thetenthleper
This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Should You Sing Along to Worship Songs When Your Heart Isn’t In It?
Posted in Worship on February 21, 2012
“Let the word of Christ dwell in your richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
-Colossians 3:16-
I have mixed reactions to worship music. Sometimes I’m into it and feel so full of God’s Spirit that I could punch the devil in the face. Other times I’m frankly just trying to get through it.
Let’s be honest. Sometimes during worship, our hearts just aren’t in it. We read the words on the jumbo screen, know that they should move us to an incredibly emotional response, but they don’t. We see people around us raising not one but two hands and feel guilty. Even worse, we know we can’t just start raising our hands because then we’d feel hypocritical and thus guilty. In moments like this, it can feel like we’re caught between guilt and guilt. You’re a terrible person for not feeling that way. And if you sing along when you’re not feeling it, you’re a terrible person because you’re a hypocrite. Is there a solution? What do we do when we don’t feel like worshiping?
Sing anyway.
But isn’t that hypocritical? Depends. If you’re singing in the attempt to impress others, then yes. It would also be sinful to sing in the attempt to trick yourself into thinking that you really do feel the words you’re singing when you actually don’t. But to not feel all mushy-for-Jesus in worship isn’t necessarily bad. In fact, if we’re assuming that correct worship always results in an emotional response, then we’ve misunderstood the purpose of worship music.
Worship is our response to God and his truth. He speaks, we respond, and we are to teach others what he speaks so that they too can respond (Matt.28:20). What’s interesting is that in Colossians 3:16, Paul says that one of the purposes of worship music is to teach. I’ve too often treated it purely as a way to respond to God rather than a way to teach myself and others about him. But according to this verse, worship music should (along with admonishing us) teach us about God and his word.
In my own life, when I start to beat myself up or have negative thoughts about myself, I often recite verses like Psalm 32:1, which says: “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” Or when I feel overwhelmed with guilt over sin, I repeat Romans 8:1 to myself, which tells me that I’m not condemned. The point in this exercise is to remind myself of truth regardless of what I feel. And many times (though not always) feelings will follow.
Similarly, since worship music to Paul has a teaching element to it, feelings don’t determine whether we should sing or not. Rather, we should sing truth to ourselves so that we can respond emotionally. Sometimes it’s out of the abundant overflow of my heart that I quote Romans 8:1. Other times, it’s when everything in me feels burdened and condemned that I have to dutifully repeat it to myself over and over again to get its truth in me. Whatever our emotional state, it is never a waste of time or breath to teach God’s word to ourselves. And singing worship music is a way to do that.
So when you’re standing there feeling cold at heart and surrounded by people raising their hands, don’t feel guilty. Leave your hands at your sides. Reign in those fake tears. You may not be able to sing those words to God with strong emotions and that’s okay. It’s not necessarily sinful. Rather than singing and pretending the words on screen reflect how you feel, sing them to remind yourself of the truths they are based on. Eventually, it will bear fruit.
Around the InterWeb (2/14/12)
Posted in Around the InterWeb on February 14, 2012
People Are Not Distractions. Good reminder from my buddy Paul on something I need to consistently be reminded of.
When Your Preacher is Not John Piper. Great, great article. I’d been wanting to write this article for years, but Steve Burchett did it better than I ever could. In the age of the sermon podcast, churches need to remember to give thanks to God for faithful pastors, whether they’re celebrities or nobodies.
6 Ways to Help Those Suffering a Dark Night of the Soul. Some helpful reminders about ministering to those who are suffering. The first point I believe is especially helpful.
Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? Now this is pretty legit. Dr. Dan Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary discusses the recent discovery of a first-century copy of the Gospel of Mark. This would be the earliest piece of the New Testament ever recovered up to this point.
The Verse that Gets Forgotten in the Faith/Works Debate
Posted in Bible on February 10, 2012
This post is a short one. It’s not intended to dive deep into the whole “faith vs. works” debate but rather to throw a stick in the spokes of it that often gets forgotten.
