What Must a Christian Believe?
One of the debates that circulates around Christian church circles has to do with what that core body of information happens to be to which all Christians must assent. There are many who would say that the Apostles’ Creed stands as the most basic test of the Christian faith. Yet, I think that we would all agree that there are essentials to the faith that the Apostles’ Creed does not cover: the inspiration of Scripture, the dual nature of Christ, that we are justified by Grace through faith alone, etc… Further, most Mormons that I have interacted with will claim to affirm the Apostles’ Creed, though arguably there are differences by way of definition. So, while the Apostles’ Creed clearly provides a starting point, it is by no means able to stand on its own.
The Heidelberg Catechism addresses this very question prior to launching into a long exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. Question 22 asks: “What then must a Christian believe?” The answer is: “All that is promised to us in the Gospel, which are taught in summary in the articles of the universal Christian faith.” In other words, the Apostles’ Creed is at best a summary that needs clarification, thus questions 23-58 provide that clarification within the Heidelberg Catechism.
But what does it mean when it says, “All that is promised to us in the Gospel”? To answer that question, we must first address the question of what the Gospel is. Certainly, we use the word to refer to a variety of things. Our Bibles contain four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that are explicitly referred to as “Gospels.” Further, when we speak to others about the “Gospel,” what we usually mean is explaining the basis of the Christian faith — man is a sinner in need of redeeming (and cannot redeem himself); Jesus, who had no sin and is the Son of God, came and died a substitutionary death for all who believe; so, repent and believe and you can share in this eternal promise…
Yet, on the most basic level, the word “Gospel” means “good news.” And where can this good news be found? It can only be found in the Bible. What is the good news? The good news is that though man is rebellious and fallen from the beginning, God had ordained a plan to redeem an elect people for himself through faith in His Son, Jesus. Where is that found? In the Bible. It is found in all of the Bible. The Old Testament lays the foundation for and prefigures the work of Christ in the New Testament, and the New Testament makes little sense unless rooted firmly in the Old. It is one complete book that contains and records the complete revelation of God. It is indispensable to the Christian faith…all of it. And thus, Heidelberg states unambiguously that we must believe all of the promises contained in he Gospel.
I think that it is high time, as a church, that we make a commitment to the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy the test of orthodoxy. Of course, that leaves a lot of people that we know, love, and care about in the cold. Then again, did Jesus not say that it is those who keep his commandments that love him (John 14:21)? Did Jesus not say that all authority in heaven and on earth is his (Matthew 28:18)? Does Moses not say that this Word was our very life (Deuteronomy 32:47) and that man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3)? Every word… And does not Peter point out that all things that pertain to life and godliness come to us through the knowledge of God (2 Peter 1:3)? And how shall we have knowledge of God apart from embracing the Scriptures? Without the Scriptures we could know nothing about the God we worship. And since men are not qualified to give counsel to God (Romans 11:33-36), of which part of Scripture can man say to God, “I do not need this”? No, it is all breathed out by God to equip us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
So, what am I suggesting? I am suggesting that the test of orthodoxy be that the Scriptures are inspired by God in the original manuscripts (every word and letter — what is called “plenary inspiration”) and are thus inerrant (without error and without the possibility of error in what they teach) and are infallible (they will not fail the one who puts their trust in them). It is a commitment to the whole counsel of God that we must look to and our friends in the community who might believe otherwise may very well not be Christians as they are not being Christian as the Bible so presents.
Does this mean that we shut out as heretics everyone who disagrees with us? No. There are certainly areas of disagreement that take place within the orthodox church, areas where believers with a commitment to inerrancy have honest disagreements. Further, there may very well be some genuine believers who are being deluded into error by the false churches they attend. While in the first case, we can discuss and debate and not break fellowship, in the second case, we evangelize, we make an apologetic, and we try and sway those friends attending bad churches to seek out a church that upholds the Bible. It is by this manner that we add light and clarity to the muddled mess of our watered-down and politically correct church environment.
Satisfaction and Vanity
“Thus, I became great and I did more than all of those who were before me in Jerusalem. Indeed, wisdom accompanied me. All that my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I did not withhold any joy from my heart from all of my toil and this was my share from all of my labors. Then I turned away from all the work my hands had done and from my exertions in doing it and I beheld that all was vanity and exasperates the spirit; nothing was gained under the sun.”
(Ecclesiastes 2:9-11)
It is true, there is a great deal of satisfaction that comes from the completion of hard day’s work. One of the things I enjoyed, during the little over a decade that I installed carpet vocationally, was that by the end of the day, I could look back with satisfaction at the transformation that we wrought in a person’s home…new carpet will do that. Solomon is saying to us, “look folks, I understand the satisfaction — the joy — that comes from one’s labors and from the pursuit of every earthly pleasure that is under the sun, but…”
It’s always the “but” that gets to us, isn’t it? It’s that little detail that puts everything into perspective. These things are good, but… And he is saying that he knows the joys and pleasures that come from these earthly things, but if one simply is living for such pleasure then your labors are in vain. New carpet gets dirty when it is walked on and it gets yellowed and stained over time. New construction breaks down. People grow old and die. Endeavors fade and people’s memories are short. They are vain and all of these pursuits will exasperate your spirit if this pursuit is an end unto itself. If you are pursuing God first, and these labors are a means to an end, then we have a different conversation entirely.
There is a saying that floats around American circles periodically that goes: “It’s about the journey, not the destination.” In other words, the process of learning that comes along with striving for a goal is more valuable to you in the long run than the goal itself. And, while I do not wish to discount the value of learning “along the journey,” we must remember that without eyes set clearly on the goal, the journey, no matter how valuable in the short run, will be of no lasting value because it is set entirely in earthly things that fade and disappear. For the believer, the goal is the glory of God and the journey we are on only makes sense in light of that goal. Else, at the final judgment we will look at all we accomplished and say, “It was vanity.”
Loads and Loads of Wealth
“I also collected for myself silver and gold and the possession of kings and provinces. I got for myself male singers and female singers and the delights of the sons of man — loads and loads.”
(Ecclesiastes 2:8)
Next to his wisdom, Solomon is best known for his wealth…and he had lots of it. The historical records go to great length to illustrate the grand abundance of wealth that entered into Solomon’s kingdom during his reign. This is significant not only because it demonstrates God’s faithfulness to this son of David, but Solomon’s kingdom becomes a bit of a type (a foreshadowing) of Christ’s eternal kingdom as is described in Revelation. If you ever have wondered why the emphasis is placed on streets of gold and gates of gemstones and pearl, remember that Jesus is the greater Solomon.
There is some discussion with respect to the meaning of the final clause, which I have translated as “loads and loads.” In Hebrew, the phrase in question is שִׂדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת (shidah weshidoth), which is essentially just the singular and plural forms of שׂדּה (shadah) joined together. Unfortunately, while we know that the placing of a singular and a plural together is a common Hebrew technique to emphasize the abundance of something (see Judges 5:30), but we are not entirely sure as to what the root word refers.
Some of our modern translations render this as a reference to concubines, which is certainly consistent with Solomon’s life, though seems to take some liberties with the word itself. Rashi and some of the Hebrew commentators have translated this as “chests and chests” to indicate the abundance of material, connecting the usage of the term with Mishnah Kelim 18:3 which uses the phrase: “שׁדָה תֵיבָה וּמִגְדָל (shadah teybah wumigdal)” which translates as: “a chest, a box, or a cupboard” (see sepharia.org for the larger text). More idiomatically, the phrase is sometimes rendered: “greatness and greatness.” Given the context, it seems to be that Solomon is using this phrase as kind of superlative to add emphasis to the greatness of his collections.
What needs to be said about the vanity of accumulating great wealth for the sake of accumulating great wealth has already been said. We should be clear, though, it is never wealth itself that the Bible condemns, only the love of wealth (1 Timothy 6:9-10) that is sin. So, do understand that great things can be accomplished with wealth (and if you have great wealth, I am happy to offer some suggestions!), the real and operable question is what are you doing with that wealth? Are you building a kingdom for yourself or are you building Christ’s kingdom. If it is the former, that wealth will find a way into your heart and will wreak havoc there. If you focus on the latter, you will see the blessings of God as he multiplies what you begin to his glory.
Note: In America the government gives you a tax benefit for using your personal wealth to support non-profit organizations. Here are two organizations that are close to my heart and are actively seeking to build Christ’s kingdom rather than the kingdom of men. Both are registered 501C3 Charities so these gifts are tax Deductible (and I do not gain a dime from either).
R.I.T.E.: Reformed International Theological Education has been operating a seminary in Ukraine for close to 20 years. We train men to be pastors and Bible teachers and women to be Sunday School leaders and leaders of women’s groups in their local churches. Students are given a full, seminary-level education during this process and can graduate with either a Bachelors or Masters degree. Having begun in the Donbass region of Ukraine, we had to relocate to Kiev when the conflict broke out, but we have many students who remained in that war-torn region to minister to those trapped and unable to relocate. www.riteukraine.org or (if in Canada) http://ritecanada.ca.
T.N.A.R.S.: The North American Reformed Seminary offers a complete seminary education from an Associates Degree all of the way through a Doctorate in Theology. This education is offered to students totally free and totally online through books and lectures that are freely accessible. Students work through classes with an approved mentor and under the oversight of their home church. This permits classes to be taken at the student’s pace and without having to relocate to a seminary campus. The great benefits of this model ought to be obvious, not the least of which is that students not only remain under the oversight of their home church’s leadership, but the things they learn will get fed back into the local congregation. http://www.tnars.net
Naming Names
If you spend much time on this blog, you know that one of my concerns is for the Truth of God’s word to be triumphed in a world that throws so much chaff at you that sometimes you feel lost in information overload and don’t know who to believe. As a preacher, this has often led me to naming names from the pulpit of those in our society that are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” as it were. The even more challenging aspect of this is that the word “Christian” has been so misused and abused that society uses it to refer to anything so long as Jesus is mentioned within it…no mind whether it is Biblical or not. Of course, our society today is so Biblically illiterate, most people cannot distinguish between that which is Biblical and that which is preferential.
Sometimes, when names are named, people feel uncomfortable. Many people have perhaps attended an event down at the prosperity gospel megachurch down the street or have read “The Shack” or a Joyce Meyer book. Many people either secretly (or not secretly) prefer listing to Joel Osteen rather than the careful exposition of the Word, and when names are named, that makes people nervous. It forces them to repent of their own sloppy theology or perhaps troubles them because they often have friends who attend churches that teach a false theology and they don’t want ruffle feathers. They also tend to think that the pastor is just on another one of his grouchy tirades against the bigger church down the street (by the way, since when did the number of people in attendance become a measure of a pastor’s ministry?).
