received the command to treat this collection as an authoritative source of God’s commands and instructions.

If this is true, then at least parts of the Bible were treated as Scripture almost immediately. This doesn’t fit with what some scholars suggest about the history of Judaism. They believe it evolved gradually over many, many years, and that when we see something that looks like an early acknowledgement of an authoritative Scripture that means the book in which we find that reference must have been written centuries later. Some go so far as to question whether Moses and Joshua really lived, or were just later legends conceived by the priests to establish what they wanted Israel and its kings to believe about the origin of the nation.

Now it is true that we do not have the original books of Moses as written by his own hand. However, some scholars believe that Moses’ original manuscript may have survived until at least 620 BC, when, during repairs under King Josiah of Judah, Hilkiah found the “book of the law” in the Temple. Moses had originally deposited a copy of the book next to the ark (Deuteronomy 31:26), and many believe this was the copy Joshua would have read, passed down for generations. While we don’t know how the book was lost, under these circumstances it would have been found over 800 years after it had been written! While this seems almost impossible, we have manuscripts today that have survived far longer and are still readable. I have seen fairly up close some of the Dead Sea scrolls fragments, which date back 2000 years, and although my language skills are rusty, I could definitely make out the letters and words on those manuscripts.

We do know that copies were made, and that the scribes who wrote these copies came to have very strict rules so that they could guarantee that they transmitted the words accurately. (In fact, some of these strictures are still applied by those who write out the Torah scrolls for Jewish synagogues today.) The Torah still guides the worship and practice of Jews today, and has a great influence of Christians as well. Given what we read in Joshua, the Torah has been seen as God’s Word and God’s Law for over 3400 years, ever since it was written by Moses and handed over to Joshua. The Bible began with the books of Moses, and has continued to hold its place of authority ever since, even as the Holy Spirit inspired more books to be written and added to Scripture.

Explore the Bible: 2 Peter 1:12-21

Explore the Bible: 2 Peter 1:11-21

The inspiration of the Bible is one of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity. While the doctrines of God and of Jesus Christ may be more important in and of themselves, since God is the source of all things and salvation comes through Jesus, without a reliable revelation of God we could never know the truth about God Himself. There is a certain amount of information about God available through what we call general revelation, the natural world and the inner conscience of the person, but that only helps us understand that there is a God and that we are not innately good. We need to know far more to be right with God, and only He can reveal to us the truth that we need.

2 Peter 1:20-21 is perhaps the clearest statement about the inspiration of Scripture in the Bible, along with 2 Timothy 3:16. The role of the Holy Spirit in “carrying along” the writers of the Bible gives us a good picture of the process. The Bible was not simply dictated by God and dutifully transcribed by the human authors (except for a few places where the authors indicate that they are writing exactly what God says), but the human authors wrote in their own words and styles while the Holy Spirit guided and protected the final product so it was exactly what He wanted written. The Bible is without error and authoritative because it comes from God, but it also is a collection of works that show the personalities and emphases of human writers over some 1500 years.

Despite being a clear statement of inspiration, the phrase “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation” has caused some disagreement among scholars. Some see it as referring to the original authors, with the implication that what they wrote was not merely their own ideas but the words the Spirit wanted written. Others see it as referring to the readers of Scripture, who cannot simply make the Bible say what they want it to say, but must be subject to what the Spirit intended the author to say.

When the context is considered, I believe that more weight should be given to the first option. Since the passage makes note of the role of both the human author and the Holy Spirit, and the previous passage deals with the reliability of the testimony of witnesses to Jesus’ glory, there is a definite idea that the authors of the Bible were not operating on their own, but that they were following the guidance of the Spirit, even though they may not have been aware of it at the time.

However, sometimes when a Biblical author uses an ambiguous word or phrase, he may have both ideas in mind. I don’t think there u\is anything wrong with seeing both of the explanations above as true, even if one is primary. The second meaning also is needed in our modern setting, in which so many people try to import into the Scriptures a meaning that the author never intended to convey (and in some cases couldn’t have meant, given his historical setting). Before we start to apply the Word of God to our lives, we have to know what it says, and to do that we need to know what the author wanted to express to his original readers. We can’t just twist the words of the Bible to say what we want them to mean and think we have the truth that God has revealed in our own ideas.

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible boils down to one question: is the Bible the true, reliable authority over our beliefs and practices, or are we the authority over what the Bible says? If it is truly God’s revelation, we have no choice but to submit to His authority. If it is not God’s revelation, then we can ignore it at will. Without the Holy Spirit, we will not see the beauty and glory of the Word. As we submit to the guidance of the Spirit, we will all that the Lord reveals to us, and put it into practice in our lives.

Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 4:12-19

Persecution is a very real issue for the church of Jesus Christ today. You’ve probably seen the videos of Christians being executed for their faith, or read the stories about the way Christians in some countries are being exiled from their homes and all they have. In places like that, standing for Jesus literally requires a believer to lay down his or her life for Him. As their brothers and sisters, we need to stand up for the persecuted church and the martyrs who are giving their lives for His sake.

In our culture, we face opposition, but at this point in time not at the same level. That doesn’t mean that Christians in Western society don’t face serious consequences for standing up for Christ. Some have faced lawsuits, some have lost businesses, others have been fired (or not hired) because of their beliefs. Still, most of our opposition at present comes in the form of attempts to denigrate our faith, to paint us as bigots of various stripes, or to try to shame us socially. These are uncomfortable, but certainly not risks that warrant abandoning our Lord and our faith.

Sometimes when we face opposition, we start to see everything as persecution. If anyone criticizes us, or finds our behavior or words objectionable, we think of ourselves as martyrs suffering for our Savior. When we do face opposition for the sake of Jesus, we should stand strong, but not overstate what is happening to us. But in some cases, Christians aren’t suffering because they are standing for the cause of Christ, but because they engage in genuinely objectionable behavior.

I knew a young man once who, as a new Christian, believed he was being persecuted for his faith. When I asked him about his “persecution,” he told me he was being reprimanded for sharing his faith and reading his Bible. As I probed a little deeper, I found that he was witnessing to his co-workers while he was supposed to be doing his job, and that he read his Bible not on break times, but while he was on the clock. I had to gently explain that what his company objected to wasn’t his faith, but his theft of time from the company.

Peter reminds us in this passage that when we are persecuted because we have done evil, we should not expect the Lord to reward us. We must stand up for Christ, but we must also be people of integrity. Perhaps that will bring us into conflict with what we are ordered to do on the job, and we may have to take a stand and face the consequences. Generally, however, we can be those who do our jobs, or live in our communities, with an honesty, integrity, and compassion that those who do not know Jesus can’t match.

When we do face opposition for the name of Jesus, Peter tells us we are blessed. We may not feel blessed as we stand up to the world, and suffer the consequences, but we must remember that this world is not our home. As followers of Christ, we measure what we have in light of eternity, and when our priority is to honor and serve Jesus we can stand, whatever may be thrown at us. 

Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 4:1-11

The lifestyle of a committed Christian should look much different from the lifestyle of someone who is still living according to their own standards. Sadly, this isn’t the case in our society anymore. Polls about attitudes and practices consistently show that professing Christians, even evangelicals, live in a way that is barely distinguishable from the world around them. There is an attraction that sin holds that can tempt any of us to stray from God’s standards. The lure is the same as it was in the Garden of Eden: to be like God, determining for ourselves what we will do.

Peter reminds his readers that their lives have changed in this passage. The time that they lived as pagans in the past is more than enough time to have indulged in sin. This isn’t a comment on the quantity of sin that is expected of the unbeliever; instead, it is a comment that any time spent in sin is more than enough time. In light of the change brought by Jesus, sin is to be a past practice. While we know that in this life we never achieve perfection, we should be more and more drawn to following Jesus and to turning away from the sins that we practiced in our past.

