God Doesn’t Want You to Forgive Yourself
Posted by thetenthleper in Counseling on January 19, 2012
I’ve heard it. And you’ve heard it. ”Yeah I know God forgives me. I just can’t seem to forgive myself.” One time I even heard a pastor counsel a friend of mine to forgive himself as he was burdened with the guilt of some recent sin in his life. Is there any merit to this? No, there’s not. Not only that, I believe that harboring this kind of mindset is very dangerous in that it completely undermines the gospel.
I don’t want to be insensitive to the feelings that make one believe that they need to forgive themselves. I’ve been there a million times. You confessed your sin to God, asked him to forgive you for those sins, and yet you still feel horrible. You can’t shake the guilt you feel over that sin. It grips you and won’t let go. What are we supposed to do with this? Forgiving yourself not only won’t help you alleviate that guilt. It will actually push you further away from comfort, because saying “I know God’s forgiven me, but I can’t forgive myself” is a form of pride. Here are five reasons this statement is misguided:*
1. It makes you a bigger judge than God.
You say “I know God forgives me…” If you acknowledge this much, then you’re acknowledging that the highest judge in the universe has looked at you and declared you innocent. Paul writes, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.” (Rom.8:33) In other words, if the highest judge justifies, who is going to contradict him? You? Fact: the highest court always overrules the lower ones. If what God says about you isn’t the final word, then he’s not the highest court in your heart. You are.
2. It shows that you’re trusting in something other than God for justification.
Sometimes what feels like guilt over sin is in actuality guilt over failing to achieve a goal you’ve set for yourself. Timothy Keller, in his excellent book Counterfeit Gods, writes:
When people say, ‘I know God forgives me, but I can’t forgive myself,’ they mean that they have failed an idol, whose approval is more important to them than God’s. Idols function like gods in our lives, and so if we make career or parental approval our god and we fail it, then the idol curses us in our hearts for the rest of our lives. We can’t shake the sense of failure.
So you’re a seminary student, heavily involved in your church, a model of personal piety, and everyone looks to you for guidance. Then one night you go a little too far with the godly woman you’ve been seeing. You’re devastated. You’ve confessed it to the Lord, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. It could be that the guilt you feel isn’t from sinning against the Lord. It could be that you haven’t lived up to who you have built yourself up to be in your mind: a super-godly person who would never do what you did. In the words of David Powlison: “So often when people feel remorse for what they’ve done wrong, it is a remorse against their idealized self-image, a remorse in their own eyes, and a remorse against what other people think about them…” None of which is remorse against God.
3. It means that your sin is a bigger deal to you than it is to God.
All sin is ultimately against God. (Ps. 51:4) He above all is the one offended by your sin. Your sin cost him his Son, and as a result of his sacrifice on the cross God now forgives you. If you’re still trying to forgive yourself after he gave everything to forgive you, then that just means that your sin didn’t offend God as much as it offends you. Mike Wilkerson notes that “[i]t is the height of self-centeredness to think your sin somehow offends you (or anyone else, even) more than it offends God.”
4. It could be a refusal to honestly confess your sin.
It’s worth considering that you may still feel unforgiven because you haven’t actually turned to God to confess and repent of your sin. Plagued by the guilt of what you did or said, you figure that God is too mad to listen to you. It’s “safer” instead to console yourself by distracting yourself from the guilt. So instead of going into God’s presence you turn on the TV. Instead of reading his Word, you read gossip articles online. God = conviction = discomfort = finding something that won’t make you feel horrible.
“Without confession I will remain unforgiven,” Miroslav Volf writes, “not because God doesn’t forgive, but because a refusal to confess is a rejection of forgiveness. Refusing to confess, I refuse to make forgiveness my own through confession of wrongdoing and joyful gratitude over it not being counted against me.” (my emphasis)
5. It could be a form of works-based salvation.
We as Christians have a strange tendency to want to punish ourselves more than God wants to punish us. We know that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1), but there’s just a really good feeling we get when we condemn ourselves anyway. It feels…noble. Humble. Righteous even. The more we punish ourselves for our sins, the more righteous we must be since righteous people hate sin, right?
But God doesn’t want us to do penance for our sins. It’s one thing to mourn our sinful condition while keeping our eyes on Jesus and the fact that we’re getting credit for his life and not ours. It’s something else entirely to feel like God will accept you more as you punish yourself more for sin.
“Jesus frees me from trying to impress God or others because he has impressed God on my behalf.”
-Jonathan Dodson
—————-
*I’ve adapted this list from Mike Wilkerson’s book Redemption: Freed by Jesus From the Idols We Worship and the Wounds We Carry, pages 78-80.
Brian Regan, Mitt Romney, a Gay Veteran, and the Art of Bad Arguments
Posted by thetenthleper in Philosophy, Politics/Culture on January 17, 2012
“I’m trying to learn how to play chess. That game’s not right. That game does not end properly. You’re just looking at the board and your opponent goes ‘CHECKMATE!’
‘I thought you said you were supposed to take my king.’
‘Yeah but no matter what you do in the next move I take the king in the following move, so it’s a checkmate.’
He’s in the car headin’ home.
No other game lets you do that. You never see a quarterback walking up to the line…
‘TOUCHDOWN! The way your corner is playing we’ll do a slam pass underneath the coverage. Too much of a cushion. 6 points! Touchdown!’
Don’t just announce that you’re going to win.”
-Brian Regan, stand-up comedian extraordinaire
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about arguments and how so often people give just flat-out bad arguments for their positions. This led me to blog about theological debates that are often crippled by bad arguments, and I’ve got about fifty more blog ideas in this same line of thinking. This one was inspired by an article I read last month about Mr. Mitt Romney.