The question, then arises, why bother? Isn’t it more polite in today’s society to avoid naming names? Can’t we be nice to the other churches and give them the benefit of the doubt? Of course, “nice” is a word that we ought not apply to any Christian. Why? See here. Here’s the thing, we are not talking about matters of preference or neighborliness. You might not like that your neighbor has planted gum trees along the border of your property line, but you don’t make a ruckus about it because that would not be neighborly. But here we are talking eternal truth and eternal error, life and death, matters of heaven and hell! If your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers, or your family members are blissfully marching down the wide road to hell, it is not a nice thing, a kind thing, or a loving thing to remain silent while they perish. It is wicked and cruel.
And be clear, when I am speaking about naming names, I am not speaking about disagreements within the body of Christ. Some of my closest friends, for example, happen to be baptists and we disagree strongly about whether or not an infant should be baptized and how that baptism should be carried out. Given my German Reformed/Presbyterian background, one would expect no less. Yet, we disagree as brothers in the faith. I have several dear Lutheran friends as well, with whom I would strongly disagree as to what baptism does for the one baptized and over what takes place at the Lord’s Table, but again, these are “in house” debates in the Christian church. We ought to debate these things, yes, and debate them passionately. But we can do so all the while not breaking fellowship.
While modes of baptism, what takes place at the Lord’s Table, the music we sing, the kind of Bible we use, etc… are disagreements, they are secondary things. Differences here (in most cases) do not separate you from the body of Christ. But some differences do. When someone denies the Trinity, they can call themselves many things, but they cannot call themselves, “Christian.” When someone denies the dual nature of Christ, the substitutionary nature of Christ’s work, the authority of the Scriptures, the role of man being submissive to God, justification by grace alone worked through faith alone, the physical Resurrection on the third day, etc… one no longer is able to call oneself a Christian. They may still be an American, they may still be moral in a societal sense, they may still be a good laborer in a volunteer organization, they may still be a good neighbor, but Christian they are not. And, if there are those who are playacting at being Christian and are teaching otherwise, they need to be warned against.
Jesus warns us of false prophets (Matthew 7:15) as does the Apostle John (1 John 2:18-19 — here he calls them “antichrists”). And thus, we are called to test every tree — every spirit — by its fruit. As we look at Biblical tests of orthodoxy, some of that fruit is visible in the way we live — the Apostle Paul’s famed “Fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5:22-23 — but it is also found in the things that are taught. Thus, earlier in Galatians, Paul very clearly warns the Galatians that if anyone, even an angel from heaven, were to teach them “another Gospel” — a Gospel different than the one Paul consistently taught (something preserved in the Word) — then he should be cursed. Notice that Paul does not say, “let the teaching be accursed,” but he says, “let him be accursed.”
In Titus 1:9, Paul even expands on this idea. He says that Elders (by the way, this is one of those passages where Paul speaks of Presbyters and Overseers as one in the same office) must be taught to do two things: 1) give instruction in sound doctrine and 2) rebel those who contradict sound doctrine. Do you notice how there are two sides to the same coin. Not only must there be teaching what is right but there must be a rebuke of that which is not sound teaching (recognizing that the Greek word used here refers to a public oral attack on a person, a thought, or an idea). In other words, calling out the heretic as such and then teaching the people of God how to think Biblically is one of the primary roles of the Elder in the Christian church.
One might then ask, is it really appropriate to name names? Wouldn’t it be easier to teach specifically against a bad idea without naming those who hold to that idea? The problem with that model is, if the pastor has not told you, “Do not read books by T.D. Jakes, he is a prosperity preacher who is part of the Word Faith movement and denies the orthodox understanding of the Trinity — he is a heretic.” How will you know not to buy a book by T.D. Jakes when you see it on the shelves of your local Christian bookstore — a store that has no qualms about selling you anything for their profit, though it will not profit your soul?
Further, the model we have in the Bible is to be very clear about who those are who have denied the faith. For example, Peter singles out Simon Magus and publicly rebukes him for trying to purchase the power of the Apostles (an error later called “Simony” in remembrance of this event — see Acts 8:9-24). Paul tells Timothy how he handed Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan for blasphemy (1 Timothy 1:20), he speaks of Phygelus and Hermogenes who abandoned him when he was arrested (2 Timothy 1:15), he rebukes Demas for being in love with this world (2 Timothy 4:10), and he speaks about the Lord taking out his vengeance on Alexander the Coppersmith for the harm he had done to Paul (2 Timothy 4:14). The Apostle John warns his friend, Gaius, against Diotrephes who is subverting the power of the Apostles and calls his actions evil (3 John 9-11). Finally, even Jesus speaks this way, not just to various Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the Law during his earthly ministry, but also he calls out Jezebel in the city of Thyatira for her immorality (Revelation 2:20). And, while many scholars would suggest that Jezebel is a kind of “nick-name” given to this woman based on the wickedness of her namesake, you can be sure that everyone in that church knew exactly who that woman was.
As a shepherd of Christ’s flock, I am responsible to Christ my King first and foremost, and not to the sensibilities of the culture around me. In addition, in todays pluralistic society, we are surrounded by people of many different religious affiliations as well as those who claim to be Christian but who teach what Paul would call “another gospel.” This last group is the one that I feel poses the greatest threat. I do not expect those who grew up in our congregation to be tempted to practice Wicca or Buddhism, but many are quick to attend churches that claim to be Christian but do not offer a Christian message. We are surrounded by Word of Faith churches, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Prosperity Gospel Churches, and the writings and television programs of many false teachers. The “Pop Christian” culture has embraced ideas from Hillsong, Elevation Church, and others who distort the Word of God. How shall I justify remaining silent?
A final illustration. If the devil wanted to infiltrate your church, how would he do so? Would he don a tail and carry a pitchfork? Or, would he look like everybody else and nuance the truth just enough to lead you astray? It was the latter he did with Eve in the garden and it is the latter that he does through many of these false teachings. On the surface, a lot of what they teach “sounds right,” but if you look deeply, it is subversive. Remember, as Christians, this world is not our home. We are soldiers in an outpost in enemy territory and our command is to take ground and tear down the strongholds of the devil. Shall we not call out the enemy for who he is and pray that by doing so, he or she may repent and believers may not be swayed by their untruths?
Fighting Words
In Calvin’s commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, he argues that “meaning is a function of use.” Now, we may debate over how that is worked out in Seneca or we may debate on how that gets worked out in the rest of Calvin’s later writings. And, while that might be a valuable conversation, my interest in this is how that idea has developed and been applied (and arguably mis-applied) in our modern context.
In principle, Calvin’s point is that languages grow and change over time based on the usage of the people. Further, many words are defined by their context. For example, the word “slug” has numerous uses from a measure of weight, to a punch, to something that goes in a shotgun shell, to a squishy mollusk that is the bane of most gardeners. In older uses, when printing presses were more common, a slug was a metal bar with letters and words on it and a “sluggard” is a lazy slow-poke. Further, words like nice, awesome, awful, gay, and clue meant something very different than they mean today. So, there is great truth in the matter that meaning is a function of usage.
Yet, we have entered into a society where meaning has become so fluid that almost anyone can redefine terms. This not only enters into how slang is used (in my generation, being “bad” was a good thing and in my son’s generation, if something was “sick” that meant it was a really good thing), but it also being to rob ideas of their objectivity. And this trend is dangerous.
In society, perhaps the most prominent of the changes has been the separation of the idea of gender from that of sex. According to their fundamental definitions, sex deals with biology and gender deals with roles and cultural expectations placed upon a person. Yet, historically, while the notion of “gender roles” has varied from culture to culture, it has always had a distinct connection to the biology of those who practice said roles. In other words, sex has largely been seen as the outward expression of an inward reality. That is, until today’s existentialism has permitted people to arbitrarily define their inward reality.
As someone who deals with people at the very heart of what I do, this shift is curious to me. When the “Women’s Lib” movement really began, it seemed like what they were striving for was a removal of gender roles — or at least to make them flexible enough that there was overlap in every area of society. This mindset would put them at odds with the modern Transsexual movement, which seems to be heightening the distinction between gender roles while also divorcing gender from biological sex. Yet, such does not seem to be the case.
While the aforementioned transformation is taking place in the broader society, the matter that concerns me the most is taking place in the church where ideas and doctrines are being redefined based on the whim and curiosity of the leadership. And, regardless of what you think on the whole gender question, this is infinitely more important because this matter has eternal consequences. While people have always challenged ideas held by the orthodox Christian church, today they are challenging said ideas while still referring to themselves as “Christian.” People reject the doctrine of the Trinity, of Creation, of Justification, the Resurrection, and of the inspiration of Scripture — things that are essential to the Christian faith and still place the name “Christian” in their churches. Furthermore, tolerance and “being respectful” of others has become so ingrained in our society, when pastors warn their congregations against the wolves in sheep’s clothing, he is often criticized as being intolerant, too dogmatic, or just unpleasant.
While words are flexible in terms of their usage, they still have meaning or at least a semantic range within which, based on context, they can be used. If you lose that, then any word can mean anything and “Dog, dog, dog, dog” can mean, “pick me up at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon.” Further, if you are defining terms differently than I am and we have not first established a basis of meaning for the words, we can be talking about two radically different things, yet we assume that we are speaking about the same thing. It is the Tower of Babel embraced by men and no longer seen as a mark of God’s judgment. In logic, this is called the fallacy of equivocation…yet, sadly, in common usage, it seems like it has moved from being a fallacy to a virtue. Like the word, “aweful,” which once meant “to be filled with awe,” it has seemingly turned its meaning entirely upside down and inside out to mean precisely the opposite of what it originally meant.
And we return to Calvin who would, I think it fair to say, be entirely disgusted with the games that the church plays in the name of Christ. He would say that while the church is trying to be nice, it is actually being “nice” in the sense of its original root: nescius — to be ignorant or stupid. A sad testimony for many churches in our day and age. Fighting words, indeed.
Reforming the Culture a Temporary Thing
“What is crooked cannot be straightened; what is receding cannot be ordered.”
(Ecclesiastes 1:15)
When my wife and I first got married, our first house was what people call a “fixer-upper.” It was a home originally built in 1905 and while being structurally sound, it needed a lot of repairs and renovations. And, in many ways, it was a great learning experience for me as a “handyman” and my wife and I made it our home. One of the projects was to address the sagging joists on the east side of the house between the main floor and the upper floor. These were old, heavy oak joists that had bowed under the weight of time and years of life in the upstairs of the home. Overall, they weren’t too bad, but it created a noticeable sag and bounce in the upstairs of the house. So, I proceeded to acquire “floor jacks” and jacked the joists straight while also “sistering” new joists beside the old joists to add additional support.
