This is such a great quote I hesitate to set apart any of it with italics or bold; it must be taken as a whole - a challenge to pastors and to the expectations of his people.
"The Word will not abide within us if we are in a hurry. We pastors deceive ourselves when we are so busy doing good things that we snatch a text and a prayer on the run and think that we will be mighty men of God and bear spiritual fruit. To be very specific, Glenn, so that you will remember it, almost no minister of the gospel will be a spiritually fruitful person if he is spending less that two hours a day in prayer and meditation in addition to his sermon preparation. Holy, powerful, life-changing spiritual men of God are not made on the run. There are so few people who believe that, Glen, that the expectations laid on you in the service will probably be a constant threat to your spiritual power and fruitfulness. But Christ has appointed you to go and bear fruit. So resist those expectations with boldness."
-John Piper, I Chose You to Bear Fruit (John 15), Ordination of Glen Bloomstrom, 1981.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
The Perpetual Love of God
"But a question is put, How did Christ die for friends since we 'were his enemies, before he reconciled us', (Romans 5:10) for, by expiating our sins through the sacrifice of his death, he destroyed the enmity that was between God and us? The answer to this question will be found under the third chapter [of John], where we said that, in reference to us, there is a state of variance between us and God, till our sins are blotted out by the death of Christ; but that the cause of this grace, which has been manifested in Christ, was the perpetual love of God, with which he loved even those who were his enemies."
- John Calvin, Commentary on John 15:13
- John Calvin, Commentary on John 15:13
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
God and Donkeys: Expanding Our View of God’s Providence in 2009
The man wiped his brow, weary from the journey of looking for his family’s lost donkeys. Both he and his servant were tired of looking and ready to return to their home. Surely they were both quite annoyed at this point and would rather have been doing something else. Perhaps they were mumbling under their breath about these donkeys that had wondered away. After all, they had other things they needed to be doing. This had been quite the interruption to their normal schedule.
These lost donkeys, however, were no accident. Their wanderings were not undirected. We find Saul the son of Kish, a Benjaminite, in 1 Samuel 9 being sent by his father to find their family’s donkeys. And, in verse 16 of that same chapter God tells Samuel, “Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people Israel.” The Benjaminite to whom the Lord is referring is Saul. And, what Saul thinks is a search for randomly wandering donkeys is in fact God’s providential leading of Saul to Samuel. It’s all a matter of perspective; what was wandering to Saul was being sent to Samuel.
God is a God of means. In this situation he chose to cause Kish’s donkeys to walk away. How often have we grumbled and complained when God is using means in our lives to accomplish his purposes? Of course, the difficult part of trusting God with the interruptions to our lives is that we don’t know the outcome. When we read 1 Samuel we have the advantage of knowing how the story ends. In our lives we may never know why things happen to us. And, it would often be a mistake to speculate. But, the one thing we must do is trust that God has his good purposes for all things that happen in our lives, even what we would call annoying interruptions (Rom. 8:28).
When our plans change by circumstances out of our control, God would call us to trust that they are perfectly in his control. The long line at the checkout, the fender bender on the way home, the lost keys that make you late for your appointment are all for the good. It could be that the house your car broke down in front of has been waiting for the gospel to reach their ears. It becomes difficult to think on such things if we’re kicking our tires and screaming on the telephone.
Instead, let us resolve to trust God’s providence in our lives in 2009. Let us trust that “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” God’s goodness to us was bought on the cross. Let us look to the gospel in 2009.
God intends to teach us this and much more about himself as we look into 1 Samuel in Adult Bible Study on Sunday mornings. I am excited about what God will do in our lives together in 2009 through the teaching of his Word.
These lost donkeys, however, were no accident. Their wanderings were not undirected. We find Saul the son of Kish, a Benjaminite, in 1 Samuel 9 being sent by his father to find their family’s donkeys. And, in verse 16 of that same chapter God tells Samuel, “Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people Israel.” The Benjaminite to whom the Lord is referring is Saul. And, what Saul thinks is a search for randomly wandering donkeys is in fact God’s providential leading of Saul to Samuel. It’s all a matter of perspective; what was wandering to Saul was being sent to Samuel.
God is a God of means. In this situation he chose to cause Kish’s donkeys to walk away. How often have we grumbled and complained when God is using means in our lives to accomplish his purposes? Of course, the difficult part of trusting God with the interruptions to our lives is that we don’t know the outcome. When we read 1 Samuel we have the advantage of knowing how the story ends. In our lives we may never know why things happen to us. And, it would often be a mistake to speculate. But, the one thing we must do is trust that God has his good purposes for all things that happen in our lives, even what we would call annoying interruptions (Rom. 8:28).
When our plans change by circumstances out of our control, God would call us to trust that they are perfectly in his control. The long line at the checkout, the fender bender on the way home, the lost keys that make you late for your appointment are all for the good. It could be that the house your car broke down in front of has been waiting for the gospel to reach their ears. It becomes difficult to think on such things if we’re kicking our tires and screaming on the telephone.