The list of sins in this passage is typical of the lists we see in other New Testament passages, and is not meant to be a comprehensive list of sins but a list of sins that typically reflected pagan practices. Overindulgence in food, wine, and sex were rampant throughout the Roman world, and people generally expected their friends and neighbors to participate in wild parties. When Christians did not, it surprised those around them, and maybe even made them a little suspicious of what they were up to. It certainly would lead to pressure being put on the Christians to conform to the world around them.

Now read that last paragraph again, except change “pagan practices” to “American culture.” I joked with my group studying this passage that verse 3 sounds just like college life! In many ways, our culture is reverting to the ethics and morality of the pagan cultures that thrived around the early church. We’re told that humanity is essentially good and getting better, but when we look at what people actually do we see this isn’t so.

So what are we as Christians to do in light of the “paganization” of our culture? We need to do what Peter encourages the readers in his day to do: to live out our faith consistently in the eyes of the world. It won’t be easy, and we should expect opposition when we challenge the world’s value system, but we need to show Jesus Christ to a desperately sinful world. This is what the early Christians did, and it was their lives, even more than their words, that caught the attention of their unbelieving neighbors. We can’t afford any longer to have the church look like the world.

Both our lives and our words should speak of Jesus every day. The time for sin is past, and we need to commit ourselves to living more for our Lord every day. We will stumble, but as we live, serve, and witness together, we will help each other grow to be like our Savior, and we will bring a message of truth, love, and hope to those around us.

Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 3:13-22

One of the most controversial passages in the New Testament in 1 Peter 3:19-20. One commentary on 1 Peter spends 43 of its 248 pages just one these two verses! Throughout the history of both Jewish and Christian exegesis, there have been many different interpretations of this passage suggested. Here I can only touch on a few of these, and share my view on the subject.

In his commentary on 1 Peter (the one mentioned above), Wayne Grudem lays out five general approaches to the interpretation of this passage. While there are some other variations, these cover many of the alternatives proposed by commentators. These are:

1) Christ preached in spirit through Noah to those who would reject that preaching, thus ending up “in prison” due to their unbelief.

2) Christ preached after His death but before His resurrection to those people who were imprisoned in hell, offering them a second chance of salvation.

3) Christ preached after His death but before His resurrection to those people who were imprisoned in hell, showing them that their condemnation was final.

4) Christ preached after His death to those who repented before they died in Flood, releasing them from Purgatory and bringing them into heaven.

5) Christ preached after His death to the fallen angels in hell, proclaiming His triumph over them and His ultimate victory. (Some commentators link this to a belief that in Genesis 6 the “sons of God” are fallen angels who had relations with human women, and that this pronouncement of judgment was particularly pointed at them.)

Option 2 is clearly out of line with the teaching of the rest of the Bible concerning the finality of death on our decision about Jesus. Option 4 is only viable to someone who believes in Purgatory, which I do not believe is a Biblical teaching. Option 3 doesn’t really connect with the time of Noah, unless it is limited to just those unbelievers, and that seems a rather limited application.

Option 5 is favored by many commentators, both Jewish and Christian (including the author of the Explore the Bible study guide). They argue that the use of the word “spirit” strongly suggests angels/demons rather than people. They also point to some Jewish literature as background to this passage, particularly 1 Enoch. According to this view, Peter is using material familiar to his readers to make his point, and they would have readily understood this as a reference to 1 Enoch and to fallen angels.

While there is much to commend this view, I think when we place the passage in its literary context option 1 is a preferable view. There are certainly issues with this interpretation, as there are with any of those mentioned, but I think this best fits the context, and has support from scholars both ancient and modern. It also does not require Peter’s audience to have a familiarity with literature like 1 Enoch, which may be more consistent with the historical and cultural situation of those readers.

Going back to verse 13, Peter is discussing not only the way a believer should live, but also the readiness of the Christian to proclaim his faith in Jesus. He notes that when we stand for Christ, we may encounter opposition, but that we should live and speak in such a way that those who slander us and reject our message will be put to shame. He then summarizes the gospel, then moves into our problem passage.

Using option 1 as our interpretation, this then becomes an illustration from the Old Testament of someone who proclaimed the message of the Lord faithfully, but whose preaching was rejected for 100 years. In the end, only the tiny number of faithful were saved, while the majority who rejected Noah’s preaching died in the Flood. It was Jesus who preached through Noah, with a message that foreshadowed His own redemption.

Whichever interpretation is correct, we must not allow the controversy to become our focal point. Instead, we should focus on the challenge of being faithful witnesses to the Gospel in a society that will revile us for standing for Jesus. As those who have an eternal hope in Him, we need to be ready to give our reason for our hope, and to proclaim the salvation given to us through Jesus whenever we have the chance.

Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 3:1-12

If Peter’s teaching on our relationship to authorities makes some Christians uncomfortable, his teaching on the relationship between husbands and wives makes some positively squirm. In our society, any thought of a woman being submissive in any way to her husband is viewed as a throwback to a time when women were considered property and husbands could do whatever they wanted to them. Many is Western culture believe that they have transcended the ethics of the Bible with a more enlightened, egalitarian view of marriage.

I find it interesting that while women are told to voluntarily submit themselves (as the Greek verb tense indicates), husbands are told to honor their wives. A submissive wife might be found in the pagan culture, but an honored wife would be hard to find. Peter does not encourage here merely verbal praise; a husband is to actively give his wife respect and honor. This went against everything that society in the first century believed.

Sadly, it also goes against what many in our 21^st century society believe. Marriage is looked at as a temporary contract by many. A man and woman may marry, but each can go on living their own life and seeking their own interests. A modern wife would never consider voluntarily submitting to her husband’s authority, and a modern husband would not view his wife as a person deserving of honor. Peter’s words not only shook his first readers, but they shake us today.

In many respects, a wife’s submission depends on her husband’s honor. Peter did not intend for women to subject themselves to abuse or mistreatment, or to engage in sinful activities because their husbands told them to. In the case of a woman with an unbelieving husband, she was to live a life that demonstrated what Jesus had done for her. A wife with a believing husband, one who honored her as he should, would have no impediment to following his leadership.

The Biblical standards for our relationships, including our family relationships, often run counter to our culture’s standards. We would be much more comfortable obeying the Lord if we could make His will match the will of our world. We can’t do this, however. As difficult as it may be to live by God’s standards, we are called to do this to show the world just what the power of Jesus can do in our lives and in our relationships with others.

We may have to stand for something that is unpopular. We may be called names and insulted for our beliefs. Even other Christians may urge us to reconsider, and find a way to live like the rest of the world. In this matter, as in any others where the Biblical teaching opposes our cultural norms, we must choose to follow God rather than man. Yet in doing so, we can become a powerful witness for the Lord and the order He ordained as we live out His will and His Word before the eyes of a watching world.

Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 2:12-25

Peter has some timely advice for those of us who are going through the pain of another interminable presidential campaign in America. It seems no matter which candidate or party someone supports, they claim that the country will be permanently damaged by their opponent, while their candidate is the only hope for any kind of a decent future. This really isn’t something new; it’s just accentuated by the particular qualities (or lack thereof) of the major party candidates.

It wouldn’t matter if both candidates were sterling examples of morality, ethics, and professionalism, however. No human being is capable of meeting all the expectations our modern society places on the President. In many ways, a large number of Americans, including evangelical Christians, have set up our government as a god. The President is viewed as a Messiah, and we place our hope and trust in a person or a party to protect us and uphold what is right. We may not be burning incense on the steps of the White House, but we do look for answers in human institutions.