The debate is this: James says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24) And Paul says that “we have been justified by faith” (Rom.5:1) and that “by grace you have been saved through faith”, and action which is “not a result of works.” (Eph.2:8-9)
In the rush to conclude that these two guys are contradicting one another, we forget a couple things. First, James and Paul knew each other (see Acts 15:1-35). Second, and more importantly, is Romans 2:13-
“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”
What’s significant about this verse is that it was written by the same Paul who champions justification by faith and not by works. Yet he sounds a lot like James here.
The point of all this is is to say that when something appears contradictory in Scripture, take a deeper look. Romans 2:13 does at least two things in this debate: 1) It forces us to reconcile Paul with Paul, and as a result, 2) it forces us to consider the possibility that James and Paul might be using the same words in different ways. We do that all the time in English, so the responsible thing to do is grant these authors the same courtesy.
Understanding How the Old Testament Fits Together
Posted in Bible on February 8, 2012
UPDATE: Since posting this a few hours ago, I’ve done my daily counting exercises and realized that there are in fact eleven (not nine as I originally posted) basic historical books.
Like a lot of people I’m sure, the New Testament pages of my Bible have considerable more wear than the Old Testament ones, and it’s not just because of the epic coffee spill that seemed to inexplicably cover only the NT. The truth is, many of us stick primarily to the NT because the Old (minus certain parts) is, to be honest, weird and confusing.
But more than anything, I think what hinders our understanding and appreciation of the Old Testament is that we just can’t grasp how it all fits together. Even if you’re like me and have read the entire Bible, it still feels like you need a guided tour, especially when you get to books like the prophets.
Part of the problem is the order of the Old Testament. Instead of a chronological ordering of all 39 books, the books are grouped by genre. So first you have the historical books (Genesis through Esther). Next you have the poetical books (Job through Song of Solomon). Finally there are the prophetical books (Isaiah through Malachi). The difficulty with this ordering is that things Isaiah may be referring to in his prophecy are things which historically happened way back in 2 Kings. So if you’re going through the OT in a Bible reading plan, by the time you even get to Isaiah 36-39, you may have forgotten that you’re reading the same basic thing you read in 2 Kings 18-20.
My own confusion about how all the pieces of the OT fit together has led me to get passionate about how to understand it all, and I think step 1 to doing that is to get an overview of how all the books fit together historically. So here’s a pretty simple overview.
The Only Eleven Books of the Old Testament You Need to Read (To Get the History)
As I already said, the first grouping of OT books is the historical books, of which there are seventeen. Of these seventeen, you only really need to read eleven in order to cover the whole story of the Old Testament. These are:
Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah
These books cover the whole history from creation to the post-exilic era and are the only ones that actually advance the story. The twenty-eight remaining books fall into the OT story covered by these eleven books. Leviticus and Deuteronomy for example were books composed during the time covered by Exodus and Numbers. Ruth takes place during the time period covered in Judges. 1 and 2 Chronicles recount events that were already covered in 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. And Esther takes place during the time of the book of Ezra.
Additionally, every other book in the OT after Esther falls somewhere in the time covered by these eleven books.
Where the Poetical Books Fit
- Job- thought to be the first book of the Bible to actually be written. It fits somewhere in Genesis.
- The Psalms- in large part written by David, and thus were written during the events of 2 Samuel.
- Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon- mostly authored by Solomon, these books were written in the time of 1 Kings.
Where the Prophetical Books Fit
Since the prophets delivered messages from God concerning historical events that were going to happen, were happening, or had happened, knowing where they fit in the biblical timeline is necessary to understanding what they heck they were talking about.
The prophets spoke God’s words of warning to both the northern kingdom of Israel and to the southern kingdom of Judah in response to the great sinfulness of both. In Deuteronomy, God had promised that he would exile his people if they were unfaithful to him (Deut.28:58-68). The kingdom of Israel split after Solomon’s death, and both nations had a long string of unfaithful kings who led their respective kingdoms to be unfaithful to the Lord.
In his mercy, God spoke to his people before exiling them, during their exile, and after it. All of the prophets fall into one of those three categories:
- Hosea, Amos (prophets to Israel), Habakkuk, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Micah, Zephaniah, Lamentations (prophets to Judah), Jonah, Nahum (prophets to Assyria), Obadiah (prophet to Edom), all prophesied before the exile. Their prophecies cover events found in 2 Kings.