Instead, let us resolve to trust God’s providence in our lives in 2009. Let us trust that “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” God’s goodness to us was bought on the cross. Let us look to the gospel in 2009.
God intends to teach us this and much more about himself as we look into 1 Samuel in Adult Bible Study on Sunday mornings. I am excited about what God will do in our lives together in 2009 through the teaching of his Word.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Forgiveness and Marriage (Newsletter Article)
Here is an expanded version of an earlier post I did on the application of Luke 17:4 to marriage for our church's newsletter:
“Familiarity breeds contempt.” We hear this phrase often. While I don’t believe familiarity in general breeds contempt, it certainly can in the context of relationships. We find it much easier to forgive people for whom we can make excuses, or from whom we can remove ourselves. If someone you seldom interact with, like a co-worker in a different department or the guy at the grocery store, does something to offend you, then you can simply move on. You’re not likely to see them again, you say to yourself. Or, you think better of them and assume they’re just be having a bad day. You’re willing to forgive them. It’s not really an issue. That kind of forgiveness is easy.
Marriages, and other close relationships, don’t have that luxury. It is much more difficult to forgive your spouse because you see the worst of them; and, you see it every day. As a result, justification of their actions becomes a lot harder to come by. We get tired of our spouses doing the same thing. So, we get angry a lot easier the next time the same thing happens. We find it more difficult to move on. We find it more difficult to forgive. This is why marriages need Luke 17:4, “If he sins against you seven times in the day and turns to you seven times, saying, "I repent," you must forgive him.”
Luke 17:4 quiets the mouth of excuse. There is never a reason not to forgive. There is never a reason in your marriage to harbor bitterness and anger. Jesus said, “we must forgive.” So, if we apply Luke 17:4 to our marriages I think we should start a new phrase, “Familiarity breeds gospel proclamation.” When you are left without the opportunity to escape a conflict or make excuses for a person, reconciliation only comes through true forgiveness. There are not other options.
So, we have a choice to make in our marriages. Will they be arenas of bitterness, bringing up the past, brooding, and revenge; or, will they be a glorious arena of forgiveness. How we treat our spouses when they offend us says something about what we believe about the gospel. Do we believe that through the cross Jesus forgives our sin, even the same one seventy times seven? Are we willing to forgive as we have been forgiven? Do we see our spouses as forgiven saints through the cross of Jesus Christ?
This creates harmony in relationships in two ways. First, the offended party is eager to forgive. Second, when the one who offended knows he/she will find forgiveness, repentance comes much quicker. Oh, what comfort and love would exists in a marriage where a spouse knows that they will be forgiven.
Let the gospel of Jesus Christ reign in your marriages and other close relationships. While familiarity has great potential to cause contempt, it also provides a canvas on which we can paint the glories of the gospel to a watching world.
“Familiarity breeds contempt.” We hear this phrase often. While I don’t believe familiarity in general breeds contempt, it certainly can in the context of relationships. We find it much easier to forgive people for whom we can make excuses, or from whom we can remove ourselves. If someone you seldom interact with, like a co-worker in a different department or the guy at the grocery store, does something to offend you, then you can simply move on. You’re not likely to see them again, you say to yourself. Or, you think better of them and assume they’re just be having a bad day. You’re willing to forgive them. It’s not really an issue. That kind of forgiveness is easy.
Marriages, and other close relationships, don’t have that luxury. It is much more difficult to forgive your spouse because you see the worst of them; and, you see it every day. As a result, justification of their actions becomes a lot harder to come by. We get tired of our spouses doing the same thing. So, we get angry a lot easier the next time the same thing happens. We find it more difficult to move on. We find it more difficult to forgive. This is why marriages need Luke 17:4, “If he sins against you seven times in the day and turns to you seven times, saying, "I repent," you must forgive him.”
Luke 17:4 quiets the mouth of excuse. There is never a reason not to forgive. There is never a reason in your marriage to harbor bitterness and anger. Jesus said, “we must forgive.” So, if we apply Luke 17:4 to our marriages I think we should start a new phrase, “Familiarity breeds gospel proclamation.” When you are left without the opportunity to escape a conflict or make excuses for a person, reconciliation only comes through true forgiveness. There are not other options.
So, we have a choice to make in our marriages. Will they be arenas of bitterness, bringing up the past, brooding, and revenge; or, will they be a glorious arena of forgiveness. How we treat our spouses when they offend us says something about what we believe about the gospel. Do we believe that through the cross Jesus forgives our sin, even the same one seventy times seven? Are we willing to forgive as we have been forgiven? Do we see our spouses as forgiven saints through the cross of Jesus Christ?
This creates harmony in relationships in two ways. First, the offended party is eager to forgive. Second, when the one who offended knows he/she will find forgiveness, repentance comes much quicker. Oh, what comfort and love would exists in a marriage where a spouse knows that they will be forgiven.