There were two problems with the picture. First, in my lack of patience, I jacked up the old joists a little faster than I ought to have done…that was my error. The other problem is that the old oak joists had gained their sag slowly over a period of nearly 100 years and had conformed to a given shape (which included the bow). Further, the material that I used to sister the joists together was new pine, which is not nearly as strong as the oak. So, after all was done and the jacks were removed, it wasn’t long before the oak beams started sagging again and they pulled the pine beams along with them. Now, do understand, it was not as pronounced as before, but I imagine that in time, they settled back into their characteristic bow. That is just the nature of things.
And here is the point…in this fallen world that we live it, there is a tendency for things to fall apart, decay, rust, mold, and otherwise deteriorate. Entropy surrounds us in the cosmos and we grow frail and die. We may be able to do some things to mitigate the effects of deterioration — we renovate old homes, we take medicines to strengthen our old bodies, and we add preservatives to our foods so that we can store them for longer periods…but in the end, decay and deterioration wins. That is just the way it is in this fallen world. And to some people, that is depressing.
Yet, to the believer, who understands that the righteous live by faith, not our works, not our creations, and not by the orderliness of the natural world, there is hope. For while the creation is fallen due to Adam and Eve’s sin, God is not. And God sent his Son into this world to redeem a people for himself through faith, a faith that is divinely worked within us. And there is also in this found the promise of a new creation where the crooked will be made straight and things will no longer recede from order to disorder — entropy will be a thing of the past.
So, does that mean that we shouldn’t bother with trying to straighten that which is bet or to try and order that which is in decline — let it fall apart and then Jesus will fix it when he remakes the cosmos? No, absolutely not, that would be a most depressing response to the wisdom espoused here by Solomon. No, the church is called to be about the work of straightening in this world. We are to do justice as God teaches through Micah (Micah 6:8) and thus make laws that honor God and care for the poor and “bent” around us. Yet, we are to recognize two things. First, the unbending is ultimately a work that God is doing through us. The wrongs happen naturally, the “righting” of the wrongs is divinely worked through His agents. And second, we are to recognize that any reformations we make will not be eternal ones…they will be temporal and one day they will fall away…just like improvements and renovations done to old buildings (eventually the renovations will need renovating!). Thus, if we recognize that, perhaps we won’t take so much pride in that which we perceive ourselves to have done (remember, it is God working through us anyway!).
And so the bent cannot be unbent and the things falling away cannot be numbered. And, though we may, for a season, see some “unbending” of the society around us, it will only be for a season and that which we have buttressed will begin deteriorating again. Yet, that means we have our work cut out for us here on this earth (we wouldn’t want to grow complacent!) and we recognize that in time, to suit the glory of God, Jesus will return once again and make all things new (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:5).
The Law of God
The longer I live the more things about the mindset of our culture just makes me scratch my head. When I was younger, we used to talk about “Things that make you go, Hmmm…” Today, I wonder if the phrase should be, “Things that make you go, huh?!?” And one of those things that I find a head-scratcher today is the way the Gospel has been redefined into something that it was never meant to be…at least if we have any sense of propriety to the Bible. And while it is true that this is not a new trend, it amazes me just how prevalent the idea is today.
Don’t misunderstand me, I do understand the context in which we live. The world is getting small, churches of pretty much every flavor exist on nearly every corner of America, yet overall, American church attendance is dropping. Buildings, also, are expensive. Old ones cost money to maintain and new ones cost money to build. There are also salaries to pay, activities to finance, and other costs that go along with doing business.
And so, churches behave like businesses, yes, and this is the first step down a path that leads away from fidelity to the Bible. How so? The purpose of a business is to make money and they do so by promoting their brand over the brand of others. So churches often enter into a kind of feeding frenzy, trying to grow by pulling members from one church into their own…typically by the programs and services that they have to offer. In addition, there is a phrase in business that goes: “The customer is always right.” That of course, is not true and few real businesses truly believe that sentiment, but it is still said. And, if you view church members as customers, your goal is to fill their needs and make them feel good about themselves, ready to go about the next week.
To do that, Law must be deemphasized. Why? Law makes us feel bad. It makes us feel guilty for the things we have done over the week. We’ve thought bad thoughts, we’ve coveted things that are not our own, we’ve even taken the Lord’s name in vain and have gone our own way on the Sabbath. People don’t want to be told they are sinners and deserving of the wrath of God. People want to be told that God forgives them anyway and that they should just keep doing their best and he will overlook the other stuff.
What’s wrong with a message like that? Well, apart from being entirely unbiblical, it belittles the Gospel. It’s a form of watered-down universalism. Why? Here’s the thing, if the bad news is that God is not happy with our sin, but that he will tolerate it anyway, do we really need him? No. The Gospel then is only about us feeling better about ourselves. And worship becomes a kind of “spiritual recharge” that kind of earns us the right to receive blessings from God (you never thought of the “prosperity gospel” as a works-righteousness movement, but it is — the more you do, the more you earn from God — that’s essentially their lie).
The problem is that God is not unhappy with us for our sin. God is enraged at our sin. It is outright rebellion and it always has been — going all of the way back to Adam and Eve (remember, they basically accused God of being a liar). The problem is that we stand in rebellion against God and deserve his wrath in the fires of Hell. Yep, that is far more serious than him just being unhappy with us…and no, he tolerates no sin in his presence (Isaiah 65:16; Habakkuk 1:13); he is light and in him is no darkness (1 John 1:5). And, as I have said repeatedly across the twenty-some years that I have been in the pulpit, and as many who have gone before me have said: “Until you come to terms with the greatness of your sin, you will never appreciate grace.”
So how do we come to terms with the greatness of our sin? That is essentially the question that is asked in the third question of the Heidelberg Catechism: “How do you know your misery?” We must indeed recognize that sin, whether small or great on human terms, brings misery to our souls. The answer is short and succinct: “The Law of God tells me.” In other words, until you let the Law weigh down your soul and nurture a sense of godly sorrow for your wicked state, grace will be nothing but a feel-good promise that eludes your life.
What then is the Law of God? Probably the best summary of it is found in the Ten Commandments — one law with ten interwoven parts. Heidelberg reminds us too of Jesus’ summary of the Ten Commandments, found in the command to Love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40). Yet, these are summaries (convicting summaries, indeed!), but the outworking and application of this moral law is found throughout the Scripture. Thus, no matter how well we know the summaries, every passage of scripture has the power to approach you and to convict your soul.
So, the message of the Gospel is not, God is displeased but he will forgive you anyway, just come and worship him. That would portray God as a kind of senile grandfather doting on his children. No, the Gospel is much more powerful than that. You are a rebel. You are guilty of breaking the Law of God both knowingly and unknowingly and thus deserve wrath and the eternal torment of the fires of Hell. That is rightfully yours. Yet, in spite of that, God has elected to save some — a remnant from humanity for himself — not because of who we are or because of something we have done, but because he has graciously chosen to do so. And that does not mean that our sins are excused if we are part of that remnant. No, nothing of the sort. Our sins are not excused, but the punishment for our sins was borne by another — God’s own sinless Son. He did for us what we could never have done for ourselves.
This, folks, is grace, but it only makes sense under the conviction of the Law. That means that the message of Sunday morning is not to make you feel better about yourselves. It is not to give you a spiritual recharge during the week. The message of Sunday morning is to convict you of your sins, to show you the mighty nature of our God in contrast to our lowliness, and to reveal the work of Christ that gives us hope, lowly worms that we are. We do not come to invoke God’s blessings on our lives, we come to submit to the Word — to be crushed under its weight even — and to be exhorted to live a life of gratitude on the basis of that knowledge. Anything short of that is another Gospel, and in the words of the Apostle Paul:
“But, even if we or an angel from heaven were to proclaim a gospel incompatible with the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have already told you, now I say again, if someone preaches something incompatible to what you have received, let him be accursed!”
(Galatians 1:8-9)
The Essential Preacher
“I, the Preacher, am king over Israel in Jerusalem and I put my heart to investigate and to discover through wisdom all that is done under the sun. It is an evil undertaking that God gives to the children of man to undertake.”
(Ecclesiastes 1:12-13)
We have already discussed the identification of Solomon as Qoheleth — “The Preacher.” The initial “to be” verb, היה (hyh) is a basic Qal stem in the perfect tense, leading many translators to render this phrase: “I, the Preacher, was king over Israel…” And while that is a perfectly legitimate translation, it implies that Solomon is looking back from a point of view where he is no longer a king — the nature of a completed action. In Hebrew, though, the Perfect can also communicate a state of being, which seems to be more consistent with the historical records that do not see Rehoboam as king until after his father’s death. It is still reasonable to see this book as something Solomon wrote later in life as he looks back at his failures, but he is still doing so as king over Israel in Jerusalem.
With this pronouncement of him being King, we now see the basis from which he observes the world — “everything under the sun.” And his approach is to use wisdom to discern the ways of man. His conclusion is that this is an evil (רַא — “ra”) undertaking. Now, do not let Solomon’s answer rattle you, instead remember his context. Here he is king, raised as a king in a household full of “court intrigue.” He has also been surrounded by wealth all of his life and now he rules over people with whom he could never have begun to relate to their experience…yet, he is called upon to rule over them and judge their affairs — debates between prostitutes over whose baby is theirs and the like.
I have heard that sometimes Judges get weary over judging the same sorts of cases and crimes over and over and over again. Why can’t people just live alongside of one another with a degree of modest civility? I know that as a pastor, I feel much the same way at times, wanting to throw up my hands in exasperation, thinking, “why can’t these people just act like Christians!”
And that is exactly the point, isn’t it. People don’t always behave like Christians and they don’t always act with civility toward one another. People are sinners and make a mess of things and that is why God saves his own by Grace, not by our works (even the “best” of us would fail miserably!). That’s why we cannot just live under the sun with the wisdom of men. We need the Gospel. Perhaps this is why Solomon chose the term “Preacher” to describe himself…a realization that the preaching of God’s Word is what we most need. We need it taught, yes. We need it applied, yes. But we need more. We need God’s word pronounced with authority over us to condemn our sins and then offer us the hope of grace that comes through faith. This is so much more than what a teacher or a judge might happen to do.
In today’s world, preaching is not popular. Churches are shortening the time allotted to it, bringing it down to the level of the people rather than elevating it, they are ignoring law in favor of a spineless grace, and some are eliminating it altogether, replacing it will small-group discussions and teaching time focused only on the basics. While this is surely what people want because they flock to it, it is not what we most need. And people are starving spiritually and they don’t even know it. Sad…no, it is an evil undertaking because it is done “under the sun” rather than commanding people to turn their eyes to the Transcendent Son.