- Ezekiel and Daniel were prophets during exile in Babylon. They ministered after 2 Kings but before Ezra.
- Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all prophesied after the exiles returned to Jerusalem after being captives in Babylon. Haggai and Zechariah fall into the book of Ezra, and Malachi falls into the book of Nehemiah.
In Summary:
Start with those eleven basic books that advance the story of the Old Testament, and then start placing the remaining twenty-eight books within them. In doing so, all the strands of the OT will begin to come together and start making sense. Even if you’re reading Isaiah and wondering what on earth certain phrases mean, at least knowing where he fits in the story is a huge advantage.
Here’s a chart of everything I’ve talked about, courtesy of Max Anders (from 30 Days to Understanding the Bible). Click to enlarge:
Spiritual Beggars of a Willing God
Posted in Devotions & Meditations on February 2, 2012
“…’Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’”
-Mark 10:47-48-
I read something two days ago which I thought was just fascinating. Author/pastor/stud Joel Beeke, in his small book Striving Against Satan, talks about a sermon that Jonathan Edwards had once preached on Psalm 25:11 which says, “For your name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great.” Here’s what he had to say about this particular sermon:
Edwards said we can understand David’s cry for pardon only if we realize that David expected forgiveness solely because of God’s name. David made the greatness of his own sins a ground to plead for forgiveness. Edwards concludes that just as a beggar begging for bread pleads the greatness of his poverty, so a man in spiritual distress calls for pity from God. No more ‘suitable plea can be argued than the extremity of his case’, Edwards says.
I think everyone can relate to the beggar Edwards talks about. When a person needs money, part of their argument for helping them out is relating to you just how desperately they need the money. It’s like in college when you fail a test. Instead of just accepting it, most likely you’re going to corner your professor after class and tell her how you haven’t been able to study this week because you’ve had five other tests this week, and your long distance high school boyfriend who you swore you’d always be with broke up with you via text, rendering you physically incapable of studying, and oh my gosh don’t even get you started on what Kim Kardashian tweeted, lol.
Isn’t it funny, though, how when it comes to our relationship with God that thinking is often reversed? Whereas I might ask a friend to help me move because I have a short time to do it and have too much stuff to move by myself, when it comes to my exponentially greater need for a holy and just God to show me mercy because of my sin, I balk. In this case, my desperate need becomes the reason I hide from God. Look how terrible of a person I am. Why would God listen to me?
Whether we express the greatness of our need or minimize it I believe depends in large part on our view of the person we’re expressing it to. This is why Beeke brings up Edwards’ sermon in a section of his book where he talks about how Satan tries to get believers to think of God as an unnapeasable taskmaster. The beggar who “pleads the greatness of his poverty” believes that the person he’s appealing to might possess the goodness to help him. But when our sin (and thus our need for mercy) drives us away from God out of guilt, he’s no longer the God “who justifies the ungodly” (Rom.4:5) and who “does not deal with us according to our sins.” (Psa.103:10) He’s the God who’s chronically angry at you for how much you screw up. He’s the God who will only welcome you based on your performance. But for the child of God, that’s not your Father.
This is a great example of how doctrine (how we view God) very practically effects practical living. If you have a faulty theology about God’s mercy and justification, you’ll be miserable. Is your view of God accurate? As his child, he loves you and is pleased with you. You will find mercy when you come to him and confess your sins, so feeling unworthy is never an excuse to avoid him. Let the presence of sin in your life lead to a presence of dependence and communion with him. Get begging.
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
-1 John 1:9-
“‘If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!’”
-Luke 11:13-
The Doctrine of Subsequence: Part 4- The “Second Experiences” of the Book of Acts
Posted in Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Doctrine & Theology on January 31, 2012
Little bit of a recap on where we are in this series: In part 2 I sought to show from Scripture that “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is an experience that happens to every believer upon conversion, and not something that all believers must still continue to seek. Part 3 was where I addressed the question of why the disciples who had clearly already been believers in Christ didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost. My conclusion there was that Pentecost was a unique experience because it was a unique event in history.