Apparently Romney was confronted by a gay Vietnam veteran named Bob Garon at an event in New Hampshire who asked whether or not he supported gay marriage. Saying he did not, the conversation got pretty awkward. Garon proceeded to say, “It’s good to know how you feel…That you do not believe that everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.”
BOOM! Checkmate, you unconstitutional jerk!
Look, this entry is not about Mitt Romney as a political candidate nor is it a statement on whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Rather, it’s an example of how bad arguments hinder understanding and thus any hope of progress. Comments like the one above made by Mr. Garon are about as pointless as the quarterback in Brian Regan’s joke just declaring “touchdown” without ever running the play. You can’t just declare yourself the winner in a debate without ever even debating your opponent. And that’s exactly what this veteran did.
His claim is that Romney doesn’t believe everyone’s entitled to their constitutional rights. But the debate on gay marriage isn’t about whether or not we should give gay couples their constitutional right to marry. The whole debate is about whether it even is a constitutional right. Garon’s comment, whether he realized it or not, assumes a universal agreement that gay marriage is a constitutional right, thus making Romney unfit for office for wanting to deny homosexuals that right. But since such agreement doesn’t exist, comments like the one Romney received are weightless. It’s like asking someone, “Why do you love bad music?” No one loves bad music. They simply love music that they deem “enjoyable” and you deem “bad.” Besides, until there’s a universal agreement on what constitutes bad music, it’s impossible to truly condemn someone for loving bad music. (Remember…Nickelback does have fans, guys.)
To pull back and add another dimension to this whole incident, Bob Garon never actually made an argument at all. Rather, he made an unfounded claim. I still lump that under the umbrella of “bad arguments” because so often in our culture simply declaring your beliefs seems to take on a role that should be reserved for intelligent debate/dialogue. A huge part of intelligent debate is describing your opponent’s views in a way they would be happy with, so when no attempt at understanding is made, what should be two people debating becomes two people mocking each other’s views. Internet comment boards are flooded with this to the extent that I’m not even sure we understand the difference between “mockery” and “debate” anymore.
So when Richard Dawkins for example says that faith “is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence” and that it “is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence”, he’s calling out “Touchdown” without any intention of even snapping the ball. Not only is he defining “faith” in a way that no theologian would define it, he uses his perception of faith to further reinforce the thought held by many that it is opposed to science, which does think and evaluate evidence. Dawkins’ definition of faith demonstrates a great reluctance to truly understand those he disagrees with. And as I said already, when understanding isn’t present, mockery will be.
Another fine example of this is Ricky Gervais’ article “Why I’m an Atheist.” Gervais, like Dawkins and Garon, declares his victory throughout without ever really giving a substantial argument. With mockery taking the place of intelligent debate, I personally feel like atheistic comedians get away with a lot.
“The Bible truly is one of the funniest books I’ve ever read. … It was written thousands of years ago, when people were even dumber than they are today. … It’s absurd to believe in that s***.”
-David Cross
The REALLY Cool Thing About Tebow’s Game Against the Steelers…
Posted by thetenthleper in Devotions & Meditations, Politics/Culture on January 16, 2012
A week ago, Tim Tebow led the Denver Broncos to victory against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Of course the real story was how the chosen one threw 316 yards, averaging 31.6 yards per completion, on a televised game with a rating of 31.6, an eerily obvious allusion to the area code of Wichita. And some are also seeing something of a connection between those numbers and John 3:16, a verse that Tebow wore on his face in his final game with the Florida Gators.
I’ve never really understood why people have felt the need to have such a strong opinion (whether positive or negative) about Tim Tebow. It’s almost as confusing to me as why the Kardashians are famous (something I’ve Googled and still don’t have a clear answer on). Some look at his 316 stats above and feel like it was God’s blessing on him. The skeptical see the stats as nothing more than coincidence. I’m of the mind that those stats are actually really amazing. Why?
Because “coincidence” or not, those stats put “John 3:16″ at the top of all Google and Yahoo! searches for a time. That means that the number one search on both search engines yielded this: “‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, who put up an ad on Google to appear when people searched for the verse, reports that 8,000 people clicked on peacewithgod.net. And they are also reporting 150 people placing faith in Christ as a result of reaching the site.
Are Tebow’s stats proof that God’s hand is on him to bless him and the Broncos with Super Bowl rings and a Hallmark channel original movie about the 2011-2012 season that almost certainly would have followed? Well, in the words of Isaiah, “it was the will of the LORD to crush” the Broncos in the Divisional round. So no. But if some “random” stats in one playoff game spread the most concise statement of the Gospel far and wide, leading to the eternal deliverance of at least 150 people, then you better believe God’s hand was directly responsible for every single one of those passing yards.
“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”
Proverbs 16:33
Around the InterWeb (1/10/12)
Posted by thetenthleper in Around the InterWeb on January 10, 2012
This is something I’ve been wanting to do for a long time, both as a way to share the love of things I’ve read/been blessed by online as well as a way to store good articles without creating a million bookmarks on my computer (something I am prone to do).
Women, Stop Submitting to Men. Great article by Russell Moore that corrects many of evangelical culture’s misunderstandings about submission. It also serves up the much-needed reminder that submission isn’t a calling on women only but that all believers are called to submit to someone.
We Three Kings of Orient Aren’t. David Mathis does a nice job sharpening our vision concerning who the magi were who visited Jesus, breathing new life into these characters of the Christmas story we’re all too familiar with. (Side note: they weren’t at the manger!)
If You Want to Be a Writer You Have to Be a Reader. Stephen King via Justin Taylor (two names I never thought I’d use in the same sentence except to say that those are two names I would never expect to use in the same sentence), reminds any would-be writers out there (me! me!) of the importance of reading being a regular joy and discipline. There’s also an excerpt of King’s memoir On Writing in which he reminds his audience of the great effect even terrible books can have on the writer.