Christian Delight
Question ninety in the Heidelberg Catechism asks, “What is the birth of the new man?” In other words, it wants to know what it is that distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever…or more personally, what distinguishes your life today as a Christian from the way you lived before as a non-Christian. The answer to this question is both telling and convicting. It is simply that we take a “heartfelt joy” in the Lord. So, beloved, up front, does that describe you when it comes to your church attendance, your devotional time, your family worship, and your prayer? If it doesn’t, then you may need to reevaluate your priorities a bit.
Yet, in case we are unclear as to what “heartfelt joy” looks like in our lives, the question goes further. It describes heartfelt joy as taking delight in two things: living according to the will of God and doing good works. In English, “delight” means that we take pleasure in these things — that they satisfy our hearts.
But do we really “delight” in living according to the will of God? You know, this ties in with Jesus’ statement that “if you love me you will obey my commandments” (John 14:15). Is obedience to God something that satisfies our soul and brings pleasure to our lives or is it something we do out of some sort of legalistic obligation? Do we groan on Sunday morning when it comes to getting out of bed and contemplate whether we really need to go on a given morning? Or to we rejoice that Sunday morning has come and look forward to being in the House of the Lord on this day with God’s own? Do we look forward to our personal Bible reading and devotional time, protecting a block of time so that we can practice it undisturbed? Or is it something we do some of the time so long as the “urgent” matters of the day do not distract us? Does our sin create in us a genuine and heartfelt sorrow? Or, do we just brush off our sin as no big deal, figuring that “God will forgive me anyway.” And, if you fall into this category, you may want to read Deuteronomy 29:18-20 just to refresh your mind as to God’s view of those who think this.
And, do we really delight in good works? Perhaps that is one that weighs easier on our souls because we all enjoy those random acts of kindness that we sometimes do. But, wait, the next question in Heidelberg reminds us that Good Works have three characteristics: they are done in faith, according to the Law of God, and are done for God’s glory alone. If all three of these criteria are not met, a work that someone does, no matter how noble, is not truly “good.” So, if we get the credit for it…or if anyone but God gets the credit for it, it is not good. So, do we truly delight in such works as are defined here?
Psalm 37:4 reads this way:
“Delight in Yahweh and he will give you the petitions of your heart.”
Does this mean that God gives us anything we want when we ask him? No. Does that mean that if our heart is in the right place and we pray in faith, God will give us anything for which we desire? No. What it does say is that if we truly delight in God, then our desire will be for a deeper and deeper relationship with God, and that he will give to us. Our error (and especially the error of the so-called “prosperity gospel” and the “word faith” movements) is that we tend to focus on the outcome and ignore the command. We need to focus on the imperative command that we find at the beginning of the verse: “Delight in Yahweh!”
Think about it this way. If you delight in the Lord then you will desire for your life whatever the Lord desires for your life. And God places into your life what he sovereignly designs for your life because it is designed to conform you into the image of Christ (and is thus, for your good). Sometimes that “good” is hard to see when you are in the middle of the “slough of despond” or the “valley of the shadow of death,” but through your delight in the Lord, these things become your heart’s desire and you can embrace them with thankfulness.
Nicodemus’ Participation
“So, after these things, Joseph, who was from Arimathea and a disciple of Jesus (covertly out of fear of the Jews), asked Pilate that he might take down the body of Jesus. And Pilate commanded it. So, he went and took down his body. And Nicodemus, who had formerly gone to him at night, came also, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloe — about a hundred pounds.”
(John 19:38-39)
We find that John identifies that Nicodemus joins Joseph in securing Jesus’ body for burial. Why the other evangelists do not record Nicodemus’ presence is a matter of speculation. Joseph is clearly mentioned as the man who approached Pilate, but perhaps John has lingered still and witnesses a second man joining Joseph. Given that John is the only one to record Jesus’ earlier meeting with Nicodemus, perhaps he considers that significant. It could also be suggested that, as John is writing his Gospel much later than the Synoptics, that perhaps Nicodemus was still keeping a low profile when the earlier gospels were written (remember, he was a member of the Sanhedrin). Then, by the time John writes his gospel, his involvement has become more widely known. A definite answer on this we will not have until heaven, but nonetheless, John makes a clear point that he was present.
The practice that they are engaging in is called “Taharah,” and is a ritual preparation of the body for burial. It is considered to be the last and most sincere gift that one can give to the deceased because that kindness cannot be repaid. It is more than just the practical dressing of the body, it is an act of kindness, one that honors the fact that the deceased is an Image-Bearer of God, and is done with reverence. Even today, it is a beautiful thing.
Some commentators suggest that the weight of spices is exaggerated, given the wealth of Joseph and Nicodemus, it is hard to believe that John is exaggerating the amount. Josephus records that when Gamaliel died (between 40-50 AD), eighty pounds of spice was used in the burial of this Jewish teacher — the quantity brought at the burial of Herod the Great was even larger. It should also be noted that our English translations will vary some in the record here. The ESV and the NIV record “seventy-five pounds” and the NASB and the KJV traditions record “a hundred pounds.” Which is true?
This is not so much a matter of textual tradition as it is that of translation philosophy. According to research done, a Roman pound was the equivalent of twelve ounces (like we would still measure gold and silver today). So, in the case of the NASB and the KJV, they are simply translating the words that are found in the text. The ESV and the NIV are choosing to interpret the weight for the reader, translating it into contemporary English measurements. Unless one is aware of this conversion, it can be confusing and even a bit misleading…it reminds me of the old puzzle my dad used to catch me with: “Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?” The answer, of course, is “a pound of feathers” because feather-pounds are 16 ounces and gold-pounds are only 12. So, which is heavier? Seventy-five English pounds or 100 Roman pounds? Neither, they are the same.
And so the final kindness is demonstrated to Jesus as these two men prepare his body for the tomb — hurriedly as the Sabbath is soon to start.
Are You Ready to Go to Church Tomorrow?
Okay, the pastor is just on one of his soapboxes, again. Sure, this is a soapbox…but if you are a Christian, it should be your soapbox as well. So, hear me out.
You see, many people are simply satisfied that you are going to church in the first place — you remember that kind old lady from Sunday School that used to say, “I don’t care where he goes as long as he goes to church somewhere…” She had all of the best intentions, but boy, she couldn’t be more wrong. What good does it do a person to attend worship at a place that plays at church, but does not teach in a way that is faithful to the Bible.
But I’m not talking about that dear old lady with all of her good intentions. And I am not talking about the silly statement that people that don’t want to come to church make…you know the one… “I can worship anywhere and don’t need to go to church to do it.” We could talk about the nature of the body of Christ and how it is to be unified for worship in conformity to God’s command, but my interest is not to go there either. And I’m also not talking about those who tell me, “I prefer to attend that other choice because they have Saturday-Night services…,” as if worship is about our convenience…no, my point is not to go there either.
What I want to address is the mindset that many have who think that their presence in the sanctuary at the prescribed hour is the most important thing. Now, I grant you, it is a better thing to be in church than to not be in church — at the very least you will be exposed to the preaching of the Gospel. But being physically present in church is the easiest part of your worship…and arguably the least important part. God demands that his people be wholly committed to him, not just our bodies, but our minds as well. But to engage mentally in the worship of God’s people, you need to prepare yourselves. So, here are some thoughts in the form of practical advice that you can put into play today to help prepare you for tomorrow’s service of corporate worship.
1) Have you prayed for the Pastor and those leading the service of worship? Are you committed to seeking God’s face that these men may speak the Word of Truth to you in a way that is wholly consistent with the testimony of the Scriptures?
2) Have you prayed for yourself? Are you committed to seeking God’s face that you may be prepared to listen attentively to what the Pastor brings that you may take it to heart and learn from him? Pray that the Holy Spirit would convict you where you need to be convicted and that he will apply the Word of God to your sinful heart.
3) Have you read the text on which the Pastor will preach? Most pastors are more than willing and able to share their sermon texts at least a week in advance. If they are unable to do this one might be tempted to ask about their preparedness or organization.
4) Having read the text, have you made a list of questions you have from the text itself? Take these with you as part of your notes (yes, plan to take notes on the pastor’s sermon…it will allow you to learn and it will keep him accountable — and if he knows you are taking notes, not only will it encourage him in his preparations but it will also encourage him not to take any shortcuts in preparation). Plan to take these notes with you and see how many of your questions the pastor answers. And if he does not answer one of your questions, drop him a note asking him said question, it will encourage him that you were listening and that the text is important enough to understand that you want to know said answers.
5) Do you know the hymns which will be sung or the additional readings that might be present? It may require a phone call to the church secretary to discover this, but if you can learn these things, reading the words ahead will allow you to prepare better to sing them.
6) Have you read through your notes from last week’s sermons? If your pastor preaches in the form of a series or through given texts of the Bible, reading these sermon notes will jog your memory and assist you in engaging with the text.
7) Plan to get a good night’s sleep. A rested mind is a more engaged mind. Be ready to engage fully in the worship of God.
We could likely add other things to this list, but try these things and see how your engagement with worship and the text will change. I also think that if you engage with these things, your personal devotions will improve, but that is a different conversation. Or, let me just say, in the words of the old television commercial, “try it, you’ll like it!”
Blood and Water from the Lord’s Side
“Thus the soldiers went and with respect to the first, they broke the legs and also of the other who was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was already a dead man, and so they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers took his spear and pierced his side. What flowed out immediately was blood and water. The one who saw it bears witness and the witness is the Truth. He knows what he says to be the truth and it is in order that you might believe. For this happened in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘none of his bones were broken.’ And again, likewise the Scripture says, ‘They looked on the one they pierced.’”
(John 19:32-37)
As we have continually seen with respect to this account of our Lord’s crucifixion, over and over again there is an emphasis on the fulfillment of the Scriptures. These Old Testament prophecies were put in place by God for the express purpose of demonstrating his sovereignty over history and who his Messiah would be. In this case, there is a reference to Exodus 12:46 and Psalm 34:20 with respect to Jesus’ bones not being broken and then to Zechariah 12:10 as to them looking on him whom they have pierced.
A great deal of debate has circulated around the question of the blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side. I have read accounts by doctors who point out that the pericardium, were it pierced at the point of death or shortly thereafter, would issue water as well as blood. And this may very well be true, though as anatomy is not my field of expertise, I will leave that to those more qualified to debate.