But even if you’ve agreed with me up to this point, there’s still three huge “Yeah, BUT!!” examples later on in Acts that seem to completely undermine what I’ve said. The first is in Acts 8, where believers in Samaria aren’t baptized in the Holy Spirit until John and Peter come and lay hands on them. The second is in Acts 10 where Cornelius, who was already “a devout man who feared God”, didn’t receive the Spirit until later. And the final one is in Acts 19 where we come across the disciples in Ephesus, who had not received the Holy Spirit when they believed. ”And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.” (v.6)
So what do we do with these? Do these examples prove the doctrine of subsequence? Journey with me…
1. The Ephesian Disciples (Acts 19:1-7)
“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”
-Romans 8:9-
When Paul arrives at Ephesus, he comes across “some disciples” and asks them whether or not they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, to which they responded “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Probing further, he asked what they had been baptized into. ”Into John’s baptism,” they replied. (vv.1-3)
These men were in fact disciples of John the Baptist, the forerunner to Jesus, and the last of the Old Testament-era prophets. The difference between John’s baptism and Christian baptism is a subject for another entry, but for the purposes of this entry it’s enough to know that they aren’t one and the same. John the Baptist had said, “‘I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, who sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.’” (Matt.3:11, cf. Acts 1:5)
Since John testified to the fact that the coming Messiah would baptize with the Holy Spirit, it’s unlikely that these disciples of his who had made their way to Ephesus were ignorant of the Spirit’s existence. Rather, what they mean is that they were ignorant of the fact that the new covenant era had begun, where those who trust in Jesus for salvation are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), and where those baptized in the name of Jesus “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
Upon meeting these disciples, Paul, perhaps observing the lack of the Spirit’s presence in their lives, felt the need to ask them whether they had received the Spirit or not when they believed whatever it is that they had believed. Paul’s not asking them if they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit after believing in Jesus. He’s asking them if they’re even believers in Jesus. Since the church was to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the fact that these men hadn’t even heard that the Spirit had come told Paul all he needed to know. In the words of John Stott, these guys “were still living in the Old Testament which culminated with John the Baptist. They understood neither that the new age had been ushered in by Jesus, nor that those who believe in him and are baptized into him receive the distinctive blessing of the new age, the indwelling Spirit.”
Paul then did what came naturally to him. He preached Jesus to those who were ignorant of him. ”And Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all.” (vv.4-7)
In short, these men received the Holy Spirit at conversion, not subsequent to it.
2. Cornelius (Acts 10)
Corn-Dawg, “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God” (v.2), lived in Caesarea. He was a Gentile and had great admiration for the God of the Jews, even though he had not submitted himself to be circumcised. (Acts 11:3)
You can read the full story in Acts 10, but basically the guy is visited in a vision by an angel who tells him to send for Peter, who was meanwhile having his own visions. The purpose of Peter’s visions was to teach him that what “God has made clean, do not call common.” (10:15) In non-visiony terms: Don’t call the Gentiles unclean. When Cornelius’ servants arrived where Peter was, he followed them to Cornelius’ place and preached the Gospel to him and his fellow Gentile buddies. And as he was sharing the Gospel with them, “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.” (10:44) Since the Holy Spirit fell on a man who had already been “an upright and God-fearing man” (v.22), does this mean that we should seek a post-conversion Spirit-baptism, too?
The answer, like in the Ephesian disciples case, was that Cornelius wasn’t a Christian until Peter preached the Gospel to him. Where do we see this? In Acts 11:13-14. There, Peter recounts his experience with Cornelius to the Church: “‘And [Cornelius] told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, “Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’” Cornelius was to hear a message by which he “will be saved”. Salvation for Cornelius was still future. Additionally, if you look at what Peter was telling them when the Holy Spirit fell on them (vv.34-43), he’s just straight up preaching the Gospel, indicating that these people needed to hear it. Furthermore, the Church concluded that this baptism in the Holy Spirit (11:16) was the result of God granting to these Gentiles the “repentance that leads to life.” (11:18)
3. The Samaritans (Acts 8:4-25)
“Jews have no dealings with Samaritans”
-John 4:9-
Philip had gone to Samaria to preach the Gospel and had some pretty good results to show for it. The crowds had “with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip when they heard him and saw the signs that he did.” (8:6) But then we see a few verses down that it wasn’t until Peter and John came to Samaria, laid hands on them, and prayed for the new believers that the Holy Spirit fell on them.