Let the gospel of Jesus Christ reign in your marriages and other close relationships. While familiarity has great potential to cause contempt, it also provides a canvas on which we can paint the glories of the gospel to a watching world.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sinner Envy is Sin
“Let not your heart envy sinners, but continue in the fear of the Lord all the day” –Proverbs 23:17
Advertising agencies hate this verse. OK, not really. Most probably don’t know this verse exists. But, the reality is that their entire purpose in life, their business model, is to get you to envy sinners. They want you to covet what someone else has that you don’t. They use celebrities because they know that you want to be like them.
Now, I want to be careful here. I don’t mean to single out celebrities as sinners and pretend that I am not included in that universal group, save one, called sinners. There is, however, a lifestyle of waste and luxury that doesn’t bode well with sacrificing for the Kingdom of God. Of course, I am sure that I live more laviously than I ought and there are many more sacrifices that I need to make. Perhaps it’s because I’m too busy envying sinners instead of fearing God.
Advertising agencies hate this verse. OK, not really. Most probably don’t know this verse exists. But, the reality is that their entire purpose in life, their business model, is to get you to envy sinners. They want you to covet what someone else has that you don’t. They use celebrities because they know that you want to be like them.
Now, I want to be careful here. I don’t mean to single out celebrities as sinners and pretend that I am not included in that universal group, save one, called sinners. There is, however, a lifestyle of waste and luxury that doesn’t bode well with sacrificing for the Kingdom of God. Of course, I am sure that I live more laviously than I ought and there are many more sacrifices that I need to make. Perhaps it’s because I’m too busy envying sinners instead of fearing God.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Forgiveness and Marriage
"If he sins against you seven times in the day and turns to you seven times, saying, "I repent," you must forgive him" (Luke 17:4)
Marriages need Luke 17:4. I need this verse in my marriage. I need my wife to be able to forgive me because I am a dreadfully sinful person; and, my wife needs to know that if she comes to me with repentance that I will be quick to forgive. I need both the humility to repent and the humility to forgive. Often pride prevents both.
If a husband and wife knew that each fully accepted that their sins as forgiven on the cross both repentance and forgiveness would come quickly. Let us put this verse into practice with our spouses. Forgiveness in marriage will breed repentance and paint a beautiful picture of the gospel.
Marriages need Luke 17:4. I need this verse in my marriage. I need my wife to be able to forgive me because I am a dreadfully sinful person; and, my wife needs to know that if she comes to me with repentance that I will be quick to forgive. I need both the humility to repent and the humility to forgive. Often pride prevents both.
If a husband and wife knew that each fully accepted that their sins as forgiven on the cross both repentance and forgiveness would come quickly. Let us put this verse into practice with our spouses. Forgiveness in marriage will breed repentance and paint a beautiful picture of the gospel.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Be Careful What We Exalt
"For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15b).
What a powerful truth to meditate. Those things which we, in our sin, see as worthy of exaltation are hated by God. We must examine our hearts and ensure that we are not sharing in the exaltation of what is an abomination. We must ask ourselves if what we are participating in holds in high regard what God despises. Are we holding up with our finances those things that God would destroy?
What a powerful truth to meditate. Those things which we, in our sin, see as worthy of exaltation are hated by God. We must examine our hearts and ensure that we are not sharing in the exaltation of what is an abomination. We must ask ourselves if what we are participating in holds in high regard what God despises. Are we holding up with our finances those things that God would destroy?
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Great God Who Saves
I was given Laura Story's new cd Great God Who Saves this past Sunday and have really been enjoying listening to it. It's been good to be reminded that my God is mighty to save.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Forever Hating
Let me begin this post by saying that I pray all will repent and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. That being said, I often come upon the misconception that those who are condemned to Hell will wish they had repented and trusted in Jesus. The reality is that they will hate Jesus more than ever and continue to rebel against him.
In Revelation 16 we see this concept repeated three times. As the angels pour out their bowls of wrath on non-believing sinners, demonstrating the power and wrath of God, "they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory" (16:9). This is repeated in verse 11 and verse 21. They curse God for the infliction he brings upon them. They don't wish they had trusted in Him, they hate Him.
Apart from the gracious work of Christ on the cross and the awakening power of the Holy Spirit that opens blind eyes, we would forever be enemies of God. Forever.
Hell will not be full of screams of regret, but of hatred. Their eternal punishment will be just.
In Revelation 16 we see this concept repeated three times. As the angels pour out their bowls of wrath on non-believing sinners, demonstrating the power and wrath of God, "they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory" (16:9). This is repeated in verse 11 and verse 21. They curse God for the infliction he brings upon them. They don't wish they had trusted in Him, they hate Him.
Apart from the gracious work of Christ on the cross and the awakening power of the Holy Spirit that opens blind eyes, we would forever be enemies of God. Forever.
