Category Archives: Theology

Why Idolatry is Wrong

Posted on by
Reply
  • Idolatry “steals” what rightfully belongs to God — i.e., glory.
  • Idolatry has no point, since idols cannot see, hear, think, talk, etc.
  • Idolatry represents God as lesser; no matter how impressive the idol, it would still pale in comparison to God, so idols are degrading.
  • Idolatry distracts the human heart from our ultimate affection, God.
  • Idolatry seeks help in the present/earthly rather than the unseen/heavenly.
  • Idolatry blurs the divide between Creator and created, since idols are made by human hands and made with earthly materials.
  • Idolatry fragments the Only God into a multitude of representations (i.e., polytheism via human imagination).
  • Idolatry rejects God’s Word, not merely disobedience of a commandment but a lack of trust that God is “Yahweh” — I AM, who cannot be created. (There was a time when an idol was “not” in existence.)
  • Idolatry destroys, as the imperfect become ultimate; the finite can never replace the infinite. (Example: If we idolize work, we eventually realize that work can never fulfill, but by that point, we’ve already suffered from idolizing work.)
  • Idolatry wastes life, robbing time, treasure, and talent.

Timing of Grief

Posted on by
Reply

Nehemiah 8:9-10

“This day is holy to the Lord your God; do not mourn or weep.” For all the people wept as they heard the words of the Law. Then he said to them, “Go your way. Eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to anyone who has nothing ready, for this day is holy to our Lord. And do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.”

 

Perhaps these words ring empty, particularly when considering world conflict or personal disappointment. When facing sorrowing circumstances, the last thing we want to hear is “Stop crying. Be happy.”

 

However, there are two ways to read this: as a prohibition (“do not”) or as an encouragement (“do not keep grieving”). I take this as the latter. 

 

Elsewhere we know that Jesus cried, that we should weep with those who weep, etc. So there is a time to mourn, but this passage is meant to encourage those in sorrow. In other words, your sadness is justified (because of this sinful world), but do not remain in your sorrow (because comfort comes from God).

 

What suggests that reading is this: The people were weeping when hearing the law, which they should have done because of their sin. However, because it was a holy day, they were then told to not keep weeping but to celebrate God’s grace.

Lent/Lament: Worship Order Ideas

Posted on by
Reply

Here are a few worship order concepts for lent/lament. Any of these could be adjusted to fit your particular congregation or worship context.

 

Personal/Societal Emphasis

Receive God’s Welcome

Reflect Inwardly & Outwardly

Request Divine Help

Return Hopeful Praise

(Note: Repent could replace Reflect for a stronger statement, whereas Reflect is broader, such as considering the state of world affairs.)

 

Trinitarian-Lent Emphasis

Remember the Father’s Sovereign Power

Reflect upon Christ & His Sufferings

Request Help from the Holy Spirit

Respond in Praise as God’s People

 

Israelite Emphasis

Sought by Yahweh

Striving with Yahweh

Surrendering to Yahweh

Sanctified by Yahweh

*striving is the “wrestling” concept (metaphor of lament) but contextualized, as the Jewish idea of wrestling with God is more positive than negative.

*sanctification for the sake of mission (Jn. 17:17-19)

*verb form changes but reflects shift between God’s sovereign acts and our present action

 

Death & Life Emphasis

Gathering as Christ’s Body

Lamenting sin & death

Imploring God’s salvation

Celebrating resurrection life

 

Covenant Emphasis

Thanking God for His Promises

Repenting of our Brokenness

Surrending to God’s Decrees

Praising God for His Faithfulness

 

 

 

Have one that you’d like to share? Post yours in the comments.

The “Blessing” of Psalm 1

Posted on by
Reply

A student asked me a few questions about Psalm 1 and offered permission for me to share.  Here are the questions and responses:

 

How would you teach Psalm 1?

I teach Psalm in a variety of ways! In fact, it’s one of my favorite psalms to teach. I mostly emphasize genre (the wisdom aspect) and structure (how it introduces the entire psalter). I especially like that it can be taught in various contexts and at various levels of depth, time, focus, etc. I’ve used the psalm for a 1-minute devotional and for a 35-minute sermon, and I really love texts that have breadth like that.

 

Overall, given the psalm’s placement in the psalter, I point out that obedience and delight are not tangential but essential to worship. 

 

According to Psalm 1, how are Christians blessed?

From Psalm 1, I think Christians can be spiritually and physically blessed, but this requires some qualification. This does not mean that physical blessings are guaranteed; however, as we do what is right (e.g., following God’s Law), it is far more likely, since God’s ways will lead to better consequences overall. In this sense, Psalm 1 shares similarities with how Proverbs advises us to live.

 

It is worth noting that wisdom provides an overarching view — similar to a 10,000-foot view from an airplane. This means that not every individual moment will be better (e.g., you can still experience a flat tire), but your overall life will be better (e.g., avoiding harmful effects of sin; dwelling in community with believers; resting in God rather than yourself). 

Even better, though, spiritual blessings are guaranteed! This is the best news of the passage, of course, but ignoring “general” blessings would be a mistake. We can accept both without denigrating one or the other.

 

Christians, in particular, can see the dual nature of this passage. The original readers would have sensed the practical, holistic, real-world application (i.e., delighting in the Lord leads to better, not worse, outcomes), but Christians see ultimate fulfillment in Christ — not only that Christ fulfills this passage to the fullest extent, but that we as readers find ultimate blessing in Christ. 