Is this just another case of people who we have assumed were believers but really weren’t? I don’t think the text really gives us that option here. First of all, what Philip had proclaimed was Christ. (v.5) He “preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” to them, and as a result they were baptized in the name of Jesus (vv.12, 16), which meant that they had passed into Jesus’ ownership. Whereas Paul knew the Ephesian disciples weren’t believers because they had only been baptized into John’s baptism, the Samaritans appear to have baptized with a Christian baptism.
Secondly, they “had received the word of God” (v.14) which, as Sam Storms points out, is “identical terminology to [Acts] 2:41 and 11:1, where genuine conversion is in view.”
Finally, whereas Peter preached the Gospel to Cornelius before he was baptized in the Holy Spirit, all that Peter and John do here is lay hands on the Samaritans and pray for them, which then results in the Holy Spirit falling on them. They didn’t preach the Gospel to them first because they had already had it accurately preached to them and believed it. What we have here is genuine believers in Christ receiving the Holy Spirit after they had believed. The question now is why? Is this normative? Or is it, like Pentecost, unique?
This is a very unusual case in the book of Acts, and before going further with it I feel the need to address some very important rules to interpreting Scripture. The first is always compare Scripture with Scripture. The second is closely related: don’t create doctrines out of obscure texts. Parts 2 and 3 in this series were my argument for why being baptized in the Holy Spirit is something that happens to all believers at their conversion. If you believe in the doctrine of subsequence, your argument with me is over those two entries, not this one. In other words, if I’ve faithfully built a biblical case for why Spirit-baptism occurs at conversion, then the three instances addressed in this entry are, at best, exceptions to the rule and not the rule itself. Or to say it yet another way, the doctrine of subsequence can’t stand on these three passages alone. I say all this because even though two of the three cases can simply be written off as unbelievers becoming believers, this one can’t. And since the rest of Scripture links Spirit-baptism with conversion, we need to be wary of taking the Samaritans’ experience and saying that it should be all Christians’ experience.
Peter had linked faith with receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), and Paul claimed that if anyone didn’t have the Spirit, he did not belong to Christ (Romans 8:9). Luke, the author of Acts and a companion of Paul, would have been familiar with this link, which is probably why even the way he recounts the Samaritan experience indicates the uniqueness of it. He writes that the Spirit “had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (v.16) ”Only,” writes James Dunn, “implies that the two things were expected or accustomed to go together.” John Stott explores this further:
…contrary to expectation, water-baptism had been received without Spirit-baptism, the sign without the thing signified. There was, Luke implies, something distinctly odd about their separation. It was because of this irregularity, Professor Dunn writes, that ‘the two senior apostles came down hot-foot from Jerusalem to remedy a situation which had gone seriously wrong somewhere’.
Not only was this the first time the Gospel had been preached outside of Jerusalem, it was the first time it had been preached in Samaria. The reason that God withheld the Spirit from these new converts is most likely due to the relationship between the Jews and Samaritans. These people hated each other. While we can utter the words “good Samaritan” without choking, this was a contradiction of terms in the Jewish mind. When Jews had to pass from Galilee to Judea or vice versa, they would literally go out of their way to get there since a direct path between the two would take them through Samaritan soil.
This incident was most likely God’s way of preventing ethnic-schism between Jew and Samaritan from becoming schism within the body of Christ. The cross of Christ tears down barriers (Gal.3:28), and unifies all believers. Thus, as the Gospel spread into hostile territory, God wanted the leaders of the Jerusalem church to see for themselves the Holy Spirit come upon those who were formerly enemies. This “extension of Pentecost” was a necessary “demonstration of the power of the Spirit to convince die-hards among the Jewish Christians that it was really proper to bring the gospel to the Samaritans.” (Anthony Hoekema) As Geoffrey Lampe writes,
…at this turning-point in the mission something else was required in addition to the ordinary baptism of the converts. It had to be demonstrated to the Samaritans beyond any shadow of doubt that they had really become members of the church, in fellowship with the original ‘pillars’ [John and Peter]…An unprecedented situation demanded quite exceptional methods.
