BLOG – Joel Peter Jupp | The Official Website of JPJ

RESPONSE to Defiant Churches

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

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, butÂ 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

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!”

Humility that Helps

Bear with me on this one, as it’s an imagined scenario within an imagined scenario…

For years now, starting when I was in college, I’ve tried to understand Jesus’ teaching on foot washing. As you may know, the actual practice of foot washing is a distinctive feature of some churches (e.g., Church of God), which I had experienced back in college. The idea has always kind of baffled me.

Anyways, here’s the thought within a thought:

1. Today, I had a dream featuring my pal Dan, who in the dream was ministering to some international students. His goal was to teach them about foot washing.

2. In the dream, Dan was asking discussion questions, and one of the questions was this: “If you were to call home to your relatives to explain this Jesus story, the time of day would be different for them, so how might that affect your explanation to them?”

3. The implication is that if it were 6 AM when those relatives answer the phone call, talking about washing feet would not make sense to them, since their day would just be starting. In addition to translating to their language, you would contextualize for the location and time of day — e.g., not offering to wash their feet, but instead sending a gift card or money to make their day easier.

4. The application, then, is that the purpose of foot washing is to ease someone’s burdens and frustrations after a long day’s work. Jesus’ example is not meant to show you’re willing to do something filthy or to lessen your own value, but to encourage service towards others in the sense of easing someone’s daily work. In short, it’s not humility for humility’s sake, but humility that helps — specifically, serving in a way that eases someone’s load. In other words, we don’t serve in order to be spiritual (for our own sake), but we serve to help (for another’s sake). Of course, such service might be dirty sometimes — such as tending after someone’s wound or taking out the trash — but that in itself is not the point; instead, the point is to ease weight and/or bring relief from the pressures of life.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” – Jesus (Mt. 11:28)

House Bill 2495 – Illinois’ Reproductive Health Act

Illinois is currently attempting to pass expansive changes to reproductive law (House Bill 2495) — considered to be more extreme than what New York recently passed.

Without delving into political talking points, there are several reasons for both Democrats and Republicans to be concerned:

The new law states that the unborn do “not have independent rights under the laws of this State.” With no rights prior to birth, the legislation repeals partial-birth abortion, which basically means that the unborn can be aborted while in the process (thus “partial”) of birth. Without even considering possible pain for the fetus, basic intuition seems to suggest that such late-term practices should not be commonly practiced — and it does not require much effort to imagine how such a practice could be abused and misused. (Note: If need be, you can research the practice for yourself, but I will not post grotesque photos, since we can think about this reasonably, without the need of frightening images.)

Additionally, nurse practioners would be allowed to perform abortions, which for most of us should raise health and safety concerns. With matters of life and death (for both the fetus and the mother), it seems like we would want stricter, not looser, laws on who should be involved. Thus, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, hopefully we can all agree on the need to protect women.

Thirdly, under the proposed law, husbands are said to have no rights in the decision, as they are essentially reduced from fathers to biological donors. Of course, safety restraints could be put in place for harmful men, but this law does not do that. In short, it is important to embrace women’s rights, while not at the same time not removing husband’s rights. With careful thought and dialogue, we can value both women and men.

Maybe the main problem, however, is the law’s internal contradiction. The irony is that it is a felony for a person to kill an unborn child — except if that person is a parent. Of course, this reveals a double standard within the law. If the unborn do not have rights (meaning no life or personhood), then it seems nonsensical to call it a felony for one party and not another. The unborn either have rights or not; legislators cannot have it both ways.

Regardless of your political party, the law goes too far in expanding these practices. In order to protect all involved parties — the unborn from partial-birth abortions, women from dangerous practices, and husbands from losing parental rights — urge your state representatives not to pass House Bill 2495.

Find your rep. here: https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/addr/

[I won’t be able to moderate all comments, but replies that enflame others will be deleted.]

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

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

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

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.

Protesting & Mullets

“Patriotism takes many forms, including teaching, transforming, and even protesting.”

– Bob Costas

To state Bob Costas’ point another way: Seeking change (e.g., a wife protesting her husband’s appearance and requesting he cut his hair) is not equivalent to disowning what needs to be changed (the husband).

Although the man might *feel* rejected, she remains by his side — even when he delays and part of him looks disgusting. Patiently, she dissents, but does not betray.

As much as the husband might love his mane or his mullet, her voice matters. In fact — especially in the case of mullets — for the good of society, she has an obligation to object.

#listentoher

Women in The Book of Esther

We live in an exciting era of women’s rights. In the past century, women have fought for the right to vote, to be heard, and to be respected. We see this in a wide variety of expressions from marches to the #MeToo movement and beyond. Sometimes we take this for granted, but in comparison to how women how have been treated throughout history, this is an amazing era.