Hell will not be full of screams of regret, but of hatred. Their eternal punishment will be just.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Do Not Labor for the Food That Perishes
"Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” -John 6:27
We are guilty of this on a daily basis. We are consumed with our temporal satisfaction and we work hard to get it. We schedule our days around our meals. We leave work in the middle of the day. We just stop what we are doing because of the hunger pangs of our stomach. We can’t stand the ache of not having food. Jesus says to us, “Love me like that.” You have a road trip planned and you know you have to get up early to get to where you’re going. It’s no struggle because your heart is full of the excitement of the day that awaits you. Jesus says to us, “Love me like that.” Maybe it’s Thursday night and your favorite TV show is coming on. You ensure that everything gets taken care of so you can sit down and watch the show. And, even if you don’t get the work done it can wait until later. Jesus is saying to us, “Love me like that.”
We are guilty of this on a daily basis. We are consumed with our temporal satisfaction and we work hard to get it. We schedule our days around our meals. We leave work in the middle of the day. We just stop what we are doing because of the hunger pangs of our stomach. We can’t stand the ache of not having food. Jesus says to us, “Love me like that.” You have a road trip planned and you know you have to get up early to get to where you’re going. It’s no struggle because your heart is full of the excitement of the day that awaits you. Jesus says to us, “Love me like that.” Maybe it’s Thursday night and your favorite TV show is coming on. You ensure that everything gets taken care of so you can sit down and watch the show. And, even if you don’t get the work done it can wait until later. Jesus is saying to us, “Love me like that.”
Scholars Question the Resurrection
Okay, I know there's nothing shocking about that title. This has been the case for 2000 years now, but today's New York Times brings it to the table once again. The story calls the resurrection into question because a tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew on it seems to indicate that there was a tradition that the Jewish Messiah would die and be raised from the dead in three days. So, some are concluding that this in fact proves the resurrection of Jesus to be fabricated because Jesus and his followers were just trying to "fit the mold" of what the Messiah was to be.
The problem, of course, is that this reasoning negates the resurrection regardless of whether there was such tradition or not. If the resurrection occurred and there was no written tradition for such in Judaism, then he cannot be the Jewish Messiah. Instead, they claim this concept was developed later and written back in by the disciples. Now, they say, it can be proven that the tradition pre-dated the cross, but that simply means Jesus was trying to be something he wasn't. Instead of modifying their conclusions, they keep them, because they are already convinced such a resurrection is not possible.
There are few clearer examples of forcing the evidence to justify one's conclusions. A natural conclusion would be that this concept came from the OT Scriptures, though possibly misguided at times and misdirected (ie the Messiah being someone named Simon as the article indicates). Jesus himself said that Jonah's three days in the whale was a sign. So, there is OT precedent for a concept of three days.
I pray God will open their blinded eyes.
The problem, of course, is that this reasoning negates the resurrection regardless of whether there was such tradition or not. If the resurrection occurred and there was no written tradition for such in Judaism, then he cannot be the Jewish Messiah. Instead, they claim this concept was developed later and written back in by the disciples. Now, they say, it can be proven that the tradition pre-dated the cross, but that simply means Jesus was trying to be something he wasn't. Instead of modifying their conclusions, they keep them, because they are already convinced such a resurrection is not possible.
There are few clearer examples of forcing the evidence to justify one's conclusions. A natural conclusion would be that this concept came from the OT Scriptures, though possibly misguided at times and misdirected (ie the Messiah being someone named Simon as the article indicates). Jesus himself said that Jonah's three days in the whale was a sign. So, there is OT precedent for a concept of three days.
I pray God will open their blinded eyes.
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Why It Just Doesn't Add Up
Some of you have asked me to return to the blogosphere. This latest documentary from James Cameron and the Discovery Channel have provided the necessary motivation. For those of you who haven't heard about this yet, this documentary claims that the tomb of Jesus has been discovered along with the ossuary that would have held his remains, hence an attempt to refute the bodily resurrection. This is the evidence they provide:
1. In this particular tomb there are 6 names: Jesus, the son of Joseph; Mary, Mary, James, Matthew, and Judah.
2. It is claimed that Matthew is a relative of Mary, the mother of Jesus, that the other Mary is Mary Magdalene, that James is a brother of Jesus, and that Judah is the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
3. They claim that this cluster of names in one tomb would have been very unlikely to be any thing other than the tomb of Jesus himself.
4. Also, DNA tests were done to "prove" that Mary and Jesus were married. (DNA samples were taken from these two tombs and they didn't show maternal relationship. Therefore, they concluded, that since they are buried together and their DNA doesn't match that they were married.)
Here are my reasons why this is shoddy science at best:
1. If this Mary was not a blood relative of the Jesus they found in this tomb, then neither is she the relative of any other male in the tomb. So, by their own reasoning she could be married to any of the males in that tomb. Simply showing that 2 sets of DNA do not match does not a marriage make.