How (Not) to Be Relevant
Posted by thetenthleper in Devotions & Meditations on January 9, 2012
This passage from an old dead guy named Charles Bridges was on my mind today, and I felt it was worth sharing. With all the talk and debate over the last several years about how, as Christians, we are to relevant in a post-modern world (beer, UFC, and vinyl records for the glory of God, baby!), it was refreshing to read this from a guy writing in the first half of the 19th century:
The importance of studying urbanity of behaviour in our intercourse with the world, is sometimes pleaded as an excuse for avoiding the direct offense of the cross. But let it be remembered, that God never honours a compromising spirit…
‘Doubtless’ (as Archbishop Secker reminds us)- ‘we should endeavour to make religion agreeable; but not to make ourselves agreeable by leading our company to forget religion.’
Since “religion” is a four-letter word these days, just substitute the word “gospel” for it in that quote. The point is made though: some attempts to make the gospel relevant have the exact opposite effect. It is God’s making us different from the world that makes us attractive to the world. If your message to non-believers focuses more on how similar you are to them rather than on how different you are, you’re conforming to the world and hindering your effectiveness. Remember: no matter how cool you are, you still believe that a dead man rose again. God spreads his kingdom through preaching things that the world will find ridiculous (1 Cor.1:23).
Typology: Expanding Our View of How Biblical Prophecy is Fulfilled
Posted by thetenthleper in Bible on January 5, 2012
One of my blogging goals for 2012 is to have a special emphasis on biblical prophets, and this naturally necessitates two other goals: first, blog more. Second, provide explanatory entries where necessary to further illuminate such things like the very contexts and nature of prophecy. This entry falls in that category.
To get the most out of biblical prophecy we must first expand our Western-minded understanding of prophecy. Prophecy in our mindset is simply the foretelling or predicting of something to come. A prophecy is only “fulfilled” whenever the predicted event occurs. While we certainly do see such forms of prophecy in the scripture (for example, Genesis 15:13-16 predicting the exodus), this is only a subsection of the field of biblical prophecy. ”Prophecy” in the bible is a broader category. Consequently, so is fulfillment.
In his book 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible, Robert Plummer (citing Henry Virkler), lists six ways the Hebrew and Greek words for the english “fulfill” were understood by their original readers:
Drawing out the full implications of something (Matt. 5:17; cf. verses 18-48).
Completion of a fixed time (Mark 1:15; Luke 21:24).
Satisfying a request or desire (Esther 5:8; Ps. 145:19; Prov. 13:19).
Carrying out what is promised (Lev. 22:21).
Conforming to or obeying a requirement (Gal.5:14; James 2:8; Matt.3:15).
Corresponding of phrases, illustrations, or events between one historical period and another (Matt. 2:23; cf. Isa.11:1; Jer.31:15; cf. Matt. 2:17-18; Isa.9:1-2; cf. Matt. 4:13-16).
The last example is the one I want to hone in on, because it’s a great example of how narrow my own understanding of prophecy and fulfillment has been. To illustrate that last example of “fulfillment,” let’s look at an example from Scripture:
“Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’”
Matthew 2:13-15
Matthew says that Jesus’ going down to Egypt and returning after Herod’s death was a fulfillment of “what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.” The prophet here is Hosea, and the quoted text is from Hosea 11:1:
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”
If you uphold the innerancy and infallibility of scripture and have a modern understanding of prophecy, then this is a big problem, because Hosea isn’t predicting anything. There’s nothing about the longed-for Messiah in the verse. Rather, it’s a historical look back on God delivering the nation of Israel out of bondage from the land of Egypt. So if this verse looks back in time, in what way does Jesus coming out of Egypt “fulfill” this as Matthew says? Robert Plummer has these helpful words:
Against initial appearances, Matthew is not haphazardly citing a text from the Old Testament. Along with the other inspired authors of Scripture and the Jews of his day, Matthew affirmed a providential understanding of history. Moreover, he believed that history recorded a series of successive, corresponding saving events moving toward a divine climactic intervention in Christ. The earlier divine interventions served as types (corresponding anticipations) for the final antitype (fulfillment). Because God is completely sovereign over history, all Old Testament-era saving events, institutions, perons, offices, holidays, and ceremonies served to anticipate the final saving even, the final saving person, the final saving ceremony, etc. This style of citing the Old Testament is known as typological interpretation. It occurs frequently in Matthew and Hebrews, both originally addressed to Jewish readers, who would have shared the authors’ typological assumptions. For the original audiences, Matthew and the author of Hebrews unfolded the stereoscopic Christological depth of Old Testament history. Not only specific predictions, but also all of Israel’s history, pointed to Jesus. The two-dimensional history of Israel became a three-dimensional living reality as it found its climactic reenactment in the Messiah.
Typology is very important to understanding Scripture. The idea, simply stated, is that there is a type (a prefiguring/shadow) and an antitype (the reality/ what the type pointed to). Paul, for instance, calls Adam “a type of the one who was to come” (Rom. 5:14), who is Jesus. Adam was the head of the human race, and through this one man’s disobedience, all those whom he represented fell with him. Adam was a shadow of something, someone, greater: Jesus, the head of a new humanity. Through the obedience of this “last Adam” (1 Cor.15:45), all those whom he represents (Christians) receive the benefits of his perfectly-lived life, just as the old, sinful humanity received the condemnation of Adam’s sin.