 

To a congregation, how would you communicate the “certainty” of blessing?

Good question. I wouldn’t provide specific probability, but I would assure the congregation that in most circumstances, following God’s ways would most likely lead to a better life. Extreme situations — such as slavery, poverty, martyrdom, etc. — can be exceptions to this overall likelihood. Even Christians face the brutality of this sinful world, but our assurance is that blessing is found in Christ.

 

Thus, when the “general pattern” is broken, whether for us or another, we are reminded once again of ultimate blessing. This is why Jesus can say, “Blessed are the poor,” since blessing is not necessarily immediate, nor limited to the physical realm. 

 

At some point, likely near the end of the sermon, I would provide full, absolute certainty that ultimate blessing comes to God’s people — starting with Christ’s work on earth, ongoing in the Spirit’s presence within us, and culminating with our Father in eternity. Assurance of our eventual, eternal blessings then blesses us in this present, temporal world, since we know what is yet to come.

Complexity in Esther

Posted on by
Reply

As you interpret Esther as a biblical character, let me encourage you to embrace complexity. Good narratives focus on dynamic characters, and scripture is replete with complex, multi-layered narratives. Rather than thinking in black and white, I’d encourage you to think in terms of layers. In short, characters can have layers of strength, layers of weakness, and layers in between.

(Note: I am not saying to reject binaries or absolutes; what I am saying is that literature invites us into deep, holistic, and rich readings—especially in regards to characters.)

Thus, rather than labelling Esther as “good” or “bad”—or “faithful” vs. “unfaithful”—we see displayed in Esther the full human condition. As many have mentioned previously, Esther was not perfect, and as New Testament readers, we know that “all fall short” of perfection. Perhaps some of her early actions could have been rejected, similar to how Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego took a stand in the face of danger. It’s often pointed out that she could be more brave or more faithful.  

That being said, we need to be very careful about if/how we label her. Ultimately, it’s not our job to “judge” Esther, and really, her spiritual status is not the main point of the story. (In other words, people can have different views of Esther and still reach the same conclusions about the overall narrative.) Esther is complex, like all of us are, so labelling her as “all good” or “all bad” isn’t very helpful. Perhaps she willingly went along at times, but perhaps not; she could have hated her actions and the situation. To be frank, the narrative leaves some of that unknown, but just as you and I are “mixed bags”—within our collection of good gems we have some stones—so does Esther demonstrate the complexity of the human condition.

I point this out because we do not want to demonize Esther, as if she were a horrible Jew. As presented in the story, she is certainly not a villain, but a victim. She is held prisoner and has very few choices in front of her. (As my wife points out, Esther is portrayed as a “passive” character early in the narrative, while the men are the primary actors.) Again, she could have rejected the king, but very few would ever make that choice, given an impending death sentence. Especially due to the power imbalance—a king over a servant—it should be clear that she was objectified and used by the king. (A parallel is how King David misused his power over Bathsheba; he did not romance her, but abused her, prior to killing her husband.) Even though Esther is eventually “blessed,” the ends do not justify the means—so we can acknowledge that both victimization and elevation occur. 

Thus, when the text says that the King was “pleased,” it does not mean that Esther fully embraced the role. Nothing in the text suggests that Esther enjoyed being in that position, so we don’t want to see Esther as “sinning” or being unfaithful in that situation. Even the preparation ahead of time does not mean she fully embraced the role, since she likely felt surrounded and stuck. Again, some aspects are unknown, but the silence raises a crucial point: it would be presumptive to say Esther sinned when the king took her, since as most ethicists would point out, immorality involves (unforced) personal will—not legitimate, threatening coercion from another, especially not by a person of power. (Note: Ethicists debate how much will is needed in the face of such coercion, such in as the infamous Patty Hearst case, so that could be debated.)

To state the issue more directly: In cases of sexual abuse, as well as potential cases being investigated, outsiders should focus on facts. We must be extremely cautious when assessing inner thoughts and motives of victims, since horrifically, it’s far too common for people to blame or shame victims. We should not presume anything. To use the parallel example of Bathsheba, rather than guess at her motives and blame or shame her, since the data is extremely limited, the focus should be on David’s atrocious behavior. Due to the incredible imbalance of power, regardless of anyone else’s actions, David wildly abused his position.

Literature commonly features “flawed protagonists,” since no one is perfect. Thus, regardless of the fine details (such as her motive or inner thoughts), we can embrace Esther as a “hero”—especially since other biblical heroes (e.g., Moses, David, Peter, Paul) acted far, far worse. I hope we don’t get “lost in the weeds” when debating Esther as an individual, since the author’s main focus is the overall success of the Jews, as enabled by God. Most importantly, no matter how we interpret Esther as a character, and no matter how many outstanding questions remain, what is certain is that God is the ultimate hero in this story. 

All People, Unlimited Peace.

Posted on by
Reply

I normally take a slower approach to sociopolitical issues, but seeing where this seems to be headed, I’ll state this sooner rather than later for my Christian friends:

God cares for all people, from all ethnicities, which means He shows no partiality between Jews, Arabs, or the broader world (Rom. 2:11).