2. If they wanted to prove their point then they would need to demonstrate that the brother of Jesus had matching DNA to Mary (the mother); or, they could simply see if Judah matched both Jesus and Mary (Magdalene) to prove that it was their son. Now, that would be closer to definitive proof that the Jesus in this tomb had a child with one of the Mary's in this tomb. The point is that there were plenty of other DNA tests that could have been done to bolster their position, but they claimed to have only found DNA in these two ossuaries (Jesus and Mary).
3. Isn't it convenient that the ONLY DNA they found was in the ossuaries supposedly of the two people that were in the DaVinci Code as a married couple. This reeks of capitalizing on what was already made recently popular by the best-selling book. The timing of the release in conjunction with Easter also reeks of monetary motivation, not scientific motivation.
4. I would love to know how they can scientifically prove that the DNA residue they found wasn't from a guy who smashed his finger when he was placing the bones in the ossuary. (they are not getting it from the bones, but from "residue").
5. I cannot find anywhere if the ossuary of this Jesus and this Mary were even found next to each other. They may have been, I just haven't heard anyone use this as further evidence. It will be interesting if they mention the location of the ossuaries in the tomb in the documentary.
6. Jesus was probably from a relatively poor family from Nazareth. So, it is strange that his family tomb would be a middle class one in Jerusalem. They claim that Jesus' followers certainly would have been able to afford such a tomb (as quoted by the archaeologist on Larry King). Here's the problem:
a. Jesus' followers claimed that he was alive, raised from the dead. Don't you think they would go to a little effort to not make his tomb quite so obvious if they were responsible for his burial?
b. Why would Jesus' faithful disciples bury him in a tomb like any other tomb with 9 other people? Wouldn't they either make an effort to hide the burial of his bones, or otherwise have a highly decorated memorial tomb for their fallen and heroic hero? Instead, this documentary has to claim that they didn't bother to hide his body, nor did they bother to distinguish his burial. They simply lackadaisically buried him in a ordinary middle class family tomb.
Well, this is drawing long, but the point is that this is not science at all, but just yet another attempt to avoid accountability before the living God. Jesus is the risen Savior. I pray that God would open the blinded eyes of the men who prepared this documentary that they may see the glories of the risen Savior.
1. In this particular tomb there are 6 names: Jesus, the son of Joseph; Mary, Mary, James, Matthew, and Judah.
2. It is claimed that Matthew is a relative of Mary, the mother of Jesus, that the other Mary is Mary Magdalene, that James is a brother of Jesus, and that Judah is the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
3. They claim that this cluster of names in one tomb would have been very unlikely to be any thing other than the tomb of Jesus himself.
4. Also, DNA tests were done to "prove" that Mary and Jesus were married. (DNA samples were taken from these two tombs and they didn't show maternal relationship. Therefore, they concluded, that since they are buried together and their DNA doesn't match that they were married.)
Here are my reasons why this is shoddy science at best:
1. If this Mary was not a blood relative of the Jesus they found in this tomb, then neither is she the relative of any other male in the tomb. So, by their own reasoning she could be married to any of the males in that tomb. Simply showing that 2 sets of DNA do not match does not a marriage make.
2. If they wanted to prove their point then they would need to demonstrate that the brother of Jesus had matching DNA to Mary (the mother); or, they could simply see if Judah matched both Jesus and Mary (Magdalene) to prove that it was their son. Now, that would be closer to definitive proof that the Jesus in this tomb had a child with one of the Mary's in this tomb. The point is that there were plenty of other DNA tests that could have been done to bolster their position, but they claimed to have only found DNA in these two ossuaries (Jesus and Mary).
3. Isn't it convenient that the ONLY DNA they found was in the ossuaries supposedly of the two people that were in the DaVinci Code as a married couple. This reeks of capitalizing on what was already made recently popular by the best-selling book. The timing of the release in conjunction with Easter also reeks of monetary motivation, not scientific motivation.
4. I would love to know how they can scientifically prove that the DNA residue they found wasn't from a guy who smashed his finger when he was placing the bones in the ossuary. (they are not getting it from the bones, but from "residue").
5. I cannot find anywhere if the ossuary of this Jesus and this Mary were even found next to each other. They may have been, I just haven't heard anyone use this as further evidence. It will be interesting if they mention the location of the ossuaries in the tomb in the documentary.
6. Jesus was probably from a relatively poor family from Nazareth. So, it is strange that his family tomb would be a middle class one in Jerusalem. They claim that Jesus' followers certainly would have been able to afford such a tomb (as quoted by the archaeologist on Larry King). Here's the problem:
a. Jesus' followers claimed that he was alive, raised from the dead. Don't you think they would go to a little effort to not make his tomb quite so obvious if they were responsible for his burial?
b. Why would Jesus' faithful disciples bury him in a tomb like any other tomb with 9 other people? Wouldn't they either make an effort to hide the burial of his bones, or otherwise have a highly decorated memorial tomb for their fallen and heroic hero? Instead, this documentary has to claim that they didn't bother to hide his body, nor did they bother to distinguish his burial. They simply lackadaisically buried him in a ordinary middle class family tomb.