So as far as Hosea 11:1 is concerned, Jesus fulfilled that verse “in that as the Son of God in another sense God the Father called and led Him out of Egypt when He was a child. Matthew did not mean that Hosea had Jesus Christ in mind or predicted His exodus from Egypt when he wrote but that Jesus’ experience corresponded to what Hosea had written about Israel. He saw the experience of Jesus as analogous to that of Israel. Jesus’ experience completed the full meaning of Hosea’s statement and in this sense fulfilled it.” (Tom Constable) In short, God leading his son Israel out of Egypt was a preview of him leading his true son Jesus out of Egypt. (Another example of this sort is seen in the wilderness temptations. As Israel was tempted for forty years in the wilderness and failed, Jesus was tempted for forty days in the wilderness and prevailed.)
There’s many more examples of typology in Scripture, and I don’t have the space to cover them in this entry. Rather, since my plan is to spend time in the prophets this year, my aim in this entry is merely to, a) expand our understanding of prophecy, and b) introduce the vital subject of typology. Since all of God’s promises are fulfilled in the savior Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor.1:20; Luke 24:27; 1 Pet.1:10-12), “then all of God’s prior saving work and revelations anticipate in some way the coming of this Messiah.” (Plummer) And this has enormous relevance to understanding what the different prophets were all looking forward to.
Three Theology Debates (That Are Completely Misunderstood)
Posted by thetenthleper in Doctrine & Theology on January 4, 2012
John Piper once beautifully articulated what has become for me a rapidly growing conviction: “Before assessing an author’s position, express an understanding of it in a way the author would approve.” Piper calls this “that great principle of good criticism.”
In the world of theological debates (as in all debates), some are just riddled with bad criticism. What could be healthy dialogue between two sides ends up becoming two sides growing further apart through misunderstanding. When this happens, people are no longer talking to each other, but at each other or over them. Here are three such commonly misguided debates among Christians.
1. Protestant Paedobaptism (Infant Baptism) vs. Credobaptism (Believers Baptism)
The doctrine of baptism is the marijuana of theology. It’s a gateway doctrine. If you’re studying it well, you’ll find yourself studying doctrines that you never thought you’d touch or that you ever dreamed were relevant to baptism. You’re not studying it well unless you find yourself also studying God’s covenant with Abraham, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the nature of the Church, the role of Israel in the world, and eschatology (to name a few).
This argument isn’t at all about whether or not people should get baptized when they profess faith in Christ. Both sides agree on this. The question concerns what to do with the infants of believers. The Presbyterian church sees baptism as the New Testament version of circumcision and thus to be patterned after it. Just as Abraham believed, was circumcised, and then commanded to circumcize his infant son, so believing adults who have been baptized should baptize their infants. The real debate here is how much continuity and discontinuity there is between the Old and New Testaments, and thus it demands that we bring in all of Scripture, not just those verses in the Gospels and Acts that show adults believing and then getting baptized.
To say it another way, the debate isn’t about who we should baptize but rather the very meaning of baptism, knowing that the meaning will take care of the who. Both Presbyterians and Baptists acknowledge that an adult who is not a Christian and becomes one should be baptized. So quoting verses like Acts 2:38 where Peter tells a bunch of unbelievers to “Repent and be baptized” isn’t the way to argue for believer’s baptism because it doesn’t contradict the Presbyterian position.
2. Calvinism vs. Arminianism
If I were to say the word “predestination” and ask which of the above camps the doctrine belongs to, I’d be willing to put money on 99 out of 100 people would say “Calvinism.” And that’s the misunderstanding of this debate.
The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is not about whether God predestines some to everlasting life and not others, nor is it about whether God is sovereign or not. It’s also not about whether or not we must choose Christ. Calvinists will quote Ephesians 1:4-5 as a proof-text for their position, forgetting that Arminian Bibles leave those verses in. Arminians in turn will quote John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4. Now I’m not saying that these passages are unhelpful in the debate (because they are). What I am saying though is that if you’re just lobbing Scripture grenades back and forth at each other to make your point, you’ve missed the point.
The truth is, both camps uphold predestination, sovereignty, and human choice. Why? Because the Bible affirms all of them. You can’t say that you don’t believe in predestination, because it’s in the Bible (Romans 8:29). If you’re not a Calvinist, say so. But don’t ignore the fact that Scripture clearly says that God predestines people for salvation. And if you’re not an Arminian, say it. But don’t minimize the verses that talk about human choice.
The debate isn’t whether God predestines but the basis on which he does so. Calvinists will say that he predestines solely for his own glory and will, and not in anything in the person himself. Arminians will say that he predestines because he foresaw that they would believe in the Gospel when presented with it. As far as sovereignty goes, that God is sovereign is not a Calvinist doctrine. It’s a biblical one. The question is: which side better understands what sovereignty means? Is God in control even of our decision to trust in Christ? As far as human choice goes, both sides acknowledge that man must choose Christ in order to be saved. The real question is: is man able to make that choice all by himself? Or can he only make it because God first chose him? How man chooses Christ is the key to this debate, which demands that we study the doctrine of humanity and the fall.
3. Spirit-Filled vs. (I dunno…Not Spirit-Filled?)
Earlier this year a friend of mine who I went to church with described two other churches in our area as being more “Spirit-filled” than ours. It wasn’t said as a criticism but more as just a way to describe the differences in local churches to a friend of hers. I asked her to clarify what she meant by that even though I was pretty sure I already knew the answer. While the church I was at during this time leaned more on the cessationist view of the “miraculous” spiritual gifts like tonuges, prophecy, and healings, the other churches did not believe those gifts have ceased.
The real debate is whether or not those gifts have ceased, not whether churches should be “Spirit-filled” or not. Like with the Calvinism/Arminianism point above, you can’t assume all Christians have the same definitions for terms that we’re all using. Otherwise understanding just won’t happen. To be full of the Holy Spirit is a good thing (duh). Every sincere Christian and church wants to be full of the Holy Spirit. After all, it’s the Spirit’s presence within us that causes us to grow in holiness and to sin less and less. So to say that one Christian is less full of the Holy Spirit than another is a pretty serious accusation, especially if your basis for saying that is your stance on an issue that very godly people disagree on. To discern what churches are Spirit-filled or not, we must first agree on what that phrase even means.