What I can speak to is the text and John’s statement in the verse that follows is very important. He repeatedly affirms that he witnessed this event and that his testimony is true so that we might believe. Believe what? If the purpose of John’s book is to be of any help to us (found in John 20:30-31), then the answer is clear; he writes so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing, we “might have life.” In other words, this water and blood, in John’s eyes, is a testimony to the saving work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, not simply that he was dead.
So, what then does the water and blood mean? Some have pointed to Communion and the water of baptism and the blood represented in the cup, though I think that is a bit of a stretch to infer. Others connect the water and the blood with the purification ritual mentioned in Hebrews 9:19, which is an allusion to Leviticus 14:1-9. This passage in Leviticus is a reference to the ceremonial cleansing of one with leprosy, not the atonement for sin as the author of Hebrews is applying the text. That said, the context of Hebrews 9 is such where leprosy can be seen as a fit analogy for the defilement of our sin before God, making this answer, likely the best.
It is indeed true that sprinkled blood was used in other contexts when it came to purify from sin as was the sprinkling with water, but the language of cleansing from leprosy seems to be where they are brought together. If one is to appeal to the imagery of leprosy, it brings to mind the old hymn that goes:
“Lord, now indeed I find,
Thy power and Thine alone,
Can change the leper’s spots,
And melt the heart of stone…”
— Elvina Hall
Easter, the Resurrection, and Worship
Folks that know me well, know that I don’t much like the choice of the word, “Easter,” that is used in English speaking and German speaking congregations. The term originates from the name of a pagan goddess of the woodlands and is just one more reminder of syncretism that is found in the Christian world. Much like with Christmas, we seem to have created two parallel holidays: Easter with its chocolate and bunnies as a celebration of the coming of spring and Resurrection Sunday to venerate Jesus’ rising from the tomb (for my satirical reflection on Christmas and X-Mass in honor of C.S. Lewis, click here…).
Don’t misunderstand these musings… Theologically, I do affirm that we gather every Sunday to celebrate the Resurrection and to bless God’s name. Yet, with others, I agree that there is a pragmatic value attached to setting apart a time during the calendar year to focusing especially on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and reminding ourselves of its foundational importance to Christianity. In addition, Easter (think spring and new life here) and the tendency of people to come out to church, lends itself to being a time where a greater emphasis should be placed on evangelism and again the resurrection.
But can we talk honestly about church practices at Easter for a minute? How oftentimes, the tendency is to make this service bigger and fuller than other services during the year, save perhaps on Christmas Eve? The logic flows somewhat like this: 1) more people will come out, 2) if we make more of a production, then perhaps people will appreciate it enough to come out again the following Sunday.
But wait a minute? Is worship meant to be a production? Productions are about what we are doing and are about an outward performance. Is that really what should be present in the life of the church? I would say, no, it is not. Worship is about our drawing close to God according to His Word, they are about blessing God’s name and submitting ourselves to the instructions found in His Word. It’s not about us. It never was and never will be. The moment you make worship into a production is the moment you cease to be practicing something that is Biblical an you begin practicing idolatry. Further, the logic of the argument mentioned above fails as soon as those visitors, impressed by the production, come out any other Sunday morning of the year. Then, they see the hypocrisy of those putting on the production and what does that say about genuine Christianity?
Am I saying that we ought never do anything special on Resurrection Sunday? Of course not. But I am saying that those kinds of special things must never cross the line and become a performance. I am also saying that if you would not include said special music on any other Sunday of the year, you ought not include it on Resurrection Sunday, lest you fall into the trap of performance. Of course for some churches, performance is a way of life and that in itself is a conversation to be had another time.
So, where do I fall on this matter in terms of practice? I confess, it is easy to fall to the temptation of doing something big on Resurrection Sunday morning. The Resurrection of Christ is the great triumphant benediction of all of history, so indeed, that makes sense. But at the same time, I have become over the years much more sensitive to not making the morning a production. That defeats the purpose of why we gather and presents a false picture of Sunday worship to visitors. So, the order of service and elements that are present are the same as is found the rest of the calendar year. The only difference is that my preaching tends to be a little more evangelistic in nature than would be found on any other given Sunday. Other Sundays I focus a little more heavily on the discipleship of the body. What I don’t do is to make Resurrection Sunday or more commonly, “Easter Sunday,” into what one pastor I know calls “Superbowl Sunday for the Church.” That, I think is wrong.
This is something that I am still chewing on, what are your thoughts?
Joseph of Arimathea
“When evening came, a rich man from Arimathea, who was named Joseph (and was also a disciple of Jesus), arrived. And he went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. This, Pilate commanded to be given him.”
(Matthew 27:57-58)
“Joseph, who was from Arimathea, a respected Counselor who was also waiting for the Kingdom of God, came and dared to approach Pilate and ask him for the body of Jesus.”
(Mark 15:43)
“And behold! A man named Joseph, who was a Counselor and a good and righteous man, who did not agree with the Council’s action toward him, who was from Arimathea (a Jewish city) and who was waiting for the Kingdom of God, went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.”
(Luke 23:50-52)
“So, after these things, Joseph, who was from Arimathea and a disciple of Jesus (covertly out of fear of the Jews), asked Pilate that he might take down the body of Jesus. And Pilate commanded it. So, he went and took down his body.”
(John 19:38)
Here is the only spot in the Bible where we are introduced to Joseph of Arimathea. We know very little about either the man or the place from where he came. Based on the writings of Jerome and Eusebius, most scholars hold that Arimathea was the contemporary city located at Ramah, where the Judge Samuel was born (1 Samuel 1:19). This was a Jewish city located close to the border between Judea and Samaria and quite possibly one that Jesus frequented as he traveled through the Samaritan region.
We are also told that Joseph is a “Counselor.” Given his Jewish identity, this is most likely a reference to the Sanhedrin (which explains his connection to Nicodemus). We are told here that he was a follower of Jesus (at least behind the scenes), he was awaiting the Kingdom of God, and that he was discontent with the way that the trials of Jesus were handled. Hence he is called a “good and righteous man” — good, not in the eternal sense, but good in the sense that he was moral and had integrity.
Mark further tells us that he “dared” to approach Pilate. The term τολμάω (tolmao), which is used here, implies that there was a real sense of risk associated with this request. Perhaps it was risking his personal cleanliness just prior to the Sabbath, or it could have been his standing amongst the Jews of the Sanhedrin, or perhaps it was simply that of intruding on the home of a Roman official to request a favor on behalf of a convicted criminal. Perhaps it was all three. Even so, Joseph’s act stands as a reminder to us that no matter the risk or dangers, there are times in which we must act. In this case, not just out of Jewish propriety (as noted above), but out of integrity and to do a friend a kindness. Indeed, doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do (regardless of public opinion or the consequences) is the mark of integrity.
So, as we reflect and meditate on this “Good Friday” — “good” because of the work Jesus accomplished on the cross for those who believe — one of the questions we must be quick to ask ourselves is whether we will walk with the integrity of this man and whether or not we will cease being “closet Christians” (which is an oxymoron) and be bold in our witness and in our testimony to the world that there is only one name under heaven by which man may be saved and that is the name of Jesus Christ.
The Women Who Were With Jesus at the Cross
“And there were many women there who watched from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. With whom was Mary of Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
(Matthew 27:55-56)
“And there were also women there who watched from afar, with whom was Mary of Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James the Younger and Joseph, and Salome.When he was in Galilee, they followed him and served him and there were also many who traveled with him to Jerusalem.”
(Mark 15:40-41)
“But all the ones who knew him stood at a distance watching these things along with the women who had accompanied him from Galilee.”
(Luke 23:49)
“But, by the cross of Jesus were standing his mother and the sister of his mother, Maria the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdalene.”
(John 19:25)
The passage from John, we have already looked at, but included here so that we may talk about the women who faithfully stayed by our Lord’s side during his whole ordeal, for sometimes people see a disharmony here in the Gospel accounts. But, to begin with, let us recognize that there are two groups present in the account. There are the scoffing crowds, which includes the Roman Soldiers and the Jewish leaders who actually put Jesus to death. But then there is another group…one identified as having followed Jesus from Galilee. This group is described as including women, though the text does not suggest that this group was exclusively women. It only says that through the time of final suffering, this group stood at a distance from the events that were transpiring.
This is important in and of itself. Because the women are the only ones mentioned in this passage by name, it is often assumed that the Apostles had utterly abandoned Jesus at this point in time — except for John (see John 19:26-27). Yet, that need not be the case. It could very well have been that the Twelve were amongst this second group of people, gathered at a distance, arguably both for their safety and to be separate from the angry crowd. Such a reading would also be consistent with Acts 1:21-22, where in seeking a replacement for Judas, the primary qualification was that this man be one who had accompanied Jesus from his baptism to the day he was taken up…the events of the cross most certainly being included in that testimony. Interestingly, that qualification narrowed the playing field to two (Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias — note that there are no women listed here as one qualified to replace Judas, a reminder that the Apostles clearly understood God’s design for male leadership in the church).
Now, to replay the events somewhat based on what we know. Clearly from John’s account, Jesus’ mother as well as Mary Magdalene and Mary the wife of Clopas were close to Jesus as he was led up the Hill of Golgotha. Jesus gives John the responsibility of caring for his mother and it seems that John takes her away. It can be assured that Mary still wanted to be present until our Lord breathed his final breath, so John likely escorted Mary to the safety of the group of Jesus’ followers from Galilee, who stood at a distance.
That leads us to who is being spoken of. Notice that Matthew says that there are “many women” who were watching from a distance while Mark and Luke simply refer to “women” in the plural. The point is that there was no need to name all of these women by name, simply to say that there were women present. So, even if, some of these women are not the same person, we have no disharmony and no problem, it is only that each Evangelist sought to focus on a slightly different group of people.
At the same time, there is overlap. For example, Mary of Magdalene is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, and John. Assuming that “Mary the Mother of James and Joseph” is Jesus’ mother (see Mark 6:3 for a list of Jesus’ brothers, the first two were James and Joses, Joses being the equivalent to Joseph), then it would seem that Jesus’ mother, Mary was recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John as well. Many scholars would hold that Salome is the name of Jesus’ aunt (the sister of Mary), and then you have her accounted for by Mark and John. If, perhaps Salome’s husband was Zebedee, then Matthew records her presence as well. Finally, John records Mary, the wife of Clopas — in this case, probably an additional person to the mix. Again, we can infer some things from the parallel, but however you harmonize the text, we must be quick to point out that, in the words of Matthew, “there were many women” present.
Why is it important to wrestle through questions like this? The presence of skeptics in this world provides likely the most obvious answer. Even so, I think that there is a more basic answer to the question. God has given us inquiring minds and a curiosity to understand things that take place as well as to fill in the gaps of what we are explicitly told. Obviously, we need to be careful about speculation and not get dogmatic about the inferences we make, but at the same time, it is an exercise of the Image of God in which we are made to want to use our minds to better understand and to fill in the gaps of what we are told. And hence, it is important that we ask questions such as this so long as we approach the text in a sober and reverent way.