Well, this is drawing long, but the point is that this is not science at all, but just yet another attempt to avoid accountability before the living God. Jesus is the risen Savior. I pray that God would open the blinded eyes of the men who prepared this documentary that they may see the glories of the risen Savior.
The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Why It Just Doesn't Add Up
Some of you have asked me to return to the blogosphere. This latest documentary from James Cameron and the Discovery Channel have provided the necessary motivation. For those of you who haven't heard about this yet, this documentary claims that the tomb of Jesus has been discovered along with the ossuary that would have held his remains, hence an attempt to refute the bodily resurrection. This is the evidence they provide:
1. In this particular tomb there are 6 names: Jesus, the son of Joseph; Mary, Mary, James, Matthew, and Judah.
2. It is claimed that Matthew is a relative of Mary, the mother of Jesus, that the other Mary is Mary Magdalene, that James is a brother of Jesus, and that Judah is the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
3. They claim that this cluster of names in one tomb would have been very unlikely to be any thing other than the tomb of Jesus himself.
4. Also, DNA tests were done to "prove" that Mary and Jesus were married. (DNA samples were taken from these two tombs and they didn't show maternal relationship. Therefore, they concluded, that since they are buried together and their DNA doesn't match that they were married.)
Here are my reasons why this is shoddy science at best:
1. If this Mary was not a blood relative of the Jesus they found in this tomb, then neither is she the relative of any other male in the tomb. So, by their own reasoning she could be married to any of the males in that tomb. Simply showing that 2 sets of DNA do not match does not a marriage make.
2. If they wanted to prove their point then they would need to demonstrate that the brother of Jesus had matching DNA to Mary (the mother); or, they could simply see if Judah matched both Jesus and Mary (Magdalene) to prove that it was their son. Now, that would be closer to definitive proof that the Jesus in this tomb had a child with one of the Mary's in this tomb. The point is that there were plenty of other DNA tests that could have been done to bolster their position, but they claimed to have only found DNA in these two ossuaries (Jesus and Mary).
3. Isn't it convenient that the ONLY DNA they found was in the ossuaries supposedly of the two people that were in the DaVinci Code as a married couple. This reeks of capitalizing on what was already made recently popular by the best-selling book. The timing of the release in conjunction with Easter also reeks of monetary motivation, not scientific motivation.
4. I would love to know how they can scientifically prove that the DNA residue they found wasn't from a guy who smashed his finger when he was placing the bones in the ossuary. (they are not getting it from the bones, but from "residue").
5. I cannot find anywhere if the ossuary of this Jesus and this Mary were even found next to each other. They may have been, I just haven't heard anyone use this as further evidence. It will be interesting if they mention the location of the ossuaries in the tomb in the documentary.
6. Jesus was probably from a relatively poor family from Nazareth. So, it is strange that his family tomb would be a middle class one in Jerusalem. They claim that Jesus' followers certainly would have been able to afford such a tomb (as quoted by the archaeologist on Larry King). Here's the problem:
a. Jesus' followers claimed that he was alive, raised from the dead. Don't you think they would go to a little effort to not make his tomb quite so obvious if they were responsible for his burial?
b. Why would Jesus' faithful disciples bury him in a tomb like any other tomb with 9 other people? Wouldn't they either make an effort to hide the burial of his bones, or otherwise have a highly decorated memorial tomb for their fallen and heroic hero? Instead, this documentary has to claim that they didn't bother to hide his body, nor did they bother to distinguish his burial. They simply lackadaisically buried him in a ordinary middle class family tomb.
Well, this is drawing long, but the point is that this is not science at all, but just yet another attempt to avoid accountability before the living God. Jesus is the risen Savior. I pray that God would open the blinded eyes of the men who prepared this documentary that they may see the glories of the risen Savior.
1. In this particular tomb there are 6 names: Jesus, the son of Joseph; Mary, Mary, James, Matthew, and Judah.
2. It is claimed that Matthew is a relative of Mary, the mother of Jesus, that the other Mary is Mary Magdalene, that James is a brother of Jesus, and that Judah is the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
3. They claim that this cluster of names in one tomb would have been very unlikely to be any thing other than the tomb of Jesus himself.
4. Also, DNA tests were done to "prove" that Mary and Jesus were married. (DNA samples were taken from these two tombs and they didn't show maternal relationship. Therefore, they concluded, that since they are buried together and their DNA doesn't match that they were married.)
Here are my reasons why this is shoddy science at best:
1. If this Mary was not a blood relative of the Jesus they found in this tomb, then neither is she the relative of any other male in the tomb. So, by their own reasoning she could be married to any of the males in that tomb. Simply showing that 2 sets of DNA do not match does not a marriage make.
2. If they wanted to prove their point then they would need to demonstrate that the brother of Jesus had matching DNA to Mary (the mother); or, they could simply see if Judah matched both Jesus and Mary (Magdalene) to prove that it was their son. Now, that would be closer to definitive proof that the Jesus in this tomb had a child with one of the Mary's in this tomb. The point is that there were plenty of other DNA tests that could have been done to bolster their position, but they claimed to have only found DNA in these two ossuaries (Jesus and Mary).