If a church is more charismatic or less charismatic than others, that’s what we should say. We shouldn’t couch it in terms of personal holiness. Otherwise it’s a back-handed slap, like saying “Why yes I recycle, because I actually do care about the environment…” God wants us to be Spirit-filled, so using a Spirit-filled/Less Spirit-Filled lens when talking about Charismatic/Cessationist churches is another way of using a Godly/ Less godly lens.
Ezekiel 2:1 – 3:15: God Loves Ezekiel and Has a Wonderful Plan to Ruin His Life
Posted by thetenthleper in Ezekiel on January 3, 2012
This section begins immediately where chapter 1 left off. Chapter 1 was about the grandeur of God, and chapter 2 begins with the nothingness of Ezekiel by comparison. Ezekiel rightly falls on his face as a result of what he’d seen: a King on his throne. But the King is calling him into his service, and for that he must stand, ready for action. To underscore the contrast between man and God, God addresses Ezekiel with the term “Son of Man,” a title which will appear over 90 times in this book. Here (as opposed to how Daniel and Jesus would later use it), it’s simply a Hebrew term that characterizes Ezekiel’s “self-conscious sense of human frailty before the aweful might and majesty of God…” (Taylor)
These chapters are ripe with accusations against the exiles. A generation earlier, God had spoken to Jeremiah, saying “the children of Israel and the children of Judah have done nothing but evil in my sight from their youth. The children of Israel have done nothing but provoke me to anger by the work of their hands, declares the LORD.” (Jer.32:30) In other words, Israel’s is one long history of disobedience (see also Psalm 106), and the exile was the result of that. As I wrote in the last entry, the fact that God is still even pursuing them is an act of immense grace. But to pursue them first includes helping them to see just how far they’ve fallen.
The Audience
God tells Ezekiel that he’s sending him to preach to these jerks, and he highlights three main areas of sin. First, they’re disloyal (Ezekiel 2:3). The language here is political language. The picture is that God is a great king who protects his subjects (the vassal state of Israel), who in return for protection were to be loyally committed to him. But instead they were disloyal. This had been their habit ever since the exodus (Num.14:9; Isa.43:27; Jer.32:30). Their whole history was one of rebellion, and thus Ezekiel shouldn’t expect all the traumas of exile to change their hearts.
Secondly, they’re defiant (2:4-5). Israel wasn’t just a political nation. They were a “house”, a family, descendants of Abraham. But instead of calling them the House of Israel, God calls them a rebellious house (see also Isa.30:19; Deut.21:18-21). They weren’t just indifferent to God’s voice. They were actively determined to resist it.
Finally, they are deaf (3:4-7). They didn’t listen to God because they weren’t prepared to listen. God tells Ezekiel that if he were sent to “a people of foreign speech and a hard language”, they would have listened to his message. They might not have understood it, but at least they would have given him an audience. But the same can’t be said for God’s own children. Though they can understand him, they won’t listen to him. And greater judgment awaits those who have the Word of God and reject it (Deut.30:11-14). Though God’s commandments were to reside on the foreheads of the people of Israel (Deut.6:8; 11:18), their foreheads had become hard. Joseph Blenkinsopp writes:
“”The point being made here is that [the language] barrier is far easier to overcome than the mental and spiritual block for which the biblical term is ‘hardness of heart’. The prophet and his public share the same language, concepts, traditions, and history, but his words to them will be unable to surmount that barrier.”
Ezekiel’s audience isn’t the uneducated. It’s the calloused.
The Task
Three things stand out in Ezekiel’s call to be a prophet.
First, God’s Spirit was sending him. Ezekiel had fallen on his knees at the end of the first chapter, and while on his knees he heard a voice commanding him to stand on his feet, something he did upon the Spirit entering him. Empowered by the Spirit, he then hears the words addressed to him, a creature, from his creator. God was sending him on a difficult and non-glamorous task, and because God was sending him, Ezekiel knew that he had no choice in the matter. Those sent by God must go.
Secondly, Ezekiel must preach what God puts in his mouth to preach, regardless of how it would be received by the people. ”‘And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house.’” (2:7; see also 3:1, 4, 10-11) It was the duty of a prophet to speak the very words of God (Deut.18:18; Exod.4:10-16; Jer.1:9). Just as he had no choice but to go where God was sending him, as a prophet he had no choice but to say what God told him to say. ”His task would be totally focused on one thing only- delivery of the words of Yahweh.” (Wright)
To ensure faithfulness to God’s word, Ezekiel is commanded to eat a scroll which contains the message he’s to preach (3:1). He was to fill himself with it, not just taste it (3:3), and by filling himself, to overflow with it. Though the scroll contained “words of lamentation and mourning and woe” (2:10), eating it was “as sweet as honey.” (3:3) Though he had a difficult task ahead of him, obedience to God’s will produced at least some peacefulness in his heart.