Short Devotions for Holy Week
Pilgrim Thoughts: Previously Unpublished Devotions for Good Friday and Passion Week
For a number of years now, I have been writing short devotions for Holy Week or Passion Week as well as for Good Friday.
These devotions have not appeared either here on this blog or in print form, so this year, I decided to make them available as an ebook.
Here you will find devotional reflections on Psalm 22, the Seven Last Words of Christ, What it means to “Take Up Your Cross,” Events that are recorded in at least three of the Gospels from the Mount of Transfiguration to the Cross, and on Isaiah 61:1-2.
Overall, were this an “in-print” book, it would cover about 70 pages. At the moment, I have no plans to turn this into a print book or to post them as blog entries, so if you have enjoyed the writings and reflections found here, you might want to pick it up here on Amazon for only $0.99 (or free, if you have KindleUnlimited!).
God bless you as you prepare to celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord.
Yours in Christ, “Preacher Win”
Up From the Grave They Arose!
“Then the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. Coming from the graves after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and were visible to many.”
(Matthew 27:52-53)
Everything…everything…for the record, everything surrounds the resurrection of Christ. At the death of our Lord, we are told that there were many (a large number of) saints (believers) who were raised from their graves. Literally, the text reads that their bodies were “awakened,” which is an euphemistic reference to death and being raised from the dead (this does not teach some sort of “soul sleep” as was popular for a brief time in some theological circles). But, while they were raised from the dead — brought out from their graves or tombs — they did not enter the Holy City until after Jesus’ resurrection. As Christ’s body laid in the tomb during that time, though raised from the dead, they too remained in their tombs.
Some object to this reading, suggesting that there was nothing physical that would have impeded these saints from returning to Jerusalem on that very Friday of the crucifixion. I would respond that it was not something physical, but spiritual that so impeded them — the very will of God the Father. And so, these saints remained at the tombs until such a time as the Father released them to come en masse into the city. What were they doing in the meantime? Probably praying and worshipping God.
What is the significance of this raising? It is an anticipation of what is to come. Jesus is the firstborn of the dead (Revelation 1:5), thus with his rising will come the rising of others. The advent of his resurrection being christened, as it were, by the raising up of many believers from the tombs.
Some ask, “what kind of bodies did these raised saints have?” The answer is that we are not told. They could have been raised to natural bodies, as had been the case with Lazarus and others and then would eventually die once again. Were I to speculate, I would suggest that perhaps these saints were raised to glorified bodies, again, joining Jesus in his triumphal entry into the heavenly realms, singing his praises as the Galileans had done a week prior as Jesus entered into Jerusalem. This speculation is one that we cannot be dogmatic about, but it would certainly add light to the language in Ephesians 4:8 that reads:
“Therefore it says, ‘Ascending on high, he led many captives, and he gave gifts to men.”
and Psalm 68:18:
“You ascended to the heights and led many captives, bringing gifts to man that even the rebellious may dwell with Yahweh God.”
and Romans 5:8:
“Yet God demonstrates his own agape love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
The appearance of these saints became visible to many as a first sign of the Resurrection of the Lord…a promise of good news that not only did the grave fail to keep Jesus, but that it would fail to keep believers as well. And did you notice of whom this text speaks? The dead were not raised indiscriminately, but it was the saints — literally, “the holy ones” — who were raised. Jesus did not die for all people without distinction, but he died for believers to pay our debt before God. Those who die in their unbelief will have to stand before God in their own merit — a dreadful thing indeed.
“Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom Yahweh does not count iniquity, in his spirit there is nothing fraudulent.”
(Psalm 32:1-2)
Elijah Has Already Come
“But the others said, ‘Hold on! Let us see if Elijah comes to save him!’”
(Matthew 27:49)
“So, someone quickly came and filled a sponge with vinegar to put on a stick for him to drink, saying, ‘Wait! Let us see if Elijah will come to take him down.’”
(Mark 15:36)
As we have mentioned before, people are wanting a spectacle. And what would be more spectacular than for Elijah to come from the skies and rescue Jesus from the cross…but wait, Elijah did come. So, let’s take a step back.
Jesus’ words from the cross, quoting Psalm 22 were misunderstood by some of the onlookers. That ought to be no surprise as Jerusalem was a fairly cosmopolitan city as far as cities went in the Roman Empire and the comings and goings of gentiles was quite common. So, Greeks and Romans who likely were not fluent in Aramaic and definitely not fluent in Hebrew could easily be understood to mishear “Eloi” or “Eli” as Elijah (which in Hebrew, would be pronounced “Eliyyah”). When you add to the commotion, it is also not unreasonable that not everyone would have heard Jesus’ words correctly and could come to the same conclusion.
But, why would Elijah come down to rescue Jesus? Certainly, he was taken up bodily into heaven (2 Kings 2); perhaps that is what some people were hoping to see. More likely was the prophesy in Malachi 4:5 that God would send Elijah before the “Day of the Lord” would come. The Day of the Lord, in ancient Near-Eastern writings (this is found repeatedly within Biblical writings, but there are extra-Biblical writings that capture this idea as well), was the notion that one day there would rise up a king who would defeat all of his foes in a single day. This, of course, is what Jesus did on the cross, though those shouting from the ground surely did not know that.
What they also did not know was that Elijah had come. He came in the person of John the Baptist. No, no reincarnation here, simply that all of the things that Elijah stood for were stood for by John, though John did so in a greater way (see Matthew 11:11-15; 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13). Thus, just as Jesus is the greater David and Solomon and the Temple, John was the greater Elijah. Malachi’s prophecy does not stipulate that Elijah will come to deliver the Messiah from death, no, it states that he comes as a prequel to the Day of the Lord — he is a forerunner just as was John.
As is always, fools and mockers seek a spectacle. Yet the people of God need no sign for we are given His Word in the Scriptures. And the Spirit confirms these things with our Spirit. The wicked want to see what will happen next. The believer prays for their souls because the “next” for the ungodly will be the wrath of the Father. Woe be to the one who does not repent of his sins and turn to Christ in faith for shelter, lest the father whet his sword against them (Psalm 7:12).
“My God, My God, Why have You Forsaken Me!”
“Then, about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a great voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, Lema Sabachthani!’ That is, ‘My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me!’ Certain ones of those who were there, hearing it, said, ‘He is calling to Elijah!’”
(Matthew 27:46-47)
“And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a great voice: ‘Eloi, Eloi, Lema sabachthani!’ which translates as: ‘My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me!’ And certain ones who were present heard it and said, ‘Behold! He is calling to Elijah!’”
(Mark 15:34-35)
Over the years, many people have written volumes on the sayings of Christ from the cross and I am no exception to that. Many of these are worthwhile, but of the sayings of Jesus from the cross, I think that this one here is the most convoluted by some commentators. People have written that God closed his eyes and turned his back upon his son. I have seen people write that God literally abandoned his Son as if the Father and the Spirit could be separated. I have even read it suggested that somehow the divine nature of God the Son withdrew from the human nature of the Son, leaving him with a sense of loss. It should be stated that all of these approaches are not only inconsistent with the text, but they also enter into heresy, suggesting either that the Trinity can be separated or that the Divine and Human natures of the Son are divisible. Such views also demonstrate a shallow understanding of the Biblical text from which Jesus is quoting.
So, let us start there, with Psalm 22. One thing we must remember is that chapter and verse divisions did not exist as such in Jesus’ day…the Vulgate (4th Century AD) would add chapters and the Geneva Bible (16th Century AD) would add verses to accommodate study notes. Thus, people knew verses by the section of scripture that the passage happened to be a part of and they did not do what Christians so often do today and pull a verse entirely out of its context and apply it however they wish (sadly, how many Biblical errors and heresies could be avoided if people were more careful about Biblical context!).
The point is, that when Jesus speaks these words (in our Bibles, Psalm 22:1), he speaks it in the context of the whole Psalm (note that this section of the Psalms contains what we call “superscripts” that identify the author and a bit about the psalm — so the psalm itself, as a whole must be taken into account. An analogy to that is how preachers (particularly from previous generations) often cite a few lines of a well-known hymn to make their point. Certainly, it is not just those lines but the hymn as a whole to which the pastor is alluding. The same can be here with the psalm.
So, what is Psalm 22 about? Much could be said on that matter, but for the sake of brevity, it is a psalm of David where he reflects on the grace of God which delivers him out of the hands of his enemies. Indeed, the psalm begins in despair (“Why have you forsaken me!”) but as we work through the psalm, we see David singing of the deliverance of God, his kingship, and how he is worthy to be praised and served. Sadly, we all too often get caught up in the first few lines, which reflects the human experience of being overwhelmed by one’s enemies, and neglect the celebration of God’s deliverance at the end.
In addition to understanding the context, we must also recognize the prophetic nature of this psalm as we have mentioned several times above. Before armies had begun practicing crucifixion, we find David describing elements of this crucifixion event as he versifies his own suffering. This psalm speaks of the mocking of Jesus, the gentiles surrounding him, his bones being out of joint, his strength being dried up, and of the thirst that accompanies this kind of death. It also speaks of the pierced hands of our Lord and the division of Jesus’ garments. Indeed, once again, it is a reminder of God’s sovereignty over history.
And so, Jesus cries out in a loud voice the opening words of this Psalm. Why? It is not a sign of defeat, but it is a sign of victory. God has anointed him to serve this task and soon the victory and the glory that accompanies that, will take place. God has not abandoned his Son and the Son is not perceiving that he has been utterly abandoned. He is feeling the wrath of his Father, indeed, but he also understands the deliverance that is to come. As the Psalmist writes:
All of the ends of the earth will remember and return to Yahweh; all of the tribes of the nations shall worship before your face. For unto Yahweh are the kingdoms, and rulership of the nations.
(Psalm 22:27-28)
Does this not sound a lot like:
Therefore, God has exalted him and has graciously given him the name that is above all names, in order that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend in heavenly places, earthly places, and places under the earth, and that every tongue would admit that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:9-11)
Friends, avoid those who would sacrifice orthodoxy to elicit an emotional response to these events. Speaking along those lines, did you notice how Jesus uttered these words? “With a great shout!” I have heard too many sermons in my lifetime which have described in gory detail the death of a crucified man on the cross. Part of that is typically asphyxiation due to the fact that the muscles cannot lift up the diaphragm to breath properly when so mounted on the cross. Yet, as a pastor, I have been with people who are suffering from pneumonia and the asphyxiation that comes along with it and to describe their words as coming with a “great voice” is anything but what I would describe. Jesus indeed died, but he died because his work was done and it was time, an act of power that could only be done by one who is fully God (we do not number our days). The other two criminals on the cross may have died in ordinary ways (with legs broken), but Jesus chose the time and place of his death in accordance with his work and his Father’s will.