Further, even though Jerusalem and Israel plays a central part in the historical narrative, God has always cared more about people than geography and landmarks — notably, Christ Himself (the Temple) endured physical destruction to save not a symbol or a city but people (John 2:19).

I say that so we pray for peace and seek human rights, for all people, and that we are not swayed by the media to skew/prefer one group over the other. All people groups are loved, in the fullest sense, by our loving Father (John 3:16).

Some may say that Jerusalem plays a role in the end times (as that’s a common evangelical belief), but even if that position is taken, no one knows the day or the hour — so in the meantime, we pray for peace, not for a single side but for all, and God will determine the end as He decrees (Matt. 24:36).

Persistent Prayer

Posted on by
Reply

One thought has sustained me over the past two weeks:  Hundreds of believers around the world are praying for our family.  With so much unknown before us, knowing of these prayers has been deeply comforting. Especially in the morning, when it’s easy to fear and hard to start another day, I remember your prayers. In my mind’s eye, I envision heaven being bombarded, all throughout the day, intercession after intercession, to the point where no one could ignore the pleas — and certainly not a loving God who invites us to pray.

This morning, while struggling with thoughts of Ginny in pain, my thoughts wandered to Genesis 18, a passage where Abraham pleads for help in a horrible situation.  He begs for mercy, asking God to spare life should there be “ten” people who are righteous, and God agrees with Abraham’s request. 

As I think of my friends around the world — people who serve, who teach, who give, who care, etc. — I am certain there are well more than ten who love God. In fact, over these weeks, I’ve been reminded of dozens and dozens of incredible friends I’ve met throughout my life.  This gives me confidence, knowing that if God listened to Abraham, he also listens to us. 

For those familiar with the Genesis story, you know that there were not ten who were righteous, and for that reason, Sodom was turned into smoke.  However, the story points us to something even greater — a truth that would only be fully realized hundreds of years later.  When we lack righteousness, or when we don’t even have ten on our side, God hears when even one prays. 

First, God listened to Abraham, singularly, when Abraham was alone and afraid. That prayer, despite the sad outcome, was heard and answered.  Second, countless stories throughout scripture tell of a single individual praying — and God responding.  One of my favorites is Jesus’ story of a widow who keeps praying and praying, and God eventually responds to her (Luke 18). All of those stories are encouraging, but it gets even better than that.

None of us are perfectly righteous or “super spiritual” — not even Abraham (who not only lied but “traded” his wife for his own safety) nor the widow (who is described as annoying). But there is, indeed, one who is righteous, and through Him, we can be assured that God hears our prayers.  As John writes, “We have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1).

There is power when believers unite in prayer, and in those efforts, we ask the Lord for peace, time, wisdom, and healing. We know that our plans may differ from the Lord’s, and we accept whatever He decrees. Yet, in our uncertainty, we can be fully assured that voices around the world are being raised to throne — and that Jesus Christ himself is praying for our good (Rom. 8:28).  

While Ginny’s condition is largely considered “incurable” according to current science, we believe that God can provide temporary healings along the way — reducing pain (Mk. 5:34), inspiring helpers and doctors (Mk. 2:3-5), or extending earthly life (e.g., Lazarus). We also believe that, ultimately, full and total healing will come to Ginny’s body, whenever God determines that to be (Rev. 21:4).

This promise is not merely for some, but for everyone. As our Good Shepherd (Ps. 23), God tends and cares for his sheep, and he does not leave them lost, alone, or suffering, but he finds and consoles them (Luke 15). Not a single sheep is left behind, and each one is kept safe in his loving arms. Ginny may feel like the one lost sheep, apart from the ninety-nine, but Jesus is focused on her. In that promise, we rest. 

In the meantime, friends, let us “bother heaven” like the persistent widow (Lu. 18:5). Please persist with us over these upcoming months and years. The parable is not told because God is bothered by our prayers, but quite the opposite: Jesus tells the story to invite us to “always pray” and to “not lose heart” (Lu. 18:1). In our persistence, we will be reminded, again and again, of our dependence on the only one who can save us — the only one who is perfectly righteous, God Almighty.

—

So don’t you think God will surely give justice to his chosen people who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will grant justice to them quickly! 

(Luke 18:7-8a)

RESPONSE to Defiant Churches

Posted on by
Reply

To Churches Defying Medical & Political Leaders,


Christians should be leading the way in terms of loving neighbors and exercising wisdom. Now that children and 30-50 year olds are known to be dying, there is no “safe” group per se. With that in mind, our witness can be damaged if we value ritual (even good rituals!) more than the innocent — as argued repeatedly in the OT prophetic texts. 


The argument often goes that retail stores being open and churches being closed does not make sense. Agreed. It’s ridiculous to have people crammed into a store. I’ve heard multiple stories of people being coughed on while shopping. The answer is not to carelessly fling open the doors, but to be cautious with both.  


My proposal is that Christians use this time to be more creative in both living and loving.  How can we connect and care in new ways? At certain times in history, Christians have led the way in creativity. May this be one of those times.  


We need not gather in groups of 50+ to worship; after all, there are many house and underground churches around the world, and Christianity has flourished. Insisting on large gatherings neglects how God often moves in other contexts.  


Sadly, as Americans, possibly we are too connected to our productions than to the gospel itself. Worship and Word (and sometimes sacraments, depending on church polity) can be practiced in smaller contexts/groups. Until we can safely meet again, let us gather together in spirit — knowing that it is ultimately Christ, not physical proximity, that unites us.