3. Isn't it convenient that the ONLY DNA they found was in the ossuaries supposedly of the two people that were in the DaVinci Code as a married couple. This reeks of capitalizing on what was already made recently popular by the best-selling book. The timing of the release in conjunction with Easter also reeks of monetary motivation, not scientific motivation.
4. I would love to know how they can scientifically prove that the DNA residue they found wasn't from a guy who smashed his finger when he was placing the bones in the ossuary. (they are not getting it from the bones, but from "residue").
5. I cannot find anywhere if the ossuary of this Jesus and this Mary were even found next to each other. They may have been, I just haven't heard anyone use this as further evidence. It will be interesting if they mention the location of the ossuaries in the tomb in the documentary.
6. Jesus was probably from a relatively poor family from Nazareth. So, it is strange that his family tomb would be a middle class one in Jerusalem. They claim that Jesus' followers certainly would have been able to afford such a tomb (as quoted by the archaeologist on Larry King). Here's the problem:
a. Jesus' followers claimed that he was alive, raised from the dead. Don't you think they would go to a little effort to not make his tomb quite so obvious if they were responsible for his burial?
b. Why would Jesus' faithful disciples bury him in a tomb like any other tomb with 9 other people? Wouldn't they either make an effort to hide the burial of his bones, or otherwise have a highly decorated memorial tomb for their fallen and heroic hero? Instead, this documentary has to claim that they didn't bother to hide his body, nor did they bother to distinguish his burial. They simply lackadaisically buried him in a ordinary middle class family tomb.
Well, this is drawing long, but the point is that this is not science at all, but just yet another attempt to avoid accountability before the living God. Jesus is the risen Savior. I pray that God would open the blinded eyes of the men who prepared this documentary that they may see the glories of the risen Savior.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Can We Judge Faithfulness by Results?
The modern test for the success of anything is results. The stock market goes up or down based on the profit results for a company in a given quarter. Promotions and raises in the workplace are based on whether or not the employee produces results. Schools are given a certain level of federal and state funding based on results. I could go on and on. Everywhere we turn in the modern world the usefulness and value of something is based on results.
That may not be a bad thing in dealing with the things of the world, but we must be vigilant not to allow it to spill over into how we evaluate the work of the church. We must constantly remind ourselves that the church is not to work according to the ways of the world. A church should long to be faithful, and faithfulness cannot necessarily be measured by results.
There are two biblical examples that show this kind of worldly thinking cannot apply to the things of the Lord; Jereboam, king of Israel, and Jeremiah. 2 Kings 14:27 says that the Lord “saved them by the hand of Jereboam the son of Joash.” In today’s world, one may read this and think that Jereboam therefore must have been a faithful person, but that is not the case. Verse 24 says, “and he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” In other words, the Lord used Jereboam to produce results, but by no means was Jereboam a faithful servant.
Then there was Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 7:27 the Lord tells Jeremiah, “So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you.” So, here one may argue that Jeremiah was not faithful because he did not produce results in the lives of those to whom he prophesied. The reality is, however, that Jeremiah was faithful. He faithfully communicated God’s message whether people were listening or not. Of course, the Lord did bless Jeremiah with results long after his time. Many now read the book of Jeremiah and are changed by it. But, those results were not seen in his day.
So, let us be sure to measure faithfulness by whether or not a person, or a church, is faithful, not by the results they may produce.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Two Different Worlds
The contrast pointed out in this post at Slice of Laodecia gets to the heart of the problems with much of American Christianity.
Scripture Does Not Exaggerate
When reading Scripture, on this we must be clear on: it does not exaggerate. It uses poetry, analogy, metaphor, and many other literary devices, but it does not use them to cast an inaccurate picture. Why do I say this? 1 Peter 2:1-3 tells us that we are to long for the pure milk of the Word like a newborn infant. A newborn infant screams and cries and will not be satisfied with anything else until it has its satisfaction in milk. Peter says in the same way we are to long for the Word.
Now, it would be easy to dismiss this as an exaggeration and excuse away what, by these standards, would be a callous indifference to the Word. Now, it doesn't mean that we have to cry and scream if we don't read our Bible. But, it does mean that we should be satisfied by nothing else. It means that our deepest and most immediate craving should be for God's Word. May we be satisfied by nothing less!
Now, it would be easy to dismiss this as an exaggeration and excuse away what, by these standards, would be a callous indifference to the Word. Now, it doesn't mean that we have to cry and scream if we don't read our Bible. But, it does mean that we should be satisfied by nothing else. It means that our deepest and most immediate craving should be for God's Word. May we be satisfied by nothing less!
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Rick Warren: A Reformation Without Theology?