Christians face women’s rights in many places, including the first few chapters of Esther. Here’s a question to help prompt that further:

What do you think of Vashti’s response to King Xerxes? Was it a proper or improper response? Why do you think so?

But beyond that, there’s an even bigger question. As readers of the entire biblical canon, we know that God is sovereignly working “behind the scenes” for the sake of His remnant. Keeping that in mind, based on your answer to the above questions:

What does that say about God? Why?

Of course, once we answer those questions, we should immediately consider how we should respond. God’s view of women and His protection of Esther should not be overlooked, but deeply considered. How should we view and treat women in this progressive era, and how are Christian human rights unique, in comparison to secular perspectives of human rights? As Christians, we are obligated to consider these tough questions.

(image by Edwin Longsden Long, 1829-1981)

Equal Employment: A Work of the People

It grates me when the President repeatedly takes credit for the rise of black employment (or the decrease of black unemployment).

First, individuals earn and keep their own jobs, so first and foremost, those specific individuals deserve the credit. We should be celebrating those individuals more than the President. We should be congratulating them and directing the focus to them.

Second, companies are the ones employ, so they also deserve more credit than the President. Fortune Magazine highlighted some of these diversely-hiring companies, which include Comcast, Hyatt, T-Mobile, Capital One, and Delta Airlines. Republicans who believe in a free market should be praising these companies more than the government.

Third, economic policy in the past year has not targeted particular races, so any credit claimed should be general, not racially focused. Repeating employment statistics of a particular race politicizes the issue, which only detracts from a people group’s well-earned success.

Thoughts on the Sinner’s Prayer

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.

Riptide

Download the album.

Spiritual Songs & New Songs

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.

Reasons to Welcome, Not Ban

25 Reasons Why Christians Should Welcome (Not Ban) Immigrants & Refugees

God cares for all people, not just those inside a particular national border.
As Christians, global citizenship trumps national citizenship.
Christianity affirms that all people have the same value, regardless of their current religion, since all of creation comes from God.
The Good Samaritan story includes ethnic dimensions: (1) those outside of your ethnicity may surprise you with kindness, and (2) our neighbors include those of other ethnicities.
The Golden Rule requires it: treat others as you would like to be treated. (If you were endangered, you would want someone to help you.)
Personal safety is not the ultimate ethic for Christians, while love is.
Political policies are not divinely insprired and often contradict God’s call for justice.
Political policies should never be superior to Christ’s commandments.
“Love your neighbor” is not limited by a country’s border and includes those from other countries.
Hospitality is an important motif throughout the Bible (e.g., Abraham welcoming the sojourners, Jews welcoming and not welcoming Jesus, the Apostles welcoming Paul, etc.)
“Love your enemies, bless those who persecute you” includes atheists and those of other religions.
Religious litmus tests may increase personal safety, while hindering the spread of the gospel.
Religious litmus tests are inaccurate; after all, some people within our own churches are “faking it” for one reason or another.
Religious litmus tests work against the gospel, since at one point, you yourself were not a Christian; being banned by Christians would have turned you away from, not towards, the faith.
Welcoming other religions to your country offers an opportunity for mission without ever leaving your homeland.
Ignoring human rights issues for the sake of personal safety merely perpetuates the problem.
Love always involves some degree of risk, so risk itself is not an excuse not to love.
The innocent, such as children, should not be slaughtered with the guilty.
Abraham was a sojourning immigrant (in Egypt).
Joseph was an enslaved immigrant (to Egypt).
Israel as a nation was an immigrant (in Egypt), poorly mistreated yet protected and rescued by Yahweh.
Moses was a refugee and immigrant (in Egypt).
Jesus was a refugee (in Egypt).
In the Bible, marked by the recurrence of Egypt, the necessity of immigration and the importance of hospitality cannot be ignored. (Lev. 19:33-34)
Jesus sacrificed His personal safety for the betterment of others, including those outside (Gentiles) of His own ethnicity (Jewish).

Luke & Poverty

“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.”

The “Rightness” of Sports

Play the game right. We all agree on that.

But what does it mean to play the “right” way anyways?

We face a dilemma when a player is expected to win — and then that same player departs to a better team to win. Most recently, people across the country felt outrage when Kevin Durant left Oklahoma City for Golden State, a move that inspired feelings of anger, distrust, and envy. But why?

And then we cheer for losers and underdogs. Whether an elderly Kobe, a cheap Dirk, a non-jumping Duncan, or a booed Porziņģis — we want athletes not to take shortcuts, but to win the right way. We prefer the “good” storyline rather than the bad one, and we turn on players who sign for money or who