Love, Liberty, & Caution: Why Jesus Would Wear A Mask

Posted on by
Reply

What’s most surprising right now is not the anti-science views circulating around the internet, but the callousness. There’s lots of debate, but less concern for the sick and the susceptible. All who fight for the “freedom” to not wear a mask overlook that the reason to wear a mask is for another person’s good, not their own.

Good citizens, and especially people of faith, should always prioritize love over liberty — even if that means personal inconvenience for a short period of time. All of us should be limiting personal travel, fashion, and preferences for the sake of others.  But if you doubt the WHO, doctors, government, or anyone else, show compassion out of caution, if for no other reason. (Note: Some cannot stay home for a variety of reasons, so “inconvenience” does not apply to those cases.)

If general caution isn’t enough, consider Christ — who surrendered some of his liberty, at least temporarily while nailed to a cross, for the safety of the masses. At the very least, even if you doubt scientists, ask yourself, “What would Jesus do if evidence or data were limited?” Would he insist on his legal rights, possibly endangering others in a reckless manner? Or would he be cautious, for a temporary period, until more was known?  In short, was Jesus more concerned with love for others or his own personal liberty?

If I know anything about Jesus and how he’d act during this pandemic, it’s this: If Jesus would die on a cross for you, he would also wear a mask for you.  He would do everything within his power to protect your well-being — not merely healing the sick, but protecting from future harm (“go in peace,” Lu. 14:48).

Remember how we used to mourn over 10-20 people injured in an accident or killed in terrorist event? Now, many Americans want to move on — even though over 50,000 have died, greater than the entire death toll of Vietnam. As Americans, maybe the tragedy here is not our lack of intellect, but our lack of heart. If we cannot sense the world like Jesus does, then we cannot possibly care for those who need us most — namely, the weak, the sorrowful, the homeless, the outcast, and the poor.

Most of us, including myself, need to lament and feel more. Rejuvenating an economy before resuscitating our hearts will do more harm than good. And without sorrow, we are bound to become worse people than we were before this tragedy.

May God help us all.

COVID-19, Planning, & Jesus

Posted on by
Reply

As I observe dozens of Christians pondering what to do this weekend, I can’t help but ask:

What would Jesus do?

 

My guess is that Jesus would be out picking grain and delivering it to the needy — just like David took temple bread to feed the hungry. Both knew that life mattered more than tradition.

 

The Sabbath, as I’m still learning, is not about law but healing. In contradiction to natural inclinations, the Sabbath is a divine gift, not a human liability. In that spirit, both Jesus and David “broke the norm” for the greater good — i.e., countering customs in preference for human well-being.

 

What does that mean for us today? Of course, it can be difficult to apply bread metaphors to our modern context. At a bare minimum, though, Jesus teaches us to think creatively — even risking personal religious “status” — to help those in need.

 

In no way did David or Jesus diminish the unique and necessary community that we experience in church, school, family, and work. In usual circumstances, far too many people miss out on community, and my heart especially goes out to those who don’t have a church community during a crisis like this.

 

At the same time, to my fellow Christians, this isn’t a time to judge individual faith commitments, to mock people’s worries, or to critique other churches, but to foster life and restoration. After all, that’s what Jesus would do.

 

Also, if you’re over 60 or have young children, we understand if you won’t attend church. Don’t worry about being judged. We know this is a frightening time, and if you need any supplies, let us know. We’ll do our best to help.

 

Mark 2:23-28 (NLT)

One Sabbath day, as Jesus was walking through some grainfields, his disciples began breaking off heads of grain to eat. But the Pharisees said to Jesus, “Look, why are they breaking the law by harvesting grain on the Sabbath?”

Jesus said to them, “Haven’t you ever read in the Scriptures what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He went into the house of God (during the days when Abiathar was high priest) and broke the law by eating the sacred loaves of bread that only the priests are allowed to eat. He also gave some to his companions.”

Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath!”

How to Choose a Bible Commentary (Tips to Select the Best Commentaries)

Posted on by
Reply

I was recently asked some good questions about commentaries — basically, which ones are the best?  To answer that, here are a few thoughts about which commentaries to use, as well as some practical advice to save you some money.

 

Most scholars would advise not to buy a complete commentary set.  This is because some volumes will be strong (even spectacular), while others could be fairly weak.  With 66 books of the Bible and various scholars contributing, you’ll usually see diversity within a whole commentary set.

 

For that reason, it’s better to buy individual commentaries.  To do this, I’d recommend the following:

(1) Buy a commentary as you study each book.  For example, as you read and study James, then get a commentary (or 2 or 3) for James. This is a good approach, so you don’t overspend by buying too many commentaries (i.e., for books you are not yet studying).

(2) Check BestCommentaries.com for a recommendation of which commentaries to buy.  This helpful website gathers ratings for commentaries and provides rankings for each book of the Bible.  When purchasing a commentary, if the #1 rated commentary is too expensive or too technical, aim for a commentary in the top 3 in the rankings.  (You can also see recommendation lists, or “featured libraries,” from pastors and authors; I would notuse those as an absolute list, since those lists are not infallible, but those lists can be helpful to consult.)