Peter reminds us of the role of those institutions. He wrote this letter during the reign of Nero, so he wasn’t looking to a stellar example of a just and fair ruler when he told Christians to be subject to the Emperor. I doubt Peter expected Nero to be a champion of Christian virtues or someone who looked to Jesus for guidance. What he did understand is that Nero sat on the throne by the will of God. Not every ruler gains power because of their outstanding virtue in the eyes of the Lord, but all serve a purpose in the unfolding of human history.

No matter who wins an election, we as believers are to be subject to them, as far as we are able. But note that Peter places “honor the Emperor” after “fear God.” The demands of any human institution, including government, are themselves subject to the commands of God. Peter knew this, and would later experience it for himself when he was martyred under the Emperor he is here telling Christians to follow. We must follow the Lord first, before any human institution.

In our country, we have ways to address governmental demands that fly in the face of godly principles. We can vote for new leaders, petition for changes, go to court, and peacefully protest. If we must obey God rather than man, we may also have to face the reality of persecution and punishment for refusing to obey the government. Christians are called to be good citizens of their earthly kingdoms, but to be good citizens of the kingdom of Jesus Christ above all.

So whoever wins the election this November, don’t expect a new messiah, or an earthly kingdom that is the kingdom of God. Rather, prepare to be a good citizen, to pray for your President and other officials, but to fear God first, then honor the rulers. And remember, no matter who is the President, Jesus is still the King.

Explore the Bible: 1 Peter 2:1-10

Peter uses many quotes from the Old Testament in his epistle. This is natural, since what we call the Old Testament was the Scriptures not only for Jews, but for all the new Gentile believers who were responding to the gospel. There was no set of writings in the early days of the church that were already recognized as part of the Biblical canon, although recognition of a number of apostolic writings as Scripture arose very early. (We’ll talk about this more in 2 Peter.) Peter is clearly familiar with the Scriptures and uses them both to make his theological and practical points and to illustrate truth.

In 1 Peter 2:10, Peter doesn’t directly quote an Old Testament passage, but he does make a strong reference to one. This verse is influenced by the names the Lord tells Hosea to give his children in chapters 1 and 2 of his prophecy. There, the children, probably born as the result of an adulterous affair by his wife Gomer, symbolized the Lord’s rejection of Israel as His people. Their unfaithfulness caused Him to turn away from His chosen people. Yet even in this rejection, God states that He cannot entirely give up on them, and that one day they will once again be His people and He will be their God.

This was a comforting promise to Israel, but it may have left Gentiles wondering how they fit in to the people of God. Did you have to become a Jew? Were Gentiles second-class Christians? Peter uses the experience of Hosea and the words of his prophecy to assure all believers, Jew and Gentile, that they were now part of God’s people. They had been called out of darkness into light, received God’s mercy through Jesus, and were now included as part of the people of God.

Some have seen this passage as one that indicates that the church has replaced Israel as the people of God permanently. In this view, Israel served as God’s people until the cross, but since the death and resurrection of Christ the church has now become the object of all of God’s promises to Israel as a kind of new “chosen people.” I believe that the very fact of Peter’s using Hosea as his cue in this verse shows the opposite: that while the church is certainly the people of God, He is also not letting go of Israel forever.

The key point here is that all believers, who by nature are sinful and deserving of God’s rejection, have been brought into the people of God through Jesus’ work. By grace we have been shown mercy, and through that mercy we gain a great salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. We do not have to fear what our status before the Lord is if we have put our trust and hope in the One who calls us out of the darkness of sin and into the light of His eternal presence.

Explore the Bible: Acts 9:10-19

Occasionally as we read through the historical narratives of the Bible we come across a person who enters the story for just a brief mention, then is never heard of again in Scripture. Some of these are figures of far more importance to redemptive history than their short notice indicates. One of these is found in Acts 9, right in the middle of the narrative of Saul’s conversion.

Ananias was a follower of Jesus who lived in Damascus. Later church tradition counts him as one of the 72 disciples Jesus sent out during His ministry, but the Bible tells us nothing of his background. We don’t even know if he was in Damascus due to the dispersion of the church due to persecution or whether he had already been a resident of the city, who had perhaps visited Jerusalem around Pentecost. What the Bible does tell us, in Paul’s later retelling of his conversion in Acts 22, is that Ananias was “a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by the Jews who lived there” (verse 12).

Jesus appeared to Ananias in a vision; this one was less dramatic than Saul’s, perhaps because Ananias was prepared to listen to his Lord. Jesus’ instructions are straightforward, but Ananias pauses when he hears them. While he may never have seen Saul personally, he certainly has heard a lot about him, even understanding that Saul could have him arrested and brought back to Jerusalem. Ananias may not have been balking at his assignment, but trying to make sure he was hearing correctly. Jesus was sending him to the church’s chief adversary? And he was supposed to perform a miraculous healing on that man? I think it safe to say no one else in the history of the church has been given a mission like that!

Jesus not only confirmed His call, He added a message that Ananias would pass on to Saul (see Acts 22:14-16). Saul, the devout Jew and rabbinic scholar, was to become the Lord’s choice to take His gospel to the Gentiles. In addition, Jesus added that Saul, who had caused so much suffering to the church, would himself suffer much for the sake of the Lord.

Ananias went and fulfilled his divine commission. He went to the place Saul was staying and found him fasting, probably along with prayer. Ananias announced the Lord’s message and laid his hands on Saul, which restored his sight. While we aren’t told details of Saul’s response, he apparently was immediately baptized, even before he broke his fast. Ananias was convinced that Saul was a genuine believer and follower of Jesus.

While God is in control of all of history, and our human efforts cannot thwart His will, it is interesting to think about what the short mission of Ananias to Saul, who later became known as Paul, meant to the history of the church. Sixteen of the 27 books of the New Testament owe their writing to Paul: his own 13 epistles, plus three book penned by writers influenced by Paul (Hebrews, Luke, and Acts). A large number of churches were directly planted by Paul, and others were strengthened by his ministry among them. Paul’s writings changed the lives of many later Christians who became powerful influences for Christ in their own times and beyond. Paul is viewed as perhaps the Christian with the greatest influence of anyone after Jesus Himself, yet it was Ananias who brought Paul the gospel message he needed to hear and who helped him understand the changes Jesus would bring to his life.

Sometimes when we look at the great figures of the Bible, we can be overwhelmed. Even though we understand that all of those heroes had their weaknesses (even Paul), we look at their powerful influence and wonder how we could ever be like them. When we think like this, we need to remember that we are not all called to be Pauls. For many of us, our call is more like that to Ananias: listen to Jesus, then go and minister in His name where we are placed. No matter what you are called to do by Christ, you can have a profound influence on the world through your faithful obedience.

The Baptist Faith and Message: IIA. God the Father (Part 2)

“God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. He is fatherly in His attitude toward all men.”

One of the glib truths often cited by people is that “we all have God as our Father, and we are all brothers.” There is an assumption that since God has created us, He also remains in a fatherly relationship to every person. It sounds so nice to our ears we just assume that the Bible teaches it.

Unfortunately, this isn’t what the Bible says. God is indeed a Father. First and foremost, He is the Father of Jesus, the Son, within the economy of the Trinity. The Bible reveals to us that those who stand in a right relationship to God are also His children. Jesus even taught His disciples to call God “Our Father” in prayer. Those who have their faith in Jesus Christ are adopted by God into His family (Romans 8:14-15). To do this, we must repent of our sin and rebellion against God and accept His way of salvation.

This is part of the meaning of the term “born again” as Jesus used it in John 3. Our original birth brought us into the world, but as part of humanity we came with a sinful human nature. (We’ll look at this topic more in a later post.) We aren’t just sinners by birth, though; we are also sinners by choice. We freely choose to pursue what we want rather than what God expects and commands from us. As a result, we are not part of the family of God, although we are a part of the human family. The “brotherhood of man” is a truth, but not one that brings us into a right relationship with God.