Like Pentecost, this was a unique historical situation. It was the first time the Gospel had been preached outside Jerusalem. And this first time happened to be among people the Jews had traditionally hated. God was making a unique and visible demonstration of his commitment to bring salvation to those “‘in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.’” (Acts 1:8)
In the fifth and final part of this series, I’ll address the question of what it means to be “filled with the Spirit.” And I promise not to wait nine months to write it. (I blame Rob Bell for interrupting this series.)
Kindness and Mercy
Posted in Devotions & Meditations on January 28, 2012
“‘Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.’”
-Luke 6:36
The mercy that Jesus calls us to is not isolated acts of mercy, but “to a merciful disposition of heart, to lovingkindness.” (Dave Harvey, When Sinners Say ‘I Do’). Kindness is a posture.
God’s kindness leads to repentance (Rom.2:4), meaning he is kind toward us before we ever repent of our sins (Rom.5:8). In all our relationships, be it our spouse or other friends, we sow kindness with every little act of love and grace, regardless if it’s “deserved” or not. As Dave Harvey writes, kindness is not a personality trait but rather a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal.5:22; Col.3:12). Thus, kindness in our relationships (and by implication, their flourishing) is dependent on both parties growing more desperately dependent on the God who alone can grow that fruit in them (John 15:4-5). Mercy counter-attacks the poison of bitterness.
“‘You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.’”
-John 15:16
Seven Ways that Satan Attacks Believers
Posted in Demonology, Doctrine & Theology on January 26, 2012
I might pump out some entries in the near-ish future concerning spiritual warfare, so I wanted to put up some basic info now. This list is courtesy of Joel Beeke, and I believe it’s a very good summary of the methods that Satan frequently uses in his attacks upon believers in Christ. Stuff like this is important to know, because if we know how our enemy plans to attack us, we will know how best to defend ourselves.
Satan puts blasphemous thoughts into your mind, and then whispers that you cannot be a child of God if you have such thoughts.
Satan gets you to question the truth of the promises of God and the mercy of that God who has never treated you ill.
Satan seeks to persuade you that you have no part in the matter of salvation, for you have only begun with the Lord and not he with you.
Satan argues with you that no child of God could be like you: so weak in faith, so corrupt, so hard and prayerless, so foolish and vain.
Satan comes as your accuser, leading you to despair, or as an angel of light, leading you to presumption.
Satan presents the world to you in fair colours, attempting to move you back into worldly customs, friendships, and vanities.
Satan presses you to indulge in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.
-from Striving Against Satan
What Kind of Mountains Does our Faith Move? (Learning to Interpret Scripture Well)
Posted in Bible, Interpretation & Text Criticism on January 24, 2012
“‘Honey, maybe God didn’t mean a literal flood. Maybe he meant a flood of knowledge, or emotion, or awareness.’
‘If that’s true, I’m going to be SO pissed.’”
-Evan Almighty
That’s one of two totally awesome lines I remember from an otherwise “meh” film. If I remember correctly it comes as Evan Baxter and his family are standing on a huge ark that he built amidst much despair and persecution, waiting for a flood that doesn’t seem to be coming. (Though it eventually does.) His wife is the one who suggests that maybe the flood that God (played with uncanny resemblance by Morgan Freeman) promised Evan would come was more of a metaphorical one.
Sometimes we find ourselves in similar predicaments when reading Scripture. For those of us who uphold the Bible as God’s inspired, infallible word to man, some verses just sound awkwardly extravagant. Acting on the belief that God wouldn’t lie though, we say: “Maybe it’s a metaphor.” But then we place ourselves in this awkward position: “Well if this is just a metaphor, what else might be?” If the Bible is God’s word, we can’t just “metaphorize” the passages that make us uncomfortable.