Thirdly, God will be with Ezekiel in his mission. There were already prophets among the exiles who were popular because they told them what they wanted to hear: that their exile would be short. But gave God gave Ezekiel the super-fun task of telling them that they would actually be there a while and that many of them would never see Jerusalem again. He knew his message would be harshly received, and naturally the thought scared him. But God addresses his fears: “‘And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions. Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house.’” (2:6; 3:9) ”His determination to speak must be stronger than Israel’s refusal to listen.” (Wright)
In addition to addressing his fears, God curbs any attempt of protest. The beginning of 2:8 seem to suggest this. Protest in one way or another was typical of people called by God. Moses complained of inadequacy…a lot. Isaiah complained that he was too sinful. Jeremiah said that he wasn’t experienced. Gideon played the inadequacy card too. But God preemptively rebukes any rumblings of weakness and inadequacy from Ezekiel. Though God was calling him to preach to stone walls (3:7), he reminds Ezekiel that their rejection of his message is ultimately a rejection of God himself (3:7; John 15:18). In other words, he shouldn’t take their rejection personally. ”They’re not complaining about you,” God seems to be saying. “They’re complaining about me.” As long as Ezekiel was preaching the words of God that he had digested, any opposition to his message would really be an opposition to God himself. To help with the whole not-taking-it-personally-and-getting-discouraged trap, God promises to toughen Ezekiel up (3:8-9).
The Aftermath
After his prophetic commissioning, the Spirit takes Ezekiel back to Tel-abib, to the people he was called to minister to. He went “in bitterness in the heat of my spirit, hand of the LORD being strong upon me” and he “sat there overwhelmed among them seven days.” In other words, he’s pissed. It’s possible that he’s furious at God for giving him such an undesirable task of having a lonely and unsuccessful ministry. But more likely, he’s filled with God’s own wrath against his people. Whatever the case, he’s overwhelmed and needs a week to recover.
Some Practical Observations
I love this passage. I think it contains a ton of wisdom and practical reminders. Here’s a few that jump out to me.
1. Redefine success. God didn’t call Ezekiel to convince, but to preach. God told him outright that his audience wouldn’t listen to him (3:7). If success to us means lots of people listening to our message and becoming believers, then we’re in for a rude awakening in our ministries. Christians love to quote Isaiah and say “Here am I! Send me!” and conveniently forget that what Isaiah was signing up for was nearly 38 years of ineffective preaching (Isa.6). None of us are called to convince people of what only the Holy Spirit can convince them of (John 16:7-8). God holds us accountable to preach the gospel faithfully. How it affects those we preach to is between them and God, so don’t take it personally.
2. Foreign missions can become an idol. God wasn’t calling Ezekiel to earthquake-ravaged Haiti, to war-torn Uganda, to secular Europe, or to communist China. He was calling him to stay home, to preach to the pastor who ran off with his secretary, to the friend from youth group who is now sleeping with his girlfriend, to the friend who has suffered greatly and is angry at God, and to those who in their suffering become calloused and conclude that God does not exist. Sometimes staying home is harder than going overseas (see Matthew 13:57). I’ve sometimes felt what I thought was a call to go do missions overseas. But some of those calls on closer inspection were nothing more than a desire for what I perceived to be “easier” ministry where I had greater chance of leading people to Christ and less chance of being mocked and shamed. I was avoiding discomfort. Whatever God calls us to we should obey simply because he calls us to it, whether that’s staying home or moving halfway across the world.
3. Obedience is sweet. When Ezekiel ate the scroll that contained lamentation and mourning and woe, it was “as sweet as honey.” (3:3) Though it may be very painful, there is a peace that comes from obedience to God quite unlike any other kind of peace. It’s the peace of a good conscience before your God and King (see Psa.19:10-11; Rev.10:9-10). Tom Constable writes that the “word of God has an intrinsically pleasing and satisfying quality to those who, like Ezekiel, receive it gladly…” God loves his children and has a wonderful plan for their lives: that they would know him and look more like his Son. And this happens on the difficult road of obedience that Jesus himself walked. (Hebrews 5:8)
Ezekiel 1: Light in the Darkness
Posted by thetenthleper in Bible, Ezekiel on November 7, 2011
Ezekiel 1 is one of those chapters you pretend to like because when you were a kid you learned that all Scripture is breathed out by God, but in your heart of hearts it lies in a theological wastebasket along with pretty much all the Old Testament (minus Psalms, Proverbs, and- because it’s about sex- the Song of Solomon). Yet it is here that we must begin.
If you’ve never heard the term “theophany” before, now is a good time to learn it. A theophany is simply a manifestation of God. While it’s assumed in Scripture that no one can literally see God (John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16), there are many incidents in which God does somehow display his glory. Several examples of God manifesting himself are seen in the book of Exodus, like in the burning bush (3:2), in the storm and smoke which surrounded Mount Sinai (19:16-18), and in the cloud which led the Israelites by day and the pillar of fire which led them by night (13:21-22). Throughout Scripture, God was “seen” in storms (for example, Psalm 18:7-15, and the previously mentioned Exodus 19:16-18), and as sitting upon a throne (Psalm 80:1, 99:1; Isaiah 6:1). In this first chapter, Ezekiel sees both of these images (vv. 4, 26-28): the throne signifying authority, the storm of free movement. And sandwiched between the two are the things which make this chapter so trippy. In the storm, Ezekiel sees three things: four living creatures, wheels, and the throne far above them.
The Four Living Creatures (vv.5-14)
The living creatures were cherubim (spoiler alert) according to Ezekiel’s own words in chapter 10. Cherubim have fallen on hard times in the art world. We see them as cute little baby angels with the most pinchable wittle cheeks you’ve ever seen. But searching for a biblical depiction of cherubim would probably lead you to the black light poster section at Spencer Gifts before it would the Thomas Kincaid section at the Christian bookstore four doors down. Cherubim eat Thomas Kincaid whole. They were the real deal. They had power. Giant statues of them stood outside temples in Mesopotamia as guardians, and they were also depicted as the creatures who held up the sky, where the gods lived. Solomon even put up two in his temple (1 Kings 6:23-28).