To our Western culture, this sounds bigoted, narrow-minded, and just plain wrong. If we say some people are not children of God, we may insult them or hurt their self-image. It doesn’t matter what is true, just what makes people feel good about themselves. People don’t want to face the consequences of their action, so they assume God will overlook “a few little faults” and let them into His family and into heaven.

It doesn’t matter how people feel about what the Bible reveals, however. If it is true that we must be “born again” to become part of God’s family, then we cannot find any other way to reach that goal. We cannot be part of a family whose Father we reject and openly defy. And frankly, why would you want to spend eternity with the One whose word you ignored and whose standards you broke whenever you chose?

Some might argue that even an earthly father can be reconciled to children who have rejected him or ignored what he wanted. Wouldn’t God be even more likely to want reconciliation? That is absolutely true. God has made it possible for us to be reconciled to Him through the work of Jesus. He won’t force us to be reconciled, though. We must choose to humble ourselves, repent of our sins, and accept His chosen means of reconciliation. Just as an earthly father can’t be reconciled to a child who refuses his advances, so God cannot be reconciled to those who reject His offer of reconciliation.

Now God does have a fatherly attitude toward all of humanity. He provides providential care for all, and He has made a way for all to become His children. But His fatherly attention is meant to draw us into a relationship with Him through Christ. Only then will He truly be our Father, as His Word reveals to us. 

Explore the Bible: Acts 8:9-24

The character of Simon the magician (called Simon Magus in early Christian literature) appears suddenly on the scene here in Acts 8, and just as quickly exits the Biblical narrative. Yet Simon gained a wide reputation among the early Christian writers as the father of Gnosticism and indeed many (if not all) heresies. We see a description of him in Rome attempting to lead people astray as early as the First Apology of Justin Martyr (chapter 26), where he is described as a wonder worker followed by many Samaritans and others. The early church father Irenaeus devotes several chapters of his Against Heresies to addressing Simon and his followers. Some apocryphal works describe multiple confrontations between Peter and Simon in Rome, with Peter always coming out on top. But how much of this early church tradition is true?

There is no doubt that writers like Justin and Irenaeus believed that they were reporting true accounts of Simon’s life and teaching. By the time of Irenaeus, a work purportedly by Simon, called The Great Declaration, was circulating among the Gnostics. Scholars who have studied this work see it as a precursor to what later became the school of the Gnostic teacher Valentinus, so it may have roots that go back much earlier. It seems likely that there was ahistorical Simon who was indeed a teacher of an early form of what later became known as Gnosticism. The question is, was this Simon the same as the Simon of the book of Acts?

As with many questions of this type, there is much debate, and some disagreement. Some believe that Simon, given his background and even his nickname, could certainly have become a leader of a heretical sect that took some of the teachings of Christianity and merged them with magical and philosophical ideas to create a new religion. Such a religion may well have prided itself on its own secret gnosis (from the Greek word for knowledge, and the term which gives us the name Gnotiscism), and attempted to promote itself as the true knowledge passed on by Jesus. The willingness of some scholars even today to find in Gnosticism a legitimate alternate form of Christianity shows us how powerful this draw can be.

Other scholars believe that the Simon who wrote and taught what we see in Justin and Irenaeus was a different person who probably lived somewhat later than the Simon of Acts. The story in Acts 8 led Christians to think of the two as the same person, so the later Simon was thought to be the one that Luke wrote about. Even with this idea, there is still thought to be an actual historical Simon. It is interesting that scholars who are skeptical that the teaching of the Gospels tells us anything true about Jesus are often willing to accept the 2^nd century Great Declaration as the actual teaching of Simon!

I think it quite possible that Simon, whose belief in the apostles’ teaching appears in Acts to be little more than a belief in a more powerful magic than he knew, could well have taken a few elements of what Philip, Peter, and John taught and merged them with his own magical beliefs to form a religion of his own, perhaps even one that claimed to follow secret teachings of this Jesus. Such teaching could have been developed by his followers (and I don’t rule out that one could even have been a later Simon) and merged with the growing Gnostic trends that came from Greek philosophy, Christian terminology, and other first and second century influences.

The story of Simon in Acts 8 isn’t so much about who he was as it is about what he was: a man who failed to grasp the truth of the grace of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the power of the Spirit. Simon had some kind of belief, even going so far as to be baptized, but he clearly didn’t understand the core of the gospel, the free gift of salvation through Jesus and the free gift of the indwelling Spirit. Peter warned him, and gave him the opportunity to repent, but we never read that Simon did. The stories that rose about him in later Christian tradition suggest he never came to repentance. We must be sure that our “belief” isn’t just an outward show in church or in some habitual practices, but that we have truly come to know the life-giving freedom that comes in Christ through the message of the gospel.

The Baptist Faith and Message: IIA. God the Father (Part 1)

“God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. He is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and all wise.”

The doctrine of the Trinity tells us that each of the persons of the Trinity work together, but also that each has specific areas for which they have freely chosen to be responsible. We must be careful about drawing some of these lines too firmly, for there is what we might see as overlap between these responsibilities. Theologians use the term “economy” to describe the relation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

God the Father is the primary mover in creation and providence. While both the Son and the Holy Spirit have roles in this, the Bible depicts the Father as the prime mover and initiator. The entire universe, our own world, and every creature is the product of God’s creation. The early chapters of Genesis describe God’s creative word, and throughout both the Old and New Testaments we see many references to God as the Creator and the world and humanity as His creation. We see in Romans 1 that creation serves as a visible evidence of the reality of God.

God did not simply create the universe and leave it to run on its own. He also watches over His creation, sustaining it and both keeping watch over it and intervening in the flow of history. We call this care “providence.” This general care is provided for all, both those who follow God and those who do not. Providence is the product of the grace of God, given to humanity to show us His love and compassion.

The flow of history, particularly human history, is also cared for by God. The Father knows every event that happens. We must not think of this as God moving through time with us. As part of His creation, God created time, so He isn’t bound by what we perceive as the movement of time. This is another one of those teachings that we, as humans, can’t fully grasp since we are ourselves “stuck” in time. It does remind us that God is beyond our human comprehension, and that He is greater than anything we can comprehend or control.

God’s creation, providence, and oversight of history are enabled by His attributes. We looked at some of the attributes of God in a previous post. Here in this article His power, knowledge, love, and wisdom are mentioned. These affect the specific works of the Father mentioned here. It is important for us to remember that the attributes of God are not just theological constructs, but elements of His person that help us understand who He is and how is able to do all that He does.

Knowing that God is the initiator of creation, watches over us with providential care, and is involved in the flow of our history should provide comfort for us, since this shows us we are not alone in the universe. It also serves as a caution for us, since it reminds us that God sees and knows everything we do, say, and think. The power of God, revealed through His creation and care, keeps and sustains us through our lives.

Explore the Bible: Acts 5:35-39

Luke introduces us in this passage to Gamaliel, the great rabbi who flourished around the time of Jesus and the early church. Gamaliel had a reputation for piety and was recognized as one of the ablest teachers of the Law in his day. He was a grandson of Hillel, one of the two great rabbis (along with Shammai) whose opinions framed much Jewish theological debate. The respect in which he was held is seen in this passage, as the Sadducees stop the proceedings, send the apostles out of the room, and listen as he speaks. His advice about the apostles is followed, although with the addition of a severe flogging.

Some scholars have questioned the historicity of this passage. They present two basic objections. The first is questioning how Luke could have gained knowledge of these proceedings, given that the apostles were not present. It is not difficult to see how Luke could have gotten information about this, however, First, it is possible that Saul (later Paul), a student of Gamliel, was present at this time. He may even have been a member of the Sanhedrin, since he speaks in Acts 26:10 of casting a vote to condemn Christians. Even if Paul was not there, in Acts 6:7 we are told a large number of priests became Christians, and among them may well have been someone who was either present at this trial or who heard the story of it from someone who was. Luke was a careful researcher, so presuming he had a source for this account is entirely in line with what we know of his work.

