Putting our children to bed is always a precious time to read the Bible, sing hymns, and talk about the day. But precious as it is, it is not always simple.
A few days ago, as our five year old was minutes from dream land, he began asking questions about Jesus’ birth. I listened to my wife explain that Jesus had always existed. And I heard him respond, “Yes, but he was also born,” exposing the challenge that if Jesus was born than he must have had a beginning. Right?
Perhaps, we have the making of a little Arian in our home (as in Arius from the fourth century Africa, not the Third Reich in twentieth century), or perhaps he is simply experiencing the challenge that we all face when we begin to press into the incarnation of Jesus Christ. What does it mean that the eternal Son of God who was with God before the beginning of time (John 1:1) took on flesh and became a man in time?
The Incarnation
The subject of the incarnation is puzzling for adults let alone little boys with active imaginations. Continue reading →
In the Gospels, Jesus frequently spoke of why he “came.” For instance, in Mark 1:38, when the crowds are pressing in on him, Jesus tells his disciples, “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out.” While Jesus was attentive to the needs of man; he was perfectly obedient to his Father’s will. As John reiterates time and again in his gospel, the Son was ‘sent’ by the Father on a mission to redeem those whom the Father had given him before the ages began.
Thus, to understand who Jesus is one must look at his Christological mission—what missiologists might call the Missio Dei. As the image of the invisible God and the Son whose obedience pleased the Father, Jesus’ “I have come . . .” statements reveal the very heart of God and the work Christ came to accomplish. To know these statements is to know a great deal about our Lord. To overlook them is to miss a key insight into his self-identity and mission. Continue reading →
A friend of mine once quipped that when we tell people we are ‘fine,’ we are really saying in code that we are Freaked Out, Insecure, Neurotic, and Emotional (F. I. N. E.). I think he has a point, as ‘fine’ is so often used to cover up deep-seated insecurities and hurt.
Sad as it may be, this is the human condition. We are masters of making fig-leaf coverings. We have lost our original covering of righteousness, and deep down we all know that something is not quite right.
On biblical terms: We are made to bear the image of God’s glory, but in our sin we have fallen short. Therefore, we need restoration to be who God made us to be. In other words, we need to be remade in the image of God. Praise be to God that this is what the gospel of Jesus Christ accomplishes. Consider just a few verses. Continue reading →
In his commentary on Philippians, Moises Silva outlines the literary structure to Philippians 2:5-8 in two parallel stanzas. This passage, regularly assumed to be an early Christian hymn, has received much attention from scholars and for good reason. It beautifully describes the incarnation and crucifixion of our Lord, which entitled Jesus to receive the name of above all names (vv. 9-11).
Silva’s outline discerns the structure of the hymn and helps the reader see the main points of the passage.
who in the FORM of God existing
in likeness of menBECOMING
not an advantage considered his being equal with God
Hebrews 10:4 states that the blood of bulls and goats cannot atone for sin. To those familiar with the argument of Hebrews or the typology of sacrifice in the Bible, it will come as no surprise that an animal cannot atone for the sins of a human. The Old Testament sacrifice can only purify the flesh, and only for a time. The value of an animal is insufficient for ransoming men made in the image of God. Only another man can do that, but then only if that man is unblemished in body and will.
UPDATE: On the basis of a few comments and further reflection, here is an updated outline of the chiasmus in Matthew 3-4. What do you think?
In preparation for Sunday’s message, I came across some themes in Matthew 3:1-4:17 that seemed to present themselves as a conceptual chiasmus in Matthew’s gospel. The issue revolves around the identity of Jesus, which the whole point of Matthew’s writing and the point he is trying to make early on in his gospel.
What I noticed is that in chapters 3-4 is that Matthew seems to pit John’s testimony about Jesus against Satan’s questions to Jesus. The former affirms the sonship of Christ and prepares the way (3:3) for the Father to declare his unconditional approval of the son (3:17). By contrast, Satan takes the word of God and twists it back against Jesus so that, he questions Jesus identity with it (4:1-11).
In the end, John’s testimony proves true as Jesus abides in God’s word (4:4, 7, 10) and resists the temptation of the devil. In the end, John’s proclamation of the kingdom’s nearness (3:2) is confirmed by Jesus’ devotion to the Father. Therefore, Matthew records Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom, which nicely concludes this section of his gospel (4:17).
Here is my conceptual outline below. Would love to hear your thoughts. Continue reading →
Yesterday I preached a pair of messages on the “gospel preached beforehand.” In Galatians 3:8, Paul writes, “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”
I have thought much about what the contents of that ‘gospel message’ would have been, and yesterday I sought to explain from Genesis 12, 15, 17, and 22, how the Lord proclaimed the good news to the patriarch Abraham. In short order, I argued that the content of the gospel can be witnessed in God’s promise of grace (Gen 12), justification by faith that results in a covenant relationship (Gen 15), circumcised citizenship in the kingdom of God (Gen 17), and the necessity of the Lord’s sacrifice, substitution, and resurrection (Gen 22).