As to the two sets of spellings, Matthew is recording Jesus’ words in Hebrew and Mark in Aramaic. Which language did Jesus speak from the cross? That is speculation. Given the culture and that Mark’s Gospel seems to be older than Matthew’s, it is probably that Jesus spoke Aramaic from the cross and Matthew chose to record it in Hebrew as his original audience were a body of Jewish people. And so, we speculate at that part of the harmony, but one need not conclude a mistake on one of the Evangelist’s part, simply that they chose to use language that would best communicate the event to their audience.
The Greater Temple on the Cross
“And those passing by blasphemed him, shaking their heads, saying, ‘He is the one who would destroy the Temple and in three days rebuild it — You save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross also!’”
(Matthew 27:39-40)
“And those passing by blasphemed him, shaking their heads, saying, ‘Ha! He is the one who would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. You save yourself by coming down from the cross!’”
(Mark 15:29-30)
This sounds much like the language of Luke 23:35-37, but it seems that this is an ongoing taunt from the people. “Let him save himself.” Matthew and Mark both are very clear as to the fact that these people are intentionally blaspheming Christ as they mock him. The difference perhaps between this group and the group that Luke is referring to is that here we have recorded the words of people passing by, while Luke is referring to those who are standing by, gawking at the spectacle. Here, you can almost picture them shaking their heads as they pass, but not stopping either, going about their business as if this event had no more significance than any of the other crucifixions that the Romans had performed.
At the heart of the comments here is Jesus’ remark about tearing down the Temple and rebuilding it in three days (John 2:18-22), a reference, of course, to his body. Yet, to really understand this reference, one needs to go back a little further into the Old Testament prophets. After the Temple of Solomon was destroyed the people went into exile. We read in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah of the people’s return to the land and of the rebuilding of the Temple and of the city walls. During a slump in the rebuilding project, God sent the prophets Haggai and Zechariah to prod and encourage the people. As part of his prophesy, Malachi promises the people that the latter glory of the new Temple will be greater than the glory of the former Temple.
Now, here is where the people of the day (and some even today!) misunderstand the language of the glory of the Temple. All too often, they attribute this glory to the physical structure…hence the people took great pride in the years it took to build on the second Temple in Herod’s time (John 2:20) and the disciples even marveled at the size of the stones (Mark 13:1). Yet, where is the glory of this house? Surely it is not in the stones and workmanship, but its glory comes from the presence of God dwelling in the house. Thus, after the Tabernacle was completed, the Glory of the Lord entered into it (Exodus 40:34) and similarly, after Solomon finished the Temple, the Glory of the Lord entered into it (2 Chronicles 7:1).
Yet, prior to the fall of the Temple, the prophet Ezekiel receives a vision of the Glory of the Lord exiting from the Temple and from Jerusalem (Ezekiel 10:4;11:23). And though Ezekiel also receives a vision of the Glory of the Lord entering a new Temple (Ezekiel 43:4), this language speaks of an eternal kingdom, not the restoration of Jerusalem during Ezra and Nehemiah’s day. Why does the Glory of the Lord not re-enter the physically rebuilt temple? Because Ezra’s Temple and Herod’s Temple expansion are not the new Temple of which Haggai was speaking…Haggai was speaking of Christ, the greater Temple. And thus, the language of tearing down and rebuilding the Temple, properly belongs to Christ, the greatest Temple and could never apply to another. Further, an understanding of that principle today will preserve us from falling into the trap of thinking we will be building a new Temple in Jerusalem one future day. Christ the greater Temple has come, so what is this house that we would build for God?
Yet, they did not understand what Jesus was talking about — and how often it is also true that professing Christians as well neither understand nor care to understand what it is that Jesus was talking about. They just make things up as they go and pronounce it to be “Christian,” but without grounding the ideas in a consistent reading of the Scriptures. Were we living in a Biblically literate world, such practices would never be tolerated or followed. But “Biblical Literacy” is something that only rarely inhabits our homes and even our churches in these last days. Judge a tree by its fruit, loved ones, and be warned of the dangers that surround us in the west these days.
The Charge for which Jesus was Executed
“So, they sat down and guarded over him there, and they put over his head the accusation against him, reading, ‘This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
(Matthew 27:36-37)
“And there was an inscription of the accusation against him, reading, “The King of the Jews.”
(Mark 15:26)
“And there was an inscription over him: ‘This is the King of the Jews.”
(Luke 23:38)
In John, we already have been introduced to this inscription, but here we see it finalized for all to see. Jesus is crucified and hung on the tree (the cross) with the inscription above him, but Matthew and Mark add an important tidbit to the conversation. Not only is this a dig at the Jewish authorities who have conspired to see Jesus executed, here is the charge or the basis of the execution.
The word that Matthew and Mark introduce here is αἰτία (aitia), which is often used in a legal sense to speak of the charges brought against a man or to explain the reason for his sentence. This is particularly important because the Jewish leaders were accusing him of claiming to be the Son of God (John 19:7). Yet, Pilate is making clarifying the reason for the execution…it is not because he claimed divinity, it is because Pilate saw him as a revolutionary: hence the accusation.
And so, as Matthew records, they sat down and watched over him there. As we have already mentioned, the morbid curiosity of man is enough to explain many actions, but add to it the curiosity of people who wanted to see if yet another miracle was about to happen, then you can only imagine the circus that must of been taking place. How sad it must have been for those close to Jesus to grieve this tragic event while the whole world was watching.
It seems to me that we gravitate, as people, to the spectacle rather than gravitating toward the truth or to the human element of an event. We get excited when big news is happening, but when real and genuine issues take place all around us, we sometimes ignore them, not wanting to get involved. How radically upside down this is in the scope of things and how much more of a significant impact we could make in one another’s lives if we were more intentional about the little things and would leave the spectacles to the masses.
Men without Ears
In 1943, C.S. Lewis published his short, apologetic work, The Abolition of Man, in which he tackles “The Green Book,” a new text being used in the British educational system, one that elevates observational science over the arts and moral norms. Lewis’ premise is ultimately that the educational system was producing “men without chests” — people who used reason and their passions without the constraints of moral virtue.
The Abolition of Man was written 75 years ago and time has been the judge of Lewis’ fears and predictions. And while the point of this reflection is not to go on a long diatribe about the state of the American educational system, if the violence present in the schools today is any indication of the moral standards of student bodies, then it is a pretty clear indication of Lewis’ insights into the consequences of a bad educational model. And, by violence, I am not simply referring to school shootings and stabbings, though that is a heinous crime, I am also talking about the violence in the hallways — bullying, verbal abuse of other students and teachers, and a general lack of respect for authority amongst the student body.
My concern this morning is to suggest that we have entered a stage beyond Lewis’ prediction of men without chests. We have also created heads without ears. Many people complain that in our world today the art of debate has been abandoned. Well-crafted argumentation has been replaced simply by arguments, most of which seem to be built on an ad hominem approach.
Truly, this is not a new thing. Ad hominem and the use of other logical fallacies are techniques that Arthur Schopenhauer suggested, for example, in his work entitled, The Art of Controversy. Further, it was the method of the Sophists in the 5th century B.C. Of course, it is arguments like these to which great thinkers like Socrates and Plato objected. Yet, today, thoughtless gibes seem to be the approach that people commonly take — a brief survey of recent presidential debates is a good indication of that reality. And, I am not convinced that audiences of these supposed debates really desire to hear competing ideas weighed out, I think that most only desire to have what they already believe echoed back to them in clever and novel ways: arguments rather than carefully discussed reasons.
And that brings me to ears. Ears are the organ by which we hear things. And, in principle, it is that which we hear in a conversation that ought to cause our minds to reason and understand the position of the other person. If you say, “I think we ought to do X rather than Y,” that is merely an opinion. But, if you say, “I think we ought to do X rather than Y, because of A, B, and C,” then that is a different matter altogether. Then we can carefully evaluate reasons “A, B, and C” to confirm that they are legitimate and pertinent to the question at hand. In addition, when I respond, “No, we need to do Y, because of reasons J, K, and L” then we have data and principles to discuss. As Sherlock Holmes often quipped to John Watson, “I cannot make bricks without straw!”
The problem is that it takes time and energy to come up with reasons for your position and to be able to defend those reasons in a thoughtful way. It also requires that we sincerely listen to one another, rather than using the time when the other person is talking to come up with our next attack.
Interestingly, Jesus teaches in parables precisely because people “hear but do not understand” and “see but never perceive” (Matthew 13:14). Such is seen as a judgment of God upon the unbeliever that they will remain blind and deaf to matters of spiritual truth. Yet, have we created a society that elevates this spiritual blindness and deafness? Have we created a society where we no longer can even hear the ideas of others in a meaningful way. We use our mouths then to spout off our thoughts, but without reasoned dialogue and an exchange if ideas, every man does what is right in his own eyes and we are left with chaos.
And, if a culture ceases to value its chests (moral virtue) and its ears (the exchange and deliberation of other ideas than our own), that what is it that is left? Anarchy? There is no question, if you have spent much time around this blog, that I have strong opinions. And, as a Christian pastor, there are certain presuppositions that I have that are fundamental to the way I think and evaluate ideas. At the same time, I have most enjoyed those rare, deep conversations with those from whom I differ, that have been held in respectful ways, carefully evaluating reasons for positions and not seeking to attack the person for holding said opinions. Given that said conversations do still happen in rare circumstances, I wonder (and pray) that the art of debate may one day be revived in our land.
INRI and Politics
“Therefore, many Jewish people read this notice, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city. It was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. So the Chief Priests of the Jews said to Pilate, ‘Do not write: ‘King of the Jews,’ but instead, this man said, ‘I am king of the Jews.’ Pilate answered, ‘What I have written, I have written.’”
(John 19:20-22)
As we noted above, there is no love lost between Pilate and the Jewish officials and there is certainly a lot of manipulating that has been taking place here. Nevertheless, Pilate lets the words that he wrote stand…perhaps as a bit of a passive-aggressive dig at the Jews on his part, but again, a fulfillment of God’s design in eternal matters. Pilate knew that the trials were a farce (yet he gave the Priests what they wanted to keep the peace), so this becomes his final response in the spectacle that has been put on — “The King of the Jews” will stand, written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, three common languages of his day.