The second, more serious, issue is Gamliel’s use of the examples of Theudas and Judas. Josephus mentions an uprising led by Theudas in about AD 46 in his Antiquities (XX.5.1). This would be well after the time Gamaliel gave the speech recorded here in Acts 5. In Josephus’ account, the sons of Judas are mentioned as creating trouble after Theudas’ revolt, so some scholars believe Luke misread what Josephus wrote and had Gamaliel commit an anachronism by speaking of a revolt that had not yet occurred.

The difficulty with that interpretation is that Josephus’ Antiquities was not published until AD 94.  Luke was probably written around AD 62 (since Paul is still in prison in Rome at then end of the book), more than 30 years earlier. Even most liberal critical scholars date Luke to around 80-90, still too early for him to have read Josephus.

The most likely solution to this issue is that Gamaliel refers to an otherwise unknown Theudas, who led a revolt around the time of the death of Herod the Great. There were many disturbances during this time, and we know the names of only a few who led revolts. Theudas was not an uncommon name in the early first century, so it could well be that Gamaliel knew something we have lost. While this solution is not absolutely certain, it makes more sense than assuming Luke used a book he couldn’t have read.

One other question about this passage that is sometimes raised is how a tolerant and patient man like Gamaliel could have been the teacher of the zealous persecutor Saul. Yet teachers today know that their students don’t always accept everything they are taught, but often make up their own minds based on information or ideas they have gained elsewhere. We will see Gamaliel’s student confront Christians in a much more hostile way (if he was present at this trial, I’m sure he approved of the flogging). Yet it is the violent Saul rather than the peaceful Gamaliel who will become one of God’s great instruments in the spread of the Gospel throughout the Roman world.

Explore the Bible: Acts 4:32-37

Squeezed in between the account of the onset of persecution and the story of Ananias and Sapphira is this short description of life in the early church. Given that many of early Christiands living in Jerusalem were not from the city or its environs, there was a need to find a way to take care of their physical needs. The powerful work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts, minds, and lives of the believers led them to treat each other as extended family. (It is possible, though not stated here, that some who followed Jesus may have become ostracized from their more traditionally Jewish families.) The members of the fledgling church took care of each other by sharing what they had with those who had need.

This picture of the early church is often used to promote a political system. Some say the church pioneered a form of communism; others call it socialism. In truth, it is neither of these, nor any other political system. This passage describes the voluntary sharing of wealth with fellow believers who had needs under the influence of the Holy Spirit due to a commitment to the teaching of the apostles about Jesus. There is no government involvement here, not even a church government. There is not only no hint of coercion, which is required by a political system, we don’t even read of a suggestion by the apostles or anyone else that this be done. It was apparently a spontaneous reaction to the joy found in coming to Jesus through the preaching of the gospel,

While this isn’t something that was forced, the example of the early Christians should serve to show us the kind of generosity believers ought to be known for. Nothing that we own belongs to us in any ultimate sense. Everything we own is a gift from God, and we need to see it that way. Christians should not have to wait for a secular government or a church body to tell us to share what we have with others and to have compassion on those in need.

One generous giver is highlighted in these verses. Joseph, who had been born in Cyprus and was from the tribe of Levi, now resided in Jerusalem or its vicinity. He was wealthy enough to own land, and well-known enough that the disciples gave him another name: Barnabas, the “son of encouragement.” As we will see later in the book of Acts, he was a man who was highly respected and who had the ability to see the best in other people. Here Barnabas brings the proceeds of his land sale to the apostles and gives it to them completely and freely for use in the care of those in need. There was no requirement that he sell the field, nor that he give everything he received for the field to the church. This was an act of compassion, love, and grace by one who had been touched by Christ.

It may seem like just a passing mention, but this passage sets up the encounter between Peter and Ananias and Sapphira. It is the display of generosity by Barnabas (and, presumably, others like him) that tempts Ananias and Sapphira to gain credit for themselves by pretending to do the same thing. Again, they were under no compulsion to sell their land, nor did they have to give all of it to the apostles. Yet the desire to be seen to be as spiritual as Barnabas led them to misrepresent themselves before Peter and the church, and to attempt to lie even to the Holy Spirit.

Both Barnabas and Ananias and Sapphira served as examples to the early church. As we live our own Christian lives out before others, especially our brothers and sisters in Christ, we should watch carefully what kind of example we set. Not only is God watching all that we do, but often others are as well. We might even be the example someone who is new to the faith is looking at to see how someone who claims to be a Christian lives. While we won’t be perfect in this life, we can seek to be sons and daughters of encouragement for those around us by living out grace, compassion, and truth every day.

The Baptist Faith and Message: II. God (Part 4)

“The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.”

If you asked most Christians, maybe even most people who have heard of Christianity, what the single most difficult teaching to understand is, you’d probably get an overwhelming consensus that it is the doctrine of the Trinity. The statement of the doctrine is simple, and this article gives it in a clear and concise form. What is hard to understand is what it means to worship one God who is three distinct Persons but only one essence. Was human beings, we have no mental category for such an idea.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been such a vexing issue for some throughout the history of the church that it has led to many teachings that deny its reality. Some think the three Persons are just different modes of God revealing Himself, not fully distinct persons. Others teach that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are actually subordinate gods, not one in essence with the Father. Still others simply deny the doctrine altogether, and believe that Jesus was a man adopted by God as the Son and that the Holy Spirit is just the power of God in action. Each of these ideas come from attempts to grasp the doctrine of God and of the Trinity in a way that makes sense to humanity.

The divine Trinity stands in contrast to the teachings about God or the gods in other religions. Judaism and Islam teach the absolute unity of God; they do not see any way that God can be “divided” into three Persons and still be one God. Religions like Hinduism have no problem with the concept of more than one god, but each of these gods is a fully separate and distinct essence as well as person. Many Eastern religions have a very impersonal conception of the ultimate One, which may emanate in a number of distinct forms in our current world, but which will ultimately reclaim its absolute oneness. None of these religions can accept the Christian formulation of the Trinity.

Many point out that the term “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, and they are right. However, the concept is found in a number of passages (such as Matthew 3: 16-17; 28:19-20; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2). There is a sense in which the doctrine could be said to have developed from the understanding of the apostles and the Biblical writers, who understood the Jewish concept of God yet accepted both Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God. The lack of a specific term does not make a doctrine unbiblical; other terms not found in the Bible, such as inerrancy, sacrament/ordinance, omnipotence, and omniscience, are also used by theologians to describe Biblical teachings.

As a seminary student, I searched, studied, and thought hard and often of how to understand the Trinity and explain it to people. As an older minister now, I am not only comfortable with the idea of mysteriousness of the Trinity, but I actually have come to believe that it is necessary that God be beyond our human understanding in order for Him to be God. If we could grasp the essence of God, that would make Him like us, only with more power. We would believe God to be the ultimate expression of everything we as humans hope to be, but not as someone far beyond our conception. In a real sense, only a God who is beyond our human understanding is worthy of acceptance as God.

The fact that God is beyond our ability to fully grasp does not mean that God is totally inexplicable or impossible to understand at any level. The Bible gives us His own revelation of Himself, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is, of course, something we can state and believe, drawing from the teaching of Scripture, even if we can’t figure out just exactly how all of that works. (I’ll even go further for myself-I don’t believe that we’ll ever fully grasp the essence of God, even in Heaven, and that’s a good thing.) We are called on to believe in God as He is revealed in His Word, and to have faith that goes beyond what we as limited, finite humans can grasp with our limited, finite minds.