The cherubim Ezekiel saw resembled the depictions he had seen of them in his own time: they had a human form (v.5), several faces and wings (v.6), the feet of a bull (v.7), and the heads of a lion, ox, and eagle in addition to a human head (v.10). These winged bull-men were common in ancient near eastern cultures, usually in the important role of supporting a deity’s throne or guarding his temple. ”They were attendants of deity, supporting his majesty and defending his empire. From his cultural surroundings, Ezekiel would have recognized such creatures as indicating the presence of deity, even if it did not immediately dawn on his terrified mind that it was indeed Yahweh they were attending (not until v.28 is this indentification made).” (Christopher Wright)
As to the details of these creatures, they seem to be formed into a square. Their wings are raised high and touch the others’ wings. Their backs are to each other. The eagle face was at the back of each head facing the inside of the square. The lion’s head faced right and the ox’s head faced left. This imagery, while crazy to us, would have been familiar to Ezekiel and his contemporaries. As Chris Wright observes:”Individually or in combination, these four creatures are to be found in religious art and statuary all across the ancient world, and in Israel too they had symbolic or proverbial significance.” For example,
-the lion was known for its strength, ferocity, and courage. It was also a symbol of royalty.
-the eagle was the most stately of birds, as well as the fastest.
-the ox was domestically very valuable and served as a symbol of fertility and divinity.
-the human is created in God’s image and thus is the most dignified and noble of all.
(D.I. Block- The Book of Ezekiel, 1-24)
Taken together, these four creatures express the divine attributes of God’s omniscience (he is all-knowing) and his omnipresence (he is all-powerful). Block concludes, “Yahweh has the strength and majesty of the lion, the swiftness and mobility of the eagle, the procreative power of the bull, and the wisdom and reason of humankind.”
If the creatures themselves are as powerful as the imagery suggests, what must that say about the deity they serve? In short: that he is in complete control over all the earth, and that he is everywhere (the lightning in verse 14).
The Wheels (vv.15-21)
A quick word on this. The creatures are said to have moved by “the spirit”, and each one, though in a square formation would constantly be moving forward (v.12). Their ability to go in any direction without swiveling or turning is explained by the fact that each creature had a wheel that interlocked with another wheel. Though they had wings, the wheels within wheels, moved by the spirit (v.20), were their primary source of movement. Don’t get hung up on this part trying to figure out the engineering of it all. This has baffled readers for thousands of years, and I’m not about to help it make sense in your mind. The main point of the wheels is that they enabled the creatures to move in any direction without turning.
The Throne (vv.22-28)
Ezekiel’s vision now leaves the living creatures and looks far above them where he saw “an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads.” (v.22) As it was a crystal (and thus transparent) expanse, he was able to see through it to what lay beyond, which was “the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance.” (v.26) The Hebrew word Ezekiel uses for the human likeness of this enthroned being is the same word used in Genesis 1:26 when God is said to have created man in his likeness. And this seems to be the point at which Ezekiel realizes who he’s looking at: the God who made man in his likeness, manifesting himself in the likeness of man. ”Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking.” (v.28)
What Does This Mean?
I think one of most significant words in this chapter is the word “there.” It’s found in verse 3, at the end of the prologue to Ezekiel’s vision. It’s written that the hand of the LORD was upon Ezekiel there. Where? In Babylon. In the land where God seemed absent. In the land of the peoples whose gods appeared to have devastated Israel’s God, with the captivity of his people to show for it. Yet there he was in Babylon, very much alive, and very much still in charge. He is still sovereign over all things (the throne), and he is present at all times and in all places (the wheels/the spirit). In light of this vision, the idea that God can ever been defeated or thwarted in his plans is a joke.
Many of the Israelites in exile felt abandoned and hopeless, for in their mind God was defeated and distant, and their captors felt bigger than him. We’re not so different from them. Through sufferings, addictions, and other trials, it’s easy to forget that God is bigger than our problems and that he has the power to free us from them. Sometimes it’s hard to remember that he cares about us, because he seems to be so far away. Ezekiel 1 reminds us that in the darkest pits of despair, God is still sovereign and near. In Paul’s words, we all once had “no hope and [were] without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:12) The difference-maker that reversed that condition though was that God sent his Son to shine as a light in a dark world, to destroy the works of the devil, and to set free those who had been captive to him. (John 1:4, 1 John 3:8, 2 Timothy 2:26)
To be a part of God’s people means that he will never abandon you. (Matthew 28:20, Hebrews 13:5) It’s to remember that whatever darkness you face, you never face it alone. (Psalm 139:7-12, Psalm 23:4, Acts 7:55-56) It’s to remember that his purposes for you are only good, even though they may be difficult. (Romans 8:28, Hebrews 12:7) It’s to be comforted by the awareness that any feelings you ever have about God not being with you are lies.
The comforting aspect of this passage is only one aspect though, and I’ve definitely treated it from a long-range perspective. It is comforting that God is sovereign and loving and that he does not give up on his people. But in Ezekiel’s context, while God may have been gloriously active and present, he first had some harsh words of judgment for the exiles. (See “The Ministry of Ezekiel the Prophet“) Yet even so, that God did not just abandon the Israelites forever is a remarkable show of grace. He may have come with a harsh message, but he has come nonetheless. God’s love pursues. And it rebukes when necessary.
So there we are. One chapter down. Forty-seven to go.
(Gulp.)
The Single Man Gets Married: Two Reflections on My Single Life
Posted by thetenthleper in Marriage and Singleness on August 21, 2011
[Here's a couple of reflections I jotted down earlier in the week about singleness. Figured I'd get this out there before I leave on my honeymoon tomorrow!]