 

 

Long term, you’ll probably want several commentaries for each book of the Bible.  However, budgets are limited, so be sure to start with the kind of commentary that you need.  Commentaries are usually categorized according to their primary purpose:  technical (for in-depth exegetical study), pastoral (for sermon preparation), and devotional (for personal study and application). Don’t waste money on a commentary you won’t use, so start with the one that you need.  For example, if you need a commentary for an exegesis paper, start with a technical commentary before a devotional commentary.

 

Of course, there is overlap between these categories, but each commentary has a primary audience in mind and a primary purposefor the content.  You’ll want to consider that before purchasing a commentary.  For example, technical commentaries can be fairly complex; they assume that the reader has some knowledge of Greek/Hebrew and/or some seminary background.  I recommend reading these, but be sure to recognize that they can be time consuming due to their depth.  They are worth slogging through, but as you do so, don’t get discouraged, since everyone else is also struggling through them!  (In many cases, you would not read these through, but consult these for difficult sections or individual verses.)

 

In the “real world” of practical ministry, pastoral commentaries are often a good go-to, since they provide a good balance between scholarly and practical content.  They will discuss the most important technical issues, but they do not get bogged down in the minutia.  This is really helpful when planning a sermon or Bible study.

 

That being said, the primary benefit of a complete set is the price.  If you see commentary sets on sale (e.g., $300), then it can be a worthwhile investment, since individual commentaries can often cost $15-30 each.  While it’s a matter of personal preference, I recommend using sets within Logos or similar Bible software.  Printed sets take up a lot of space, and it’s wonderfully convenient to read commentaries on your phone, at the library, at your church office, etc.  Plus, digital commentaries can save time, since you can search them and move around much faster.

 

 

As far as sets go, here are some of my recommendations:

Technical.  New International Commentary (OT/NT), Word Bible Commentary, Baker Exegetical Commentary, Hermeneia Commentary

Pastoral. New American Commentary, Pillar NT Commentary, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, IVP New Testament Commentary, Tyndale Commentary, Zondervan Commentary

Devotional. NIV Application Commentary, New Bible Commentary, The Bible Speaks Today, The New Testament for Everyone

 

Lastly, and importantly, remember these tips:

(1) Read more than one commentary. Bible scholars are not perfect, and you don’t want to only hear from one scholar.   An individual scholar may miss things in the text — or may misinterpret passages — and you need to hear what others have to say about a text.  The best illustration I’ve heard compares Bible commentaries to sports radio:  You want to “tune in” and hear a lot of people talking about an issue.

(2) Be bold and disagree with what you read. You are also an educated Bible reader, and you are also a scholar, so you can interact with what you read.  Don’t think of commentators as “lofty” in the sense that they are beyond critique.  Yes, commentary writers are intelligent and can present their ideas well, but do not let that intimidate you.

(3) Know the perspective of your commentary. Be aware of who the author is and where he/she is coming from. If you’re unsure, check out their educational background, a review of their commentary, or read his/her other works.  Ultimately, you want to analyze the content of the text itself, but you want to be aware of any potential bias in the text.  (And to avoid your own embarrassment, you don’t want to quote an author out of context to support a view that he/she might not fully hold.)

(4) Compare commentaries outside of your comfort zone. Commentaries provide an insight into what people think and are talking about.  You don’t want to only read commentaries that you are comfortable with, or else you will be thinking inside of a tank.  You want to read a diversity of commentaries, so that you are aware of the issues and debates about a given text. This can strengthen your sermons, as you engage and interact with opposing viewpoints.  (This also includes reading commentaries from other cultures, so you can expand your worldview.)

(5) Use different kinds of commentaries. Use technical, pastoral, and devotional commentaries according to the occasion. Think of having a “well rounded diet.”  If you only read technical commentaries, you might lose sight of real-life application; if you only read devotional commentaries, you might oversimplify the text.  So be sure that you use all three as you continue in your ministry.

(6) Balance old and new commentaries.  Don’t believe the lie that we moderns “know so much better” than those before us.  Consult older works to see what people like Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, etc. had to say about the Bible.  At the same time, be sure to consult recent commentaries (particularly those written after the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls) in order to consider current discussions.  Make sure to find the wisdom in both old and new.

The Purpose of Acts

Posted on by
Reply

The overall purpose of Acts is not to explain the Holy Spirt — i.e., as if Acts were a treatise on a single person of the Trinity. Yes, we could say the Spirit is the central character, and we can gather some theology of the Spirit from these narratives, but there is a much broader intent. After all, Acts is a narrative, not a systematic textbook. Thus, the central purpose can be worded in various ways, but most expressions will sound something like “to demonstrate the spread of salvation among all nations” or “to describe the fulfillment of God’s promise for the world” — with key parts being (1) promise-fulfillment, (2) salvation, and (3) humanity.

 

The outline of Acts reveals this quite clearly. By looking at the various parts — or the structure of how Acts is organized — readers can observe a geographical movement from Jerusalem out to the broader world.  Thus, Acts 1:8 serves as a central verse that provides for the entire book, and Joel 2 and Acts 2 remind us that Acts is not about charismatic gifts, but a visible demonstration of God’s outpouring to all people.  To clarify, the geographic movement is used to emphasize that God’s grace has now been extended to all kinds of people, even those who the Jews perviously thought were unclean.