The doctrine of the Trinity is truly a mystery taught to us in Scripture, but that very teaching reveals a God who is beyond us and worthy of our worship. At the same time, as we will see, the Bible teaches us that this immense, infinite God is also involved in our world and in our lives, and wants us to be a part of His eternal family. Far from being a hindrance to our faith, the doctrine of the Trinity should encourage us that our God is indeed One worthy of our faith, our praise, and our obedience.

Explore the Bible: Acts 3:1-2

Chapters 3 and 4 of Acts center on a miracle performed in the name of Jesus in the Temple. We don’t know exactly how long after the events of Acts 2 this took place, but the impression left by the Biblical account is that it wasn’t long after Pentecost. This is particularly true if the number 5000 mentioned in 4:4 is the total number of believers, rather than a new group of 5000. (I lean toward the first interpretation, for reasons I won’t expand on here.) Thus, it comes at a time when the city of Jerusalem is still widely aware of the events of Jesus’ crucifixion and people are beginning to hear that this Jesus is still alive. Many have believed, but God also used miracles to bring opportunities to preach the Gospel and to validate the message of the apostles.

One question raised about this miracle is exactly where it took place. It was definitely in the Temple precincts, but the specifics given in the text aren’t as obvious to us as we might like. Luke tells us that the lame beggar was carried to the “Beautiful Gate” of the Temple. However, no gate had as its given name “Beautiful.” The name was probably a popular nickname for one of the gates of the Temple. Knowing which gate Luke meant gives us some insight into both the possible audience for the miracle and how the events following the lame man’s healing flowed.

The prime candidate for the “Beautiful Gate” is the gate that led from the outer Court of the Gentiles to the Court of Women, which was the beginning of the actual sacred space of the Temple. Gentiles were not allowed to progress beyond this gate, and warning signs were posted threatening death to any who dared. This was the Nicanor Gate, which was unusual in that it was covered with Corinthians bronze instead of gold or silver. While scholars aren’t certain, this is likely the gate Josephus refers to in “The Jewish War” as being more valuable than the other gates covered in silver or bronze (5.5.3). If this were the case, it must have been a beautiful gate indeed, and to have earned that designation from those who attended at the Temple. It would also explain why the lame man chose that location to beg; if it was at the entrance to the Temple proper, he would encounter many Jews going in to worship who might be more inclined to bestow alms on a poor man as a good deed.

If this was the gate, the narrative flow would look like this:

1) Peter and John, entering the Temple from the Court of the Gentiles, see the beggar there and heal him in the name of Jesus.

2) The man joins Peter and John in entering the Temple, where they would have participated in the afternoon prayers. For the lame man, this might have been his first time to go into the actual Temple.

3) As they left, the people, who recognized the man and had seen him enter the Temple praising God, crowd around Peter, John, and the man in one of the exterior porticos, Solomon’s Colonnade. As this crowd gathers, Peter begins to preach.

4) Given that they were still within the outer courts of the Temple, word would spread to someone who would report to the priests, who sent our representatives to stop Peter’s sermon, which was accomplished by arresting Peter and John.

While this is not the only possible solution to the location of the healing of the lame man, it does make sense and provide a reasonable flow of events. If Peter was preaching in Solomon’s Colonnade, a significant crowd could have gathered, resulting in another large response to the Gospel message. The church continued to grow, but now began to face serious opposition from the leaders of the Temple. This account also shows us the Spirit-filled boldness of Peter, which should inspire us to be bold as we face opposition to the Gospel in our own witness.

NOTE: There is a nice schematic plan of Herod’s Temple on the Bible History Online web site. 

The Baptist Faith and Message: II. God (Part 3)

While the Baptist Faith and Message does not cover all of the attributes of God, I think it is good to take a look at a list of many of His attributes. Theologians don’t agree on the exact list of divine attributes, but these are some that occur on most lists, although they may be called by another name. The attributes of God are also broken into categories differently by theologians. Some divide them between “communicable” (attributes that can be shared by some degree with humans) and “incommunicable” (attributes that apply to God alone); others distinguish between God’s “natural” (referring to those that describe His essential nature) and “moral” (those that describe His interpersonal nature) attributes. For this post, I’m just going to list some attributes, without breaking them into categories. This isn’t an exhaustive list, just a mention of some significant attributes. The verses discussed also do not provide an extensive list of passages supporting each attribute, but a representative sample.

Some of the attributes of God besides holiness, omnipotence, and omniscience (covered in the previous post) are:

Self-existence: God’s existence does not depend on anyone or anything other than Himself. The name I AM suggests this fundamental eternal existence.

Immensity: God is beyond the confines of the universe. In 2 Chronicles 6:18 Solomon recognizes that nothing can contain God.

Eternity: God always was, is, and will be. He is not bound by time, since He is the Creator of time. Romans 1:20 speaks to the way creation reveals His eternal nature.

Immutability: God does not change in His essential nature. While He may choose to carry out His plans in a variety of ways, who He is truly is remains the same. This immutability ensures that God is faithful to Himself and His purposes (Malachi 3:6).

Righteousness: God always upholds the right over the wrong. Even in planning our salvation, the righteousness of God was maintained through the sacrifice of Jesus (Romans 10:1-13).

Love: God has eternally existed in a relationship of love (which we will look at later in this series), and everything He does is done in love (1 John 4:7-10).

Truth: God Himself is the standard of what is true. In Isaiah 45:18-19 He declares that He speaks the truth and declares what is right.

Each of these attributes could use an entire post for itself. (You can find entire books devoted to some of these!) This brief look just gives us a glimpse of who and what God is. We will see some of these attributes again as we continue our look in future posts at what the Baptist Faith and Message says about God.

Why did Jesus suffer?

[Note: This was originally posted on my blog on my home church's web site. I thought I would also post it here, even though Good Friday is past.]

Why do we observe Good Friday? When we think about the audacity of human beings to torture and kill God incarnate, our minds are unable to fathom a reason why this could happen. The suffering and death of Jesus Christ is the darkest moment in human history, yet we call this day "good."

In 1 Peter 3:14-18, we find Peter making a connection between the suffering we experience as Christians and the suffering of Jesus. We read: "But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit."

Peter tells us that Jesus suffered for our sins. He, who was perfectly righteous, took on the sins of us, who are unrighteous, so He could bring us to God. Think about that. The way to God is a way of suffering. In order for us to be restored to God, our sins required judgment, and that judgment cam through suffering. Yet we do not have to face the judgment for our sins ourselves, because Jesus did the suffering for us.

This passage also points out the way we should react to suffering in our lives. If we are suffering because we have done wrong, we have no complaint; we get what we deserve. But if we suffer for doing what is right, we suffer in a very faint imitation of our Lord. He took on suffering that He did not deserve so we could be made right with God. We can take our suffering in stride because we know that Jesus has experienced suffering and understands what we are going through, even as He goes through it with us.

For me, the most moving service of our church year at CNCC is our Good Friday service. As we sit and listen to prophetic Scriptures and an account of the death of Christ, and as the darkness slowly envelopes the sanctuary, we are brought in a symbolic way into reflection on the terrible cost of our salvation. We are brought face to face with the agony of our Lord, even if it is only in a small measure, and reminded that the grace which gives us a salvation we did not deserve through faith in Jesus comes because He took a judgment He did not deserve on Himself.

Easter is coming shortly. We rejoice at the resurrection triumph of Christ, and often can't wait to get to the celebration of life over death and grace over sin. In our desire to celebrate, however, let's not rush past the cross and the tomb. The joy of Easter only comes because of the sorrow of Good Friday. We experience the "good" of salvation because of the "bad" of the killing of the Savior. Enter into the darkness for a while, and remind yourself of the price paid for you to be made right with your God.