Only when all of these elements are included do you have the full gospel message. Maybe I saw too much Christ in the Old Testament, maybe not enough. Tell me what you think.
Here is the sermon audio. The first message begins in Luke 24 and turns to look at Genesis 12, 15, and 17; the second message covers Genesis 22 with an introductory excursus asking this question: ‘Since we have the full gospel (Heb 1:1-4), why should we spend much time on the gospel preached beforehand?”
For I am not ashamed of the gospel
for it is the power of God for salvation
to everyone who believes,
to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16)
The gospel.
It is a word made impotent by its vague familiarity. Like ‘love’—which sells hamburgers, promotes athletics, and expresses marital bliss—‘gospel’ has become a filler word. It is often used, but little understood. Don’t believe me? Just ask a Christian what the word is, and wait for the stammering to begin—uh . . . well . . . hmmm . . . you know . . . it’s the gospel.
The gospel is often assumed. Rarely defined. Abstract, not concrete. It is a good word to use in church, but it is a word more quickly said than studied.
Such gospel assumption—or it is amnesia?—impairs our witness and our worship. Therefore, we need to ask some questions about the gospel: Who needs the gospel? Christians or non-Christians? What do we do with the gospel? Is it a message to be believed and preached? Or is it a way of life to be lived? Are there variations of the gospel? Or is the message singular? How do you define the gospel? Continue reading →
Last Sunday, I began a series on the gospel—what it is, what it isn’t. Much has been written about ‘the gospel’ in the last few years. This sermon series is my attempt to help our church fall in love with the gospel all over again.
Over the course of the next two months, I hope to tackle a number facets about the gospel and to help our church to stand firm in the gospel of Jesus Christ. If the subject of the gospel interests you—as it does the angels in heaven (1 Pet 1:12)—please check back to hear the audio and/or leave a note. I’d love to keep up the conversation with you.
Here is a rough outline of what we will cover in the days ahead.
The kingdom of Christ and the kingship of Christ have received most scholarly attention in recent years. (In truth, the kingdom of Christ has rightly received great emphasis since the Christ declared that the kingdom of God was drawing near). Comparatively, the priesthood of Jesus Christ has often been slighted, misrepresented, or put in second (or third) place behind Christ’s status as king or prophet. However, this ought not be so.
The New Testament frequently displays Christ doing priestly activities (atonement, intercession, teaching, etc.), and in places like Hebrews, the author displays him as the high priest par excellence. On this important role, John Murray provided an insightful reflection on the “inter-permeation” between Christ’s priesthood and kingship. While Christ’s kingship is often affirmed, it is often disfigured because of its separation from Christ’s kingdom. Murray nicely unites the two.
In context, he points to 1 John 2:1-2; Rom 8:34; and Heb 7:24-25 as places where Christ’s ongoing priesthood is explicitly mentioned. He argues that Christ’s priesthood should be recaptured if we are to fully appreciate the exalted work of Christ. Here is his main argument.
Truly Christ executes his kingly office as head over all things to his body the church. But Christ is a priest upon his throne, and we must not allow the consideration of his kingly office to eclipse that aspect of Christ’s heavenly activity with which we are now concerned. There is here an inter-permeation of the various offices. What we are concerned with now is to recognize that his specifically high priestly ministrations are more operative and pervasive in the church upon earth than we are frequently disposed to to appreciate. And when his specifically priestly function is duly appreciated, new perspectives are opened up in the interpretation of the activity of our exalted Lord. . . . This adds new richness to our conception of the relation he sustains to his people and enhances our understanding of the significance for us, as individual believers and as members of the body which is the church, of the activity which Christ in heaven continues to exercise in reference to God on behalf of those whom he has purchased with his blood (John Murray, “The Heavenly, Priestly Activity of Christ,” in Collected Works of John Murray, vol. 1 [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976], 47).
In light of the attention given to the papal election of Pope Francis and the Catholic Church’s confused understanding of priesthood (and kingdom), it is vital that Protestants recapture a biblical understanding of priesthood. It begins with understanding what Murray has argued. We must understand how the ongoing priesthood of Christ, the priesthood of believers continue to this day and how those two realities are related. Murray’s article is a helpful starting place. Hopefully, in the days ahead, Protestants will be better equipped to affirm the finished work of Christ’s atonement and the ongoing work of his intercession and royal-priestly session.
Putting our children to bed is always a precious time to read the Bible, sing hymns, and talk about the day. But precious as it is, it is not always simple.
Via Emmaus 