As of this Saturday I’m going to be a married man, and a big part of me still can’t believe I get to say that. Many people have gone through long periods of singleness in their lives, but I’ve so often felt like the singlest of singles. Seriously: I went through all my college life without going on a single date, and then a couple more years after college. I had almost an entire decade between dates. The first one I went on in my twenties was right before I turned 27. Adding salt to the wound is the fact that I’m a hopeless romantic. I’m the guy who likes to buy flowers, write notes, open the car door, etc. So my many, many dateless Friday nights belonged not to a single who felt he wanted to serve the Lord as a single man for the rest of his life. No, I often spent those evenings with a heart that was aching to be with someone.
Though girlfriends in my life have been few and far between, I’d always held out an intense optimism that I’d meet my soul mate one day. I’ve been convinced so many times that I’d found “the One”, only to end up heartbroken and frustrated. Typically my love went unrequited. Still I held out hope that “the One” was still to come (or that the one who broke my heart would realize her mistake). But when I hit my mid-twenties and had no prospects at all, I began to be doubtful for the first time in my life that I’d ever marry. I felt in my heart that God had built me for marriage, but I struggled to recognize that with the fact that girls just didn’t seem to notice me in the way I wanted to be noticed.
Singleness had long felt like an unwanted part of my identity. I was sick of hearing sermons on dating. I was sick of hearing preachers talk about finding a wife as if it was as easy as going to pick up something from the store. I was very cynical when preachers (married preachers) would encourage singles to live up their singleness and embrace it as a gift from God. ”Good advice,” I thought, “from the guy who’s going to go home and sleep next to the woman he loves tonight.” It felt like a beggar-turned-millionaire telling beggars how awesome the beggar life is and then flying off in his private jet.
So it’s with utter humility and weirdness that I get to be that guy now. There’s probably a million reflections concerning singleness I could come up with given enough time, but for now here’s two…
Reflection #1: Circumstances Don’t Change Idols.
It took me a long time to realize it, but my desire for a wife had straight up become an idol. There was a long period of time that I felt like life wasn’t worth getting excited about if I was going to do it as a single guy. By way of reminder, wanting a spouse is a good desire. What’s bad is when it becomes a need.
All I wanted when I was single was someone to love and hold. And it hurt to not have it. So when Krystal came into my life, that want went away, right? Not even close. On the surface it looked like I just wanted to be married. But deep in my heart I was suffering from approval idolatry. I needed the affirmation and acceptance that I believed a wife would offer. When I didn’t get that, I lamented that I was unloveable and that no woman would ever want to marry me. Yet when I got a woman who loves me and wanted to marry me, that didn’t solve the problem. See, I still crave that affirmation like crazy. The context just looks different. In singleness, that unmet need for affirmation resulted in an inner voice telling me that I’d die alone. In dating and engagement, whenever I upset Krystal or hurt her in any way, that inner voice tells me that she’s disappointed in me and is having second thoughts about whether or not she wants to be with me. And when I upset her in marriage, I imagine that voice will tell me that she’s wondering if she feels like she made a mistake in marrying me. ”Yeah she said she wanted to be with me forever, but she didn’t have all the info on me. She didn’t know how rotten I was, and now she’s having buyer’s remorse.”
I wish I’d known earlier that having a woman in my life doesn’t magically cure my loneliness. In one sense I did know it. I’d heard it a million times before from preachers that a spouse ultimately couldn’t satisfy, only Jesus could. But deep down I always assumed the people saying that could only say it because they didn’t desire to be married as much as I did. They didn’t know how deeply my desire ran, I thought. But now I realize that I am fighting the same battle in my heart when I fail Krystal as I did on all those lonely Friday nights as a single with no prospects.
Reflection #2: Know What God Has Promised You.
This is a big one. You may have a strong prompting from the Holy Spirit that you’re supposed to be married. You may even have a strong prompting of the person you’re supposed to be married to. But it’s one thing to feel led by the Spirit and another to trust in a promise from God. When all is said and done, God has not promised you a spouse. When I first confessed that out loud it was pretty hard to accept. But as I repeated it over and over it became a great comfort to me.
We’re all like the Israelites in the wilderness after Egypt. They didn’t trust God to provide for them. So they complained. More specifically, they grumbled because they didn’t trust that God was good. My grumbling in singleness was a grumbling against God’s goodness. It was a declaration that “I am single, and I shouldn’t be. God hasn’t given me what he should.” To add sin to sin, I’d mask my frustration by trying to make it look religious. I wasn’t “grumbling”, I just “had a deep desire from God to be married.”
I wish I’d seen that there is a distinction between being burdened and grumbling. For example it’s one thing for a believer to have a burden to go minister to a certain people group overseas or go plant a church in a certain city. It’s another thing to want to go do those things because you’re grumbling about how materialistic and uncool your ministry opportunities are in your current locale. (Dallas hipster reformed Christians like me struggle with this a lot, ‘cuz I mean…Dallas.) I believe God has always put a desire for marriage into my heart. I believe he built me for it. But I wish I had owned that and then just trusted him to do something about it rather than feel like I should help him out because his timing wasn’t good. (Should’ve studied the life of Abraham more closely.)
Before Krystal and I started dating, God began to flood me with comfort when I began to simply accept that he wasn’t out to screw me over. It did wonders for me to simply focus on what he had promised me. For instance, he had promised to be good to me. (Romans 8:28) God is in the process of spiraling everything in your life toward your good and his glory, and if that doesn’t comfort you, the problem isn’t in the truth but in your definition of “good.” I started trusting his promise rather than my feelings, and the result was comfort. Additionally (and especially with regard to singleness), I banked on his promise in Psalm 84:11- “For the LORD is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly.” God’s not a withholding God. He wasn’t holding out on me in the blessings department because I was single. I realized that I was no less blessed than my married friends. He doesn’t always bless in the same way, but he’s in the business of lavishing blessing upon every single one of his children. This is a very clear Biblical truth (see Ephesians 1:3 and 2 Peter 1:3-4) that I could either choose to trust or not.