Explore the Bible: Luke 24:5-8

The gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection focus on different details. Some look at this and see contradictions, but the four descriptions of the resurrection can be woven together into a single account. The process isn’t as easy as doing a cut-and-paste document throwing all the phraseology of each author together, but many scholars and teachers have made satisfactory renderings of the resurrection story. (I’ve dealt with some of the issues surrounding harmonizing the resurrection accounts in a paper I posted on my “Pastor Steve’s Study” web site.) Each gospel writer has specific emphases that they wish to make, so they focus on those details that fit what they want to say, without contradicting what the other gospel writers have written.

Luke in particular would likely have been aware of other accounts of the resurrection, given his interest in researching the subject of Jesus’ life and teaching. Matthew and Mark had likely already written their gospels (in fact, many scholars think Luke was dependent on Mark and at least a common source with Matthew), and while John would not write his gospel for a number of years the material of his account may have been in circulation. It is hard to imagine Luke deliberately allowing his account to contradict what he knew others had written and taught.

There is an interesting detail in Luke’s account that is not included in the others. When the women come to the tomb, they encounter two angels. One of them speaks to the women, beginning by announcing that Jesus was alive. Luke goes on to record more that the angel said: “Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, ‘The Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and rise on the third day’?” And they remembered His words.” (Luke 24:6-8, HCSB) Luke tells us that the first reminder of Jesus’ words about Himself to His followers was given by the angel to the women at the tomb.

Why would Luke alone record this detail? We certainly see Jesus saying similar things to His disciples when He appears to them in the other gospel accounts. If we look at Luke 24, though, we see that he moves from the angels’ appearance at the empty tomb and Peter’s confirmation to the account of Jesus’ appearance to two of His followers on the road to Emmaus. As they conversed, Jesus rebuked them in these words: “How unwise and slow you are to believe in your hearts all that the prophets have spoken! Didn’t the Messiah have to suffer these things and enter into His glory?” (Luke 24:25-26, HCSB) Jesus goes on to teach them from the Scriptures (our Old Testament) about Himself.

Luke’s resurrection account sets up his extended account of the Emmaus road encounter (which is briefly mentioned by Mark, and not recorded in the other gospels). It is interesting that the gospel writer who was probably a Gentile writing to someone who also was likely Greek or Roman points to the prophetic words of Jesus and of the prophets to make the case for Jesus as the Messiah. Luke clearly wants to establish the fact that in His suffering, death, and resurrection Jesus was the fulfillment of the expectations of the Jews. Yet in both his gospel and in Acts, Luke goes on to Jesus’ words of commission to take the gospel to all nations.

The resurrection of Jesus was a confirmation of His role as the Messiah of the Jews, but it also was a sign to everyone in the world that this Messiah was not only for the Jews, but for all people. The death of Jesus was no accident, but God’s plan to provide for our salvation. The resurrection and Jesus’ appearances after it were verification that His sacrifice for us was approved by His Father, and that now through faith in Him we can be made right with God. As we read about the Passion of Christ, and about His glorious Resurrection, let’s remember what that means for us as His followers today.

Explore the Bible: Acts 2:41-42

There are many functions that are carried out by a church that is following Jesus Christ. You can find many lists of what these functions are, as classified by whomever is making the list. If you read enough church studies literature, you see that these lists tend to emphasize the same few functions, although they may use different terminology for them.

When we look at Acts 2:41-47, we see a number of these functions practiced by the very first “church” (even before they called themselves a church). Fellowship, worship (including Communion), prayer, ministry, and evangelism were all practiced by the first believers. Some of these practices continued in their Jewish tradition, since the followers of Jesus would have still considered themselves Jews at this point. Others were new practices instituted by the Lord Himself, or encouraged by the situation of these new believers.

I find it interesting that the first function, however, is devotion to the apostles’ teaching. In the first days of the church, there would be little understanding of just what had happened to convince the disciples that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The early followers of Jesus were Jews, and knew to at least some degree what the Scriptures taught. Their Bible was what we call the Old Testament, for the New Testament was years away from being written. I believe that the apostles did with the Jewish Scriptures just what Jesus had done on the road to Emmaus, opening the Scriptures and showing how they spoke of Him.

The apostles could add another element to their teaching. They had travelled with Jesus, sat at His feet, seen His great miracles, and ultimately witnessed His death, resurrection, and ascension. They could give eyewitness testimony to the life, ministry, and Passion of Jesus. Even at this early date, their stories and teaching probably started to take on the form that would later be written in the Gospels as they taught the life of Christ over and over as new converts joined the church.

We do not have the apostles around to teach us about Jesus in person anymore. Yet we still have their teaching available through the inspired writings they gave us through the Holy Spirit. This is vitally important, because without this teaching we would know little to nothing about Jesus. One hymn tells us that “the Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord,” but without the Gospel accounts left by the apostles and their associates we would not know the truth about Him, nor would we know what He had done to save us.

A healthy church will balance all of the functions laid out for us in Scripture, but without a devotion to the truth taught in God’s Word we will simply be a group that is busy doing things without understanding why we do them. All that we do must be founded on truth-ultimately the essential truth of the Triune Godhead, but a truth that is mediated to us through the inspired Word given to us by God. May everything we do as Christians and as churches be built on this God-given foundation so we may honor our Lord and see His truth in action through us.

The Baptist Faith and Message: II. God (Part 2)

IIb. “God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience.”

In revealing His name to Moses, God chose to use “I AM.” That name expresses the infinity of His existence, for God always was, is, and always will be. Because God “is,” everything that He is also is infinite. This statement singles out His holiness, an attribute that tells us why sin cannot endure in His presence. Since God is infinitely holy, all sin is an infinite offense against His very person. This has implications for some of the doctrines we will see later in this statement of faith.

Although this article doesn’t spell out all of God’s attributes, it does state that all of them are infinite perfections. We see here a statement about God’s power and knowledge. The theological terms we use for these are “omnipotence” (all-powerful) and “omniscience” (all-knowing).  Since He possesses these infinite attributes, God knows all things in all times. We don’t know exactly how God interacts with time; He created it, and stands outside of what we call “history,” yet He also chooses to act in that history. I like the way this article presents both sides of the ongoing debate over God’s sovereignty and human will, by stating what I believe is the Biblical teaching that our decisions are free, yet God knows from all eternity exactly what those decisions are.

There are many others attributes of God that are not listed in this article. In my next post, I will list and define some of these attributes. What is said here is that whatever God is and whatever He is like, He is the perfect expression of that attribute. He has always been and always will be who and what He is. Some contemporary theologians suggest that God changes along with His creation, and that He interacts with humanity so that we progress together to the ultimate goal of the universe. The Bible, however, presents us with an eternal, unchanging God, giving us grounds to trust that He will always be who He is when we come to Him, and that He will be faithful to His word.

Because God is infinite in holiness, power, and knowledge (not to mention everything we’ll look at later), He is not only worthy of our praise, but is owed our praise. One day every creature will indeed bow their knee to Him (Philippians 2:10-11), but it is the duty of every one to honor and glorify their Creator. It is also our duty to obey God. I am teaching on Psalm 119 at my church right now, and throughout that psalm we see the benefits of reading, knowing, studying, and obeying the Word of God. We are free to choose to disobey, however, but all disobedience is not only breaking God’s law, but rejecting our relationship to our Creator.

Certainly we understand that we don’t always obey God perfectly, and that growing to be like Christ is a lifelong process. As we get to know God better, and more fully understand who He is and what He is like, we should find it easier to give Him the honor and obedience He is due. Looking at our lives, we need to evaluate if we are learning to know God better, loving Him more, and honoring and obeying Him more consistently. Our knee should bow willingly, not under compulsion, as we see the infinite perfection of our God.