Here’s an example verse:
[Jesus] said to them…’For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, “Move from here to there,” and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.’ (Matthew 17:20)
What do we do with this? Is Jesus being literal or metaphorical? In the past I’ve had an almost ultra-conservative approach to Scripture that might have looked at verses like this and determined that the plain reading of the text must the right one. If Jesus says that our faith can move mountains, you better believe he means that our faith can move actual, literal mountains. If he means anything less than that, you’re tampering with God’s word and are thus a jerk. Any attempt to say that moving mountains refers to moving the mountains of trial in our lives sounded a bit too fluffy for me and was the first step down the liberal theologian road where Scripture means whatever you want it to mean.
It’s worth saying at this point that this entry isn’t really about Matthew 17:20 per se. Rather, I’m using that verse as an example of how to (and how not to) approach and interpret Scripture. Today if you were to ask me how I interpret that verse, I’d say that Jesus was being metaphorical. (“What!!! Burn the witch!!” -Eight years younger version of me.) How do I believe this and still maintain my belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture?
You have to remember that nothing in the Bible was written to you. What I mean is that while the Spirit of God moved through humans to write Scripture that is authoritative and instructional for us today, Scripture was written with a specific, then-alive audience in mind. So when Paul commands believers to “[s]ee to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ”, while he would certainly command every believer for all time to follow the same rule, in the Bible he’s specifically saying this to the Colossians.
This is so important to remember when reading Scripture. When you realize that books like Colossians were written to a specific first-century audience, you’ll be mindful of the fact that the author will use terms and phrases that were familiar to them, not you. For example, if you were to read the statement “The man was gay” in a book, how would you interpret it? Depends on when the book was written, because how that statement is used today is very different from how it would have been used two centuries ago.
When we get to Jesus telling the disciples that their faith can move mountains, he’s saying it to specific people at a specific time in a specific context. In fact, he’s actually using a Jewish idiom while he’s talking to these first-century Jews. ”An idiom,” writes Robert Plummer, “is an expression whose nonliteral meanings have become customary in a language.”* So as D.A. Carson says: “Removal of mountains was proverbial for overcoming great difficulties.” Relevant verses throughout Scripture include Isaiah 40:4; 49:11; 54:10; Zechariah 14:4; Matthew 21:21-22; Mark 11:23; Luke 17:6; 1 Corinthians 13:2.
Jesus is not preparing his followers to work for coal-mining companies- moving the tops of physical mountains. Rather, through faith in God, Jesus’ followers will overcome seemingly impossible obstacles.
-Robert Plummer
This is far from being a loose interpretation of Scripture. It is in fact the most faithful interpretation of what Jesus meant, making it the interpretation we must cling to. And though the idiom he used was a first-century Jewish one, his message is one that has relevance for believers of all eras as they make their difficult pilgrimage through this world to the gates of heaven.
So be encouraged by the meaning of Matthew 17:20. But also be encouraged in your study of Scripture to widen the scope of your study when you encounter difficult or unclear passages. The more I study the Bible, the more convinced I am that one of the best defenses of Christianity is simply understanding it better. While critics will bring up alleged inconsistencies, I have always found reasonable explanations by widening my search to include contextual evidence.
Homework
For the first time ever on my blog, I’m issuing you, the reader, some homework. And if you don’t do it, I can’t really do anything about it. But it would be a good exercise in what I’ve been talking about in this entry. Here ya go:
Some critics of Christianity say that the Bible never claims that Jesus was God. How does Philippians 2:9-11 refute this claim?
————————-
*Plummer gives the English example of telling someone to “hit the lights.” To “hit” them means to turn them off, not to literally strike them. (from 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible)
The Cross Frees You From Trying to Forgive Yourself
Posted in Counseling on January 23, 2012
In my recent post entitled God Doesn’t Want You to Forgive Yourself, I argued that the concept of “forgiving yourself” is not only unbiblical but counterproductive to growing in your faith. In this follow-up, I wanted to address the pain and guilt that leads people to feel like they must forgive themselves even though they know God has already forgiven them.
What I do appreciate about encouraging hurting people to forgive themselves is that there’s a recognition that something is not right. If after you’ve confessed your sin to God and to others you still feel a paralyzing guilt, an ingredient is missing. But if that ingredient isn’t forgiving yourself, then what is it?