"Inclusive Christianity means that we don't argue over the minor parts; for instance, Catholics and Protestants . . . I believe that we need a second Reformation in the church and the second Reformation is not about Theology, I think we know what we believe . . . now, we're never going to agree on all the minor doctrines . . . but we do agree on purpose." - Rick Warren
These are Rick Warren's exact words from his recent interview with Charlie Rose. Let me begin by saying that I have no desire to attack Rick Warren as a person. I truly appreciate the attention he is bringing to the AIDS crisis in Africa, though I profoundly disagree with some of the means he is employing in that effort.
That being said, to pretend as if the differences between Catholics and Protestants are minor reveals one of two things. He is either historically and theologically ignorant or he is willing to compromise for the sake of efficiency and expediency. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the latter is the case, especially since he indicates that "purpose" is what should bring us together. Catholics do not believe that we are saved by faith alone through grace alone on the basis of Christ's work alone. This is not "minor." Heaven and Hell hang in the balance.
Furthermore, to call for a reformation absent theology also reveals an unfortunate misunderstanding of what theology is. Theology is not just academic study consisting of musings over the nature of God. Theology is the basis for everything we do as Christians, including reaching out to alleviate the AIDS crisis. That sort of love is based on the loving character of Christ and the common grace of the Father, which are both part of theology (Christology and Theology proper). Additionally, the questions Warren is asking concerning the responsibility of the church is included in the study of theology as well. It even has its own name, Ecclesiology.
Doctrine will always matter in every area of our faith, including our practice.
I pray that the Lord will grant Warren repentance for his indifference to the Word of God and the theology that it teaches on every page.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
These are Rick Warren's exact words from his recent interview with Charlie Rose. Let me begin by saying that I have no desire to attack Rick Warren as a person. I truly appreciate the attention he is bringing to the AIDS crisis in Africa, though I profoundly disagree with some of the means he is employing in that effort.
That being said, to pretend as if the differences between Catholics and Protestants are minor reveals one of two things. He is either historically and theologically ignorant or he is willing to compromise for the sake of efficiency and expediency. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the latter is the case, especially since he indicates that "purpose" is what should bring us together. Catholics do not believe that we are saved by faith alone through grace alone on the basis of Christ's work alone. This is not "minor." Heaven and Hell hang in the balance.
Furthermore, to call for a reformation absent theology also reveals an unfortunate misunderstanding of what theology is. Theology is not just academic study consisting of musings over the nature of God. Theology is the basis for everything we do as Christians, including reaching out to alleviate the AIDS crisis. That sort of love is based on the loving character of Christ and the common grace of the Father, which are both part of theology (Christology and Theology proper). Additionally, the questions Warren is asking concerning the responsibility of the church is included in the study of theology as well. It even has its own name, Ecclesiology.
Doctrine will always matter in every area of our faith, including our practice.
I pray that the Lord will grant Warren repentance for his indifference to the Word of God and the theology that it teaches on every page.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Friday, August 18, 2006
The Conviction of the Word
"Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. " Matthew 5:42
As I read through the Sermon on the Mount last week I stopped to reflect on this verse. We often have people coming to the church asking for money for all kinds of different things. I even had a gentlemen come in, ask for $3,000, and request that we take up a love offering to cover it. (This man has refused to get a job of any sort because he says they don't pay enough.) Needless to say, not every request is a valid one.
What I found, however, upon reading this verse is that my heart had become jaded by those who abuse the generosity of the church. There are many among those who come who genuinely need help. The Lord blessed me immensely by allowing me to act on the conviction of the Holy Spirit the very next day. Eddie, a man whom I have talked to before, came by and needed money for gas so that he could get his prescription filled. Though I was rather skeptical at first, I found myself rehearsing Matthew 5:42. God's Word, through the Holy Spirit, won out over my unnecessary and sinful skepticism. "Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
As a result of that opportunity I was able to take Eddie to lunch today and share the gospel over a McDonald's cheeseburger and fries. So, why do I share this? Am I boasting in my good works? I pray that I am not. Instead, I want to praise God for using His Word to make a sinful, stubborn, selfish man give to one who was in need. I pray that the Lord would continue to mold me through His Word.
"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." -Hebrews 4:12
What I found, however, upon reading this verse is that my heart had become jaded by those who abuse the generosity of the church. There are many among those who come who genuinely need help. The Lord blessed me immensely by allowing me to act on the conviction of the Holy Spirit the very next day. Eddie, a man whom I have talked to before, came by and needed money for gas so that he could get his prescription filled. Though I was rather skeptical at first, I found myself rehearsing Matthew 5:42. God's Word, through the Holy Spirit, won out over my unnecessary and sinful skepticism. "Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
As a result of that opportunity I was able to take Eddie to lunch today and share the gospel over a McDonald's cheeseburger and fries. So, why do I share this? Am I boasting in my good works? I pray that I am not. Instead, I want to praise God for using His Word to make a sinful, stubborn, selfish man give to one who was in need. I pray that the Lord would continue to mold me through His Word.
"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." -Hebrews 4:12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)