It may be speculated as to why Pilate did not have the same message written in Aramaic, the dialect of Hebrew that the Jews would have used in the marketplace and in their communities. Hebrew, the Jews tended to keep for religious matters in the Temple or the Synagogue. While it is speculative, I would suggest that once again, Pilate is seeking to make a point with the Jewish authorities…he will write the language of the charge in Hebrew — the language of the Temple — because it was the Temple officials who were responsible for bringing the charge. We cannot know for sure, but this seems a reasonable explanation.
It should also be noted that in many depictions of the cross, you see the letters INRI written on the scroll. This is the abbreviation for “Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum” — the Latin inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” As a curious tidbit, the letter “J” in English actually derives from a variant of the letter “I” in Latin (essentially, when the letter “I” is used as a consonant — originally a “Y” sound and then a “dʒ” sound…essentially the “J” of modern usage — it wasn’t until the middle ages that a distinct character was assigned).
A final note…while Pilate and the Jewish Priests were playing politics, a man was dying. And not just any man, the eternal Son of God. How often we, too, can get lost in our own agendas and, while seeking to make political points for ourselves, injustices abound all around us. How much wiser we would be to take the message of Jesus about being a servant to others and the words of the Apostle Paul about considering the needs of others as more significant than our own. The politics will play themselves out, but at the end of the day, which is more important, our own little empires or the Kingdom of Christ? Think carefully before you answer.
There’s Something Missing from Our Conversation on the Body
In 1 Corinthians 12, the Apostle Paul makes an impassioned plea for the unity of the body…a unity that can only built up in love, when the body itself is functioning properly (Ephesians 4:16). Love in the body is indeed the “better way” (1 Corinthians 12:31) toward which we should strive. To make his point, Paul reminds us that a body has many parts…there are eyes and hands and ears, etc… Because the body needs all of the parts to be whole, unity is that which must be striven for. Amen. For most of us who have grown up in Christian circles or in churches, this is an idea that is pretty basic to our existence. No matter what our personal gifts and passions may be, we need the whole to live out the Great Commission in this world.
I fear, though, in a society that has become as specialized as ours has become, Paul’s analogy is often misapplied. In today’s world, it seems, that there are specialists in just about every field. Medicine, Law, and Mechanics are all examples of areas where people specialize in a narrow field. Certainly, there is a base of knowledge that all specialists share in common (I’ll come back to that idea), but there are Dermatologists, Hematologists, and Cardiologists; there those who specialize in Criminal Law, Civil Law, and Business Law; and people also specialize in Motorcycle Mechanics, Heavy Machinery Mechanics, and Auto Mechanics — many even specializing only one a particular make of automobiles.
Even in my former trade there were specialists (I installed carpet for 11 years before entering the ministry full-time). My specialty was Residential Flooring and in that, I did a lot of custom work (borders, inlays, etc…). For several months, just after arriving in seminary, I worked for a Commercial Flooring company, laying tile and glue-down floors. While I knew the basics, the guys who did that kind of flooring for a living could work circles around me. At the same time, most of them had never used a carpet kicker before…something that is a mainstay of residential work. We were specialists — we had areas in which we overlapped, but there were things in which we each did particularly well, and it is in those areas that we each tended to stay.
So, how does this apply to the church? Certainly, there are specializations in the church. To some, God has given the gift of administration, and we need those who can wisely manage the resources that God has entrusted to the church. To others, God has given the gift of helping, which extends well past the work of the Deacons to the whole church body, who cares enough to reach out and meet the needs of others (as I write this, we have a team of people traveling home from Houston, who spent the last week doing just that). To others, God gives the gift of teaching, something that is essential in the process of discipling Christians as they grow in faith. Still, to others, God has given a heart for evangelism, and these members are wired by God to look for people with whom they can share the Gospel. All of these are specializations — we share a common basic set of skills (every Christian ought to be able to share the Gospel, but some are that much more zealous for it, etc…). And again, Paul’s analogy carries, we all are not gifted in the same way and so we need one another.
At the same time, there are things in the life of the body that keep the whole body healthy. For example, as I am closing in on 50, my family doctor has insisted that I start taking vitamins and be more intentional about daily exercise. And so, I take my “One-a-Day” and I ride my stationary bike 5 miles (or walk a mile) pretty much every day (pretty much, life gets busy). These actions do not just benefit my stomach or my heart, they benefit every part of my body, helping it to be more healthy overall. Further, I pray and spend time reading and reflecting on God’s Word, every day. This again, benefits my whole being.
Likewise, in the life of the Church, there are things that we do that benefit the whole body — they act like vitamins for our soul. Spending time reading and reflecting on the Bible is not an activity that belongs just to the specialist, every part of the body must engage in this to keep the body well. Some often say that they are not good at prayer. Of course, if you can talk or think, you can pray and it again is an essential part of the Christian life, something not reserved for a specialist. Sometimes people say that they don’t really need Sunday School, but being discipled is again something that is to be a part of every Christian’s life and without a commitment to discipleship (personal and corporate), the body will not be healthy. They are exercises and vitamins for our overall health. True, my ears may not directly benefit from time on a stationary bike, but that time strengthens my heart which circulates blood all over my body, which in turn not only helps the blood flow to the ears, but it improves the health of the body to which my ears are attached. And so, they benefit indirectly, but they benefit nonetheless.
Sometimes Christians think that they don’t need corporate worship. Here, the analogy changes a little bit because our worship is not so much something we do to strengthen our body (though our body is strengthened as a by-product), it is our service to God. Our worship is our drawing near to our Almighty God and Savior according to His Word and giving him the praise and honor for who he is and for what he has done. This is a big part of what the church was created to do.
So, to say that you don’t need to worship as part of the church body is really to say that you are not part of the body at all. You exist, perhaps, in connection with the body for your own reasons, but that is to be like a parasite, not a functioning organ. Jesus speaks of this as well when he describes the church growing like a large tree from a small seed (see Mark 4:30-32). Once the tree (the Kingdom/Church) has grown and developed branches and leaves, the birds of the air (which often represent the unbelieving nations), make their nests in the midst of the tree. The birds benefit from the tree’s presence, but are not part of the tree and are not fed by the root of the tree. And, they will only nest in the branches of the tree for a season. Worship — being fed by the tap-root of the Spirit — drawing near according to the Word — is what distinguishes the tree from the bird in its nest.
Thus, in things like worship, the study of God’s word, and prayer, it is not a matter of specializing. It is a matter of being and being healthy. What is the goal of this healthy living? It is being united and built up in love. How is this love achieved? It is achieved through the growing mature in our doctrine so that we are not blown to and fro by the winds of human cunning and deceit (see Ephesians 4:13-16). This cannot happen apart from the whole body attending to the Word of God. Yes, we specialize, but we are also a part of a whole. To understand Paul’s analogy in 1 Corinthians 12, you need to preserve this balance…how often, though, we miss the second while over-emphasizing the first.
Simon of Cyrene
“But going out, they found a man from Cyrene who was named Simon, they pressed him into service in order that he might bear his cross. And they were going up to the place called ‘Golgotha,’ which is called the Place of the Skull.”
(Matthew 27:32-33)
“And they pressed into service one passerby, Simon the Cyrene, who was coming from the countryside, the father of Alexander and Rufus, in order to bear his cross. And he carried it to the place, Golgotha, that is translated as the Place of the Skull.”
(Mark 15:21-22)
“And as he was led away, they seized Simon the Cyrene who was coming from the countryside and laid on him the cross to carry behind Jesus.”
(Luke 23:26)
Sometimes people see these verses as being at odds with John’s passage above. Many will also note that the Scriptures are entirely silent as to whether or not Jesus stumbled or fell on the way to Golgotha under the weight of the cross. Let us begin with the first objection and then move to the second.
First, John harmonizes easily with the Synoptic Gospels if you order the chronology as I have here. After the trial, Jesus is sent off to be crucified. Originally, in good Roman tradition, Jesus has the cross (or perhaps a portion of the cross) placed on his shoulders. Yet, on the way out to Golgotha, the soldiers grab Simon from the crowd and compel him to finish carrying the cross the remainder of the walk.
Why would the soldiers do this? Remember, everything about crucifixion was meant as a deterrent to those who might become a threat to the Roman rule. The sentenced one was beaten, humiliated, and paraded through town so that all could see. This served as a warning. Even the honor of dying on a cross was meant as a reminder to passersby (crucifixions were carried out alongside of main roads and thoroughfares. There was no question as to what crime these people were guilty of and if you were considering an insurrection, the crucified bodies were clear warnings about what the consequences would look like.
So…perhaps Simon (being from the countryside) looked like a potential troublemaker. This might be a way of dissuading him from acting out even before he committed his crime. Perhaps the Romans were simply making a point to those city folks who had just asked for Barabbas to be released…beware. Perhaps Jesus was moving too slowly and they wanted to expedite the process. Perhaps, because of Pilate’s reluctance to crucify Jesus, the captain of the guard chose to show Jesus a small degree of mercy on the way up to his execution. Leo (known as “The Great,” a 5th century church bishop) suggested that Simon’s inclusion was symbolic of the Gentiles being brought into the suffering of Christ (see Romans 8:17). Or, perhaps, most simply, Jesus stumbled and was unable to bear the physical weight of the cross.
We don’t know for sure. Church tradition has held that Jesus stumbled and fell under the cross’ weight. That is not only understandable, but also emphasizes the humanity of Christ as he was being tortured and murdered. Now, obviously the tradition is non-canonical, but it is supported by reason, so while we must not be overly dogmatic here, the notion of our Lord falling is a reasonable explanation for why Simon was pulled out of the crowd and impressed into service.
Who was Simon? Cyrene is a region that is located in what is modern-day Libya, so much like the Ethiopian eunuch, we find an early African Christian being involved in a very significant way. Africa became a place of refuge for the child, Jesus, as his parents fled king Herod, and now an African becomes a minister of grace to Jesus as he walks to the hill on which he will die. It is considered that this man is one and the same with Simeon who was called “Black,” found in Acts 13:1. What a profound impression this must have made on this man as he followed Jesus with the cross on the way up the hill to Golgotha. It may also be suggested that this influence touched Simon’s family as well, for Rufus is mentioned in Romans 16:13 as a friend and acquaintance of Paul’s (clearly, by the mention of their names, Mark’s audience was familiar with these men).
And, so our Lord, still in the lead, was followed with Simon carrying the cross. What a sad day in the history of mankind…yet, what wonderful hope and promise comes from this, not only that our Lord would be willing to bear such pain for us, but that he would privilege us to bear sorrow and pain as well so that we might appreciate our Lord’s sorrow and pain that much more profoundly.
The Preacher's Study 