Explore the Bible: Acts 2:1-12

One of the questions raised as you read Acts 2 is just where the followers of Jesus were when the Holy Spirit descended. Traditionally, most scholars have held that they were in a room together, most likely the same room mentioned in Acts 1:13. Such a room must have been large (it held 120 people) and located in Jerusalem somewhere not far from the Temple area. It has been speculated that it would have been in the poorer part of town, since most of the followers of Jesus were from the working class and were visitors who had been in the city for almost two months.

A few scholars, however, argue that the coming of the Holy Spirit happened in the Temple itself. They point out that the word “house” is sometimes applied to the Temple, and that there was certainly room in the Temple courts for 120 people to gather. The time given in verse 15, 9:00 AM, suggests that the disciples would have already have gone to the Temple to observe the festival. If this is the case, then the coming of the Spirit would have been heard and seen by a huge throng at the Temple and in its vicinity, which could explain the amazement of the crowd and the powerful response to Peter’s preaching.

As attractive as this idea is, I think there are two facts in the text that make it unlikely. The first is that the group is described as “sitting” in the house where they were. Worshippers would not have been sitting in the Temple on a feast day; they would have been standing amidst a mass of people gathered for the feast. The Greek word translated “sitting” does have a secondary meaning of “staying” or “dwelling,” but the more common translation seems to be appropriate here.

The second factor that tells against the Temple theory is that we do not read that the crowd was amazed by the visible and audible phenomena that surrounded the descent of the Holy Spirit. Rather, they were amazed by the fact that the followers of Jesus, although distinctly Galilean, were speaking in their own native languages, and this all at the same time. Those who derided them as drunk may have been natives who, of course, only heard them speaking Aramaic or Hebrew, the common languages of Israel. It was this phenomenon that drew the crowd and attracted their attention.

I think the most likely scenario goes like this: The followers of Jesus were gathered in an upper room not far from the Temple. Sometime before 9:00 AM, perhaps as they were preparing to leave to go to the Temple, the Holy Spirit came with audible and visible signs, and as they began to talk about what was happening they were intelligible to all people in their native languages. (This is often seen as a reversal of Babel.) As they went out in the street and moved toward the Temple, they began to attract a crowd of amazed onlookers, Jews from all over the Roman and Parthian empires. Peter rose to the occasion, and the Spirit moved the crowd through Peter’s preaching so that 3000 people responded and were saved.

Whatever the facts are, we can see that the power of the Holy Spirit, coming at Pentecost, brought about conviction of sin and conversion of hearts. The same Spirit is still at work today, and we should not be surprised when, in any place and at any time, we see Him working in power today to draw people to Jesus and to bring salvation to any who yield to Him.

The Baptist Faith and Message: II. God (Part 1)

IIa. “There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe.”

"Who (or what) is God?" Almost everyone asks themselves this question, even if it's just to answer with skepticism that there even is a God. There are many different conceptions of God in the world today. Despite common sayings, these ideas about God cannot all be correct, since they differ widely in what they say God, the gods, or the Ultimate is. Their beliefs about God are so different that they are incompatible, no matter what cute bumper stickers about "Coexisting" may imply.

The religions of the world are often broken down into categories by the number and nature of the gods they worship. Christianity worships one God, so it is called a “monotheistic” religion. This follows from the Jewish belief about God expressed in the Sh’ma: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4) Nothing else is god, neither the idols worshipped by the nations around Israel in the past nor the spiritual and material interests that drive humanity today. God is the one true and existing God, as expressed in the name He revealed to Moses, I AM (Exodus 3:14).

Our God is a living and personal God. He is not an impersonal force, nor is He some kind of indefinable “oneness” which is part of everything. He exists with His own thoughts, personality, and attributes (which we will cover in a future post). God is intelligent, which means He is able to think, to plan, and to communicate with Himself and with His creatures. He is the Designer and Creator of the universe, which can be observed to reflect His design and purpose (Psalm 19:1-3). He is spiritual, living not in a body but as a spirit (John 4:24). When Biblical authors use anthropomorphic language, which describes God in human terms, such language is an analogy, not a description of the reality of God. God is also personal, having the ability to relate to Himself and to His creation through His personality rather than as a mere directive force.

While God is the Creator, He did not stop with making the universe and His ultimate creation, humanity. God is also the preserver of His creation, enabling it to continue in its existence and order (Acts 17:27-28). He is the absolute Ruler over His universe, a fact reflected in the traditional beginning a many Jewish prayers: “Blessed are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe.” This understanding of God as King carries over in the New Testament with the ascription to Jesus as “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” (Revelation 19:16).

Perhaps most significantly to us, God is also our Redeemer. This redemption began with the announcement at the Fall of a “seed of the woman” who would conquer Satan, and was continually demonstrated in God’s mighty acts on behalf of His people, Israel. The great act of redemption in the OT, the Exodus, demonstrated God’s power and care for His people. The ultimate act of redemption came in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Later articles of our statement of faith will explore redemption further, but here we simply say that the redemption of humanity is all due to the power and grace of the one true and living God.

Explore the Bible: Acts 1:15-25

In the period between the Ascension of Jesus and Pentecost, we have one action taken by the early church recorded in Acts. Peter called the gathered followers of Jesus to select an apostolic replacement for Judas. This little incident has caused quite a bit of controversy, and there are a number of opinions about just what this episode means.

There are some who think the early church jumped the gun. They point to Paul’s call as an apostle, and claim that he was meant to be Judas’ replacement. However, this argument rests on the faulty assumption that Paul’s apostleship was the same thing as that of the disciples. When we look at the qualifications Peter laid out for Judas’ successor, we see that Paul met neither of them. Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ came well after He had ascended into heaven. Therefore Paul, while legitimately an apostle, was an apostle in a different sense than the Twelve.

Some questions are raised about the way the church chose the new apostle. Given the qualifications stated by Peter, there would have been a number of men qualified to take Judas’ place. It is likely (though not explicitly stated in Scripture) that Joseph and Matthias were both  part of the larger group of disciples (70 or 72) sent out by Jesus, as recorded by Luke in Luke 10. That means there were probably several dozen others who met the minimum criteria! Something about these two stood out, however, as the group gathered together examined all of the men. If the “they” of verse 23 is the entire group, which I think is likely, the decision probably came down to these final two men.

Once the final candidates were chosen, the church decided to make the selection not by a vote or a decree of the apostles, but by lot. This seems odd to us today; would you call a pastor based on the flip of a coin? But the church wanted this decision, which had tremendous consequences for these men and for the new congregation forming, to be the Lord’s choice. The use of lots may reflect the way the high priest would seek the Lord’s counsel through the use of the Urim and Thummim (whose precise function we don’t know). It also reflected their belief that even what seems to be chance to us is in fact controlled by God. They cast the lot, and Matthias was chosen.

While Judas was replaced among the Twelve, this is the last time that this happens. When James is executed by Herod, there is no replacement sought for him. Nor do we see any of the other apostles replaced after their deaths. Why, then, did Peter call for a successor to Judas? First, he cites prophecy, but I think more significant is the statement in verse 25: “to take the place in this apostolic service that Judas left to go to his own place.” Taken together, there was a sense that Judas had abandoned his place among the apostles, and that there was a need to complete the number Jesus had chosen. When the apostles later died, they died still in their place, having remained faithful until the end.

This leaves us with the question of what this scenario means to us today. Certainly decision making in the church has changed since the coming of the Holy Spirit, something they did not yet have. I think that the choices made, and even the procedure used, show us that the earliest followers of Jesus did not want to put their own thinking and wisdom ahead of God’s will when making choices. There was a dependence on the Lord and His wisdom that we in the church can sometimes neglect in favor of our own ideas. While I certainly don’t advocate tossing dice to solve church problems, I do think we need to keep a constant awareness of God’s will and wisdom, and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us into His truth, not ours.