A passage from Matthew’s gospel I think gives us a good answer. Matthew 9:1-8 is the famous story of the paralytic who was brought by his friends to Jesus in the hopes that he would be healed:
…And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.’ And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, ‘This man is blaspheming.’ But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, ‘Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven, or to say, “Rise and walk?” But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ -he then said to the paralytic- ‘Rise, pick up your bed and go home.’ And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
What exactly is going on here? While Matthew only writes that the Pharisees called Jesus a blasphemer, Luke (and Mark for that matter) fills out the picture a little more about why Jesus was accused of blasphemy: “And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, ‘Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Luke 5:21) As I wrote in the previous entry on this topic, since all sin is ultimately against God (Ps.51:4), only God can offer forgiveness of sins. The Pharisees understood this well, which is why they accused Jesus of blasphemy when he claimed to forgive the paralytic’s sins. He was claiming the ability to do something only God could do.
But there’s more to the story than this. Any nut can claim to forgive a person’s sins. So Jesus backs up his claim by healing the paralytic. Why is this relevant to him claiming to be able to forgive sin? Michael Green explains:
There was a deeply rooted conviction in Judaism that all suffering was a result of personal sin, and that nobody could be cured until he or she was forgiven. For instance, Rabbi Chija ben Abba said, ‘No sick person is cured from sickness until all his sins have been forgiven him.’ Rabbi Alexander agreed: ‘The sick does not arise from his sickness until his sins are forgiven.’
The scribes and Pharisees felt that since Jesus had blasphemed God, he would not be able to heal the man. So by healing the paralytic’s illness, Jesus was proving his authority to cleanse the man’s deepest and most difficult paralysis: sin. It was his moment of vindication.
So what does this story have to say to those who struggle with lingering guilt?
First, it serves as a reminder that only the one sinned against can offer pardon for sin. Jesus has authority to forgive sins, and he promises to permanently wipe clean the sins of anyone who comes to him (John 6:37). He promises to cleanse us of our sins when we confess them (1 John 1:9), and as a child of God he separates our sins from us as far as the east is from the west (Psa. 103:12).
Secondly, in light of this it also reminds us of a huge truth: You are who God says you are and nothing less. If you know that God forgives you but you struggle to forgive yourself, you need to start looking in a new mirror. You’ve too long been looking in a mirror that reflects a failure, an addict, a pervert, a drunk, a whatever…. It’s a false mirror though. It’s the mirror Satan wants you to look in. But God holds up a different mirror. Looking into it, you see Christ. You see sinlessness, perfection, holiness, and a royal child of the Most High God. Yes, I know you still sin. And God knows and is grieved by those sins you still commit. However, when it comes to your eternal salvation, God is judging you by the perfect life lived by Jesus.
Third and finally, I think this passage illustrates well the missing ingredient that people are looking for when they feel like they have to forgive themselves. The greatest need of the paralytic was the same as ours: forgiveness for the sins which have made us enemies of a holy God. Jesus provided this ultimate need for the paralytic, and if you’re a believer in Christ he did the same for you. But he didn’t stop there. He healed the man’s paralysis, and commanded him: “Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” And the guy freaking did. If you have truly confessed your sins to God, you’re forgiven. And now Christ is commanding you to live in light of your new-found freedom.
God has forgiven you, and now you must rest in his forgiveness. Instead of trying to forgive yourself, rise, pick up your bed, and start walking like a forgiven person. Stop lying down on your bed dwelling on your former paralysis after Jesus has commanded you to rise, and accept the fact that you have new freedoms. Every command that Christians are given in the New Testament stems first from who we now are because of our union with Christ. For example the first three chapters of Ephesians are all devoted to reminding believers of what God has done for them and what is now true of them as a result of his work. It isn’t until the last three chapters that all the commands start. The point is that we can only ever do anything of worth for the Lord by first comprehending what he has done for us. (Eph.2:8-10) As a child of God, the Bible says far greater things about you than you would ever dare believe about yourself. And it’s belief in those things that’s the missing ingredient when you feel the need to forgive yourself. Stated positively, when you accept who God says you are, you won’t feel the need to forgive yourself.
“‘I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.’”
-Isaiah 43:25