 

That being said, we also should avoid the opposite extreme of diminishing the Spirit. Chapter after chapter, Luke describes the growth of the Church, but Acts is far more than a handbook for church growth. We can gather understanding of mission from Acts, of course, but the book should not be reduced to a how-to manual, or something that we as humans can accomplish on our own. As the “sequel” to Luke’s gospel, the book tells of God’s miraculous work, which began in Christ and continues through the Holy Spirit.  Only God could accomplish such extraordinary things, and we as readers are invited to participate in God’s incredible plan of salvation — which is not merely for a few in an upper room, but for millions around the globe.

Promise in our Labor

Posted on by
Reply

Some of my favorite moments are when kids tell Bible stories.

 

Today, I learned that Noah’s family had to cut down a lot of trees and that alligators are an in-between case, but probably made it onto the ark. And then there was a rainbow to show that God would not do that again, and Noah’s family had lots and lots of kids…

 

But seriously, if you take a moment to listen, you can learn a lot based on what they observe. For instance, we as readers tend to jump to the “floating” part, and we often take for granted the many days of preparation that preceded the rain. Those hard years of labor required as much faith, if not more, than 40 days on the boat.

 

Ultimately, the story is about God’s promise and provision, not what we as human beings accomplish. But I wonder if as adults we get tired of our labor and hurry away to ease and relaxation — floating away from our troubles on a metaphorical boat — not realizing that God is with us during our labor. God was with Noah through those years of hard work, and he will be with us as well.

Thoughts on the Sinner’s Prayer

Posted on by
Reply

A student asked an interesting question about the Sinner’s Prayer, its origin, and my thoughts about it.  I thought I’d share this response with everyone, in case it is helpful:

Depending on who you ask, the “sinner’s prayer” (in various forms) was either present in the early church (e.g., Romans 10:9-10) or originated around the 17th century.  Interestingly enough, D.L. Moody used such prayers, and especially due to the ministry of Billy Graham, the prayer became quite popular in Evangelical churches.

I do not have an issue with the prayer per se.  The prayer is a synopsis of what Christians should affirm.  Althought there is not a “formula” for this prayer in Scripture, I see it as a theological prayer that expresses essential Christian beliefs.  At the same time, it is not a golden ticket to heaven.  For that reason, it should not be a simplistic requirement, and we need to be open to people becoming Christians without reciting a certain prayer.  I also think it’s wise to tell people that merely reciting words does not save you; it is a matter of the heart.

Overall, our emphasis should be on holistic conversion — i.e., not a “single” confession but a life of confession (Rom. 10:9-10). Sometimes, this may mean taking a step of faith, for example, and planning an evangelistic event that does not invite people to repeat the prayer.  After all, if our evangelism is effective, then people will want to convert, even if there’s not a prayer time immediately afterwards.  We can trust that they will pray to the Lord at a later point.  In some cases, we ask people to repeat the prayer because we’re nervous that if we don’t do that then people won’t respond, which is actually a lack of faith on our part.

Further, we don’t want to “over use” a single prayer, since it can limit faith to a simplistic expression.  The Kingdom of God is so grand that using the same prayer each time is not necessarily helpful.  After all, think of how many parables that Jesus used to explain the Kingdom of God.  When we invite people to respond after an evangelistic sermon, it would be wise to use different prayers — e.g., “Lord, I believe in Jesus, and I pray that He would be my treasure and joy” (Mt. 13:44) or “God be merciful to me, a sinner” (Lu. 18:13).

I also get worried about the prayer being “tacked on” at the end of a sermon — such as what Joel Osteen does — without much context or explanation.  I think that can be more harmful than helpful.  To me, that simplifies conversion beyond what Jesus intended (i.e., calling followers to leave everything).

So, as with many things in life, when, how, and why matters.  Blanket statements don’t often take into account ministry context, personal motives, and other such variables, so each use (or non-use) should be thoughtfully considered.

Spiritual Songs & New Songs

Posted on by
Reply

In his epistles, Paul speaks of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). His list categorizes three musical types: (1) psalms, which are inspired songs of the covenant, (2) hymns, which are ecclesiastically-shaped doctrinal songs, and (3) spiritual songs, which are distinguished from both. In this context, then, what is meant by “spiritual songs?”  To put that question another way, psalms and hymns are also spiritual, so what sets this third category apart from the others?

 

Apart from Pauline literature, when “song” is used elsewhere in the New Testament, it twice refers to the “new song” of glory (Rev. 5:9, 14:3).  In a third instance, the Apostle John does not mention psalms and hymns as Paul does, but uses “song of Moses” and “song of the Lamb,” both of which harken back to the covenant — i.e., the Torah and the Promise-Fulfilling Messiah.  While there are a few hymn (?????) references (Mt. 26:30; Mk:26; Acts 16:25, 1 Cor. 14:26), “songs” (???) in the New Testament are described with two adjectives: new and spiritual.

 

In the New Testament, there appears to be a parallel between the “new song” mentioned by John and spiritual songs mentioned by Paul. These are not totally separate from one another.  The “new song” of glory is inspired not by human ingenuity, but by the Spirit of God.  Likewise, spiritual songs of the Church are not ancient artifacts, but fresh songs that embrace the present and envision the future.  In other words, the Spirit inspires both John’s “song” and Paul’s “song.” (It’s not surprising that John would use “new” rather than “spiritual,” considering his theological emphasis upon renewal, as evident by 9 references to “new” in Revelation.)

 

The Old Testament includes 7 references to “new song.” In every case, new songs celebrate God’s renewing work.  From “He put a new song in my mouth” (Ps. 40:3) to “sing to the Lord a new song… all the earth” (Ps. 96:1), these songs express a forward-looking, eschatological dimension.  That is to say, new songs reveal an inner longing for renewal that will ultimately come at the end of time. Isaiah’s mention of “new song” makes this especially clear as he calls all of creation to praise (Is. 42:10).

 

Likewise, the Spirit inspires songs that look ahead to the future.  In Scripture, the Spirit points to the eschatological fulfillment of God’s promises.  The Prophet Joel depicts the Spirit as marking the end times (e.g., Joel 2), and Paul also describes the Spirit as the seal of the covenant.  (For more information, see Gordon Fee’s God’s Empowering Presence, chapter 12.)  Thus, “Spirit-inspired” songs do not merely celebrate God’s past work, but possess an eschatological dimension as well.

 

Why does this matter?  To begin with, “spiritual songs” should not be limited to a musical style — such as a gospel tune or an ad-libbed chorus.  They are  expressive songs, bubbling up from within us, and we must not lose sight of their theological function.  Spiritual songs reflect the Spirit’s work within us, as we are being sanctified — moving closer and closer to glory.  As such, the Holy Spirit inspires us in increasing measure to sing new songs to the Lord.

Luke & Poverty

Posted on by
Reply

“Blessed are the poor.” – Luke

“Blessed are the poor in spirit.” – Matthew

 

In my own life, I have recognized that my reading of Luke has varied depending on life circumstances.

 

When I have been poor, I have found extreme comfort in seeing “poor” without qualification — a reminder that God remembers me in my physical poverty.  And when my economic condition has been better, my reading moves towards Matthew’s “poor in spirit,” meaning that I focus more on spiritual poverty. I mention that because as we read Luke (whether in poverty or affluence), we need to be aware that our economic “lens” may influence our reading of the text.

 

So in the times of life when you have abundance, remember that others, such as those in impoverished countries, are reading Luke differently than you. That’s not to say that their exegesis is better or worse.  It’s a reminder to always see the rawness of Luke’s gospel — keeping in mind that poverty is not merely about a lack of means, but a lack of well-being.

 

In other words, poverty affects people holistically, since poverty often results from economic enslavement to a person or a system. So at the end of the day, poverty is not so much about possessions, but powerlessness. It is easy to lose hope when overwhelmed with poverty, but into that hopelessness, Luke speaks a powerful word: “Blessed are the poor.”

 

How Should We Read Revelation?

Posted on by
Reply

To begin with, I acknowledge (and would encourage others to acknowledge) the complexity of Revelation. Amidst the varieties of interpretations, the worst in my mind would be the kind that oversimplifies and overlooks the complexities of Revelation. If we claim to understand every image or symbol without any qualification, then maybe our hubris is preceding our exegesis.

 

That being said, neither do I think that Revelation is beyond comprehension for the average reader — especially the average reader in the time of the Apostle John. He was not writing a “code book” with codes that could only be deciphered by religious elites in a closed room. Nor was he writing a book that a single individual in the 21st century would “decode” somehow. Neither of those options fit with the biblical version of Christianity that I know, and they sound more like gnosticism than orthodoxy.

 

Based on those underlying principles, my primary approach to Revelation is to ask, “What was John communicating to his original audience?” before asking, “What does this say about the future?” Of course, the two questions are interrelated, but the if we limit ourselves to future questions, then John’s text would have been nearly useless to his contemporaries. Thus, questions of the “present day” (i.e., John’s day) should remain at the fore as we read what John was saying about the future.

 

This leads me to read Revelation as thus: How do these texts encourage, correct, or instruct believers in light of John’s vision of the future? Or in other words, how does the apocalypse affect readers in a personal, practical, and proximate way? In answering those questions, I see Revelation as presenting the following argument: Eagerly anticipate the Coming King because certain and decisive victory awaits His faithful ones.

 

While there are warning passages throughout the book, the overall message is one of confidence and encouragement. No one — not the Jews, not the Romans, not the Babylonians, not Satan himself — can defeat the King of all Kings. By looking to the end, believers can be confident, avoiding temptation and remaining strong in the present age — even in the face of brutal enemies and potential martyrdom.

 

Thoughts on the Sabbath

Posted on by
Reply
For an audio version of the following post, click here:  https://soundcloud.com/joelpeterjupp/sabbath 
_________________
I was recently asked to share my views on the Sabbath.  As I mentioned previously, this is a very complex issue, and there are many intelligent people with convincing arguments on both sides of this issue. Personally, I’ve changed my mind several times, so I can sympathize with both sides.  If the topic interests you, I’d highly recommend Five Views of Law and Gospel, by Zondervan, which treats this topic broadly (setting the Sabbath within the overall framework of Old Testament law).

To begin, the purpose of raising this issue here in this course is to demonstrate how the Old Testament and New Testament relate to each another.  The Sabbath serves as a prime example of how our interpretation of one influences (or is influenced by) the other. For that reason, you’re not expected to solve this issue within a few days, but you are expected to see how the OT and NT interrelate.

That being said, my thoughts would include the following:
  • The Sabbath is one of the The Commandments.  In my view, this sets the Sabbath apart from ceremonial and civil law, since it is placed within the context of moral law.  Because we would affirm all of the other 10, we should be extremely careful about tossing it out.
  • Within the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath is set aside not merely as a day, but as a statement of our individual and communal trust in Yahweh.  Sabbath is more than a 24-hour time period.  It is a statement or proclamation that we can rest in God as He provides for our needs.  In the original context — where survival depended upon the thin thread of animals and crops — not working one day was a shocking state tent of trust.
  • While we might doubt whether we need to observe the Sabbath today, the origin of the Sabbath resides within the nature and work of God.  If God needed to rest after creation, and if we ar made in His image, and if the commandments reflect not merely a decree but His nature, then we would be compelled to observe Sabbath rest.
  • When Jesus spoke of the Sabbath, we must carefully determine whether He was abolishing the Sabbath (rendering it null) or whether He was redefining the Sabbath (or more accurately clarifying the original meaning of the Sabbath).  In my view, Jesus is not abolishing, but fulfilling the Sabbath in Himself.
  • Some might say that Jesus’ fulfillment of the Sabbath makes it void or unnecessary for us; I take the position that our worship practices, of which the Sabbath would be included, were never intended as an end in themselves, but to point us to Christ.
  • Ultimately, Jesus teaches that the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around.  In my interpretation, this means that the Sabbath is intended to be life-giving, not burdensome.  Jesus blasts wide open our concept of the Sabbath, so that it’s not merely about sitting in church all day, but far broader than that.
  • In constrast to legalistic views, such as the Orthodox Jewish prohibition of cooking or driving on the Sabbath, Christians are liberated to experience all of God’s life giving peace and restoration, in whatever form that may be.  As it says in Colossians 1, all things were made by, through, and for Jesus Christ, so all of creation is opened up to us, even if that means walking around town, teaching, picking grain, helping those in need, and so forth.

That being said, forming a belief about the sabbath is relatively.  Living into the Sabbath, ironically so, is more difficult, even though it was intended to be easy.  More important than asking ourselves, “What can or can’t I do on the Sabbath?” we need to ask, “Am I trusting in God and resting in Him?” Ultimately, the Sabbath is not a calendar or a scheduling issue, but a heart issue.  In other words, are we trying to outwork God, or are we relying on Him to provide?

If you’re interested in some further reading… Abraham Heschel is a Jew who has written on the Sabbath, and it is also worth reading his thoughts on the meaning of the Sabbath.  While we would fundamentally disagree about the purpose of the Sabbath (I.e., for us, the Sabbath points to our ultimate rest in Christ), Heschel’s work demonstrates how the concept of Sabbath can be renewing and life-giving.  Obviously, the Jews have contemplated this principle for longer than some of us, so some of those insights can be applied in our Christian worldview.  Thankfully, we recognize that our salvation is not found in the Sabbath or any other regulation, but as it says in Hebrews 4, our hope is in Christ who ensures our ultimate rest.

Literature and Preaching

Posted on by
Reply

One of my former students at Moody Bible Institute recently asked me how reading literature can improve preaching.  More specifically, the student recognized the importance of reading, but was not sure where to begin. This was my brief response in case it is helpful to anyone else with a similar question.

——————————————-

Great question and thanks for asking.

In general, I would say a mixture of different kinds of literature would be good. Maybe pick up an anthology of poetry, an anthology of short stories, along with a classic novel. (For example, check out Best American Short Stories or something like Good Poems from Garrison Keillor.) In addition to being enjoyable in their own right (which is important to keep in mind), here are some ways that the different kinds of literature can help with preaching:

  • Poetry can help develop your vocabulary, your use of imagery, and your sense of rhythm and sound.
  • Short stories can show you how to concisely develop a narrative. (Sermon illustrations usually need to be shorter than short stories, but the principles are similar.)
  • Novels can help you notice and develop major themes and motifs, as well as show how to develop characters within narrative preaching.

 

Mostly focus on the classics and/or contemporary authors recognized in literary journals. However, also keep in mind some more popular works (something that I don’t do as much as I should), but keep in mind that people in church are reading things like The Shack or Harry Potter, so it can be helpful to know what they are reading. Those are not always the best books ever written, but they can help you contextualize. They resonate with people for a reason, so it can be good to figure out why that is the case.

In regards to poetry, I would recommend people like Wendell Berry, Scott Cairns, and Billy Collins. Watch out for bad contemporary poetry. You might also check out Upholding Mystery: An Anthology of Chrisitan Poetry. You may not agree the theology of every single poem, but it offers a lot to think about, and that can be worthwhile.

 

 

Love in Victory & Defeat

Posted on by
Reply

Christians, love in victory and in defeat.

When looking at situations throughout history and around the world, we know that Christians are not defeated by governments or political movements. Christians are not defeated by fire (Nero), policy (Mao Zedong), poverty (Indian castes), expulsion (Columbian tribes), terrorism (al-Shabaab), kindnappings (Boko Haram), or beheadings (ISIS). Oddly enough, Christians are not even defeated by crucifixion.

Even still, if you feel defeated by recent events, keep in mind that in every situation (not only situations of our choosing), Christ taught us to love God and to love our neighbors. Those are not conditional, but unconditional commandments — and are even more applicable in times of uncertainty, challenge, and confusion. So no matter how you feel, remember that we serve a resurrected King, and in His Kingdom, true love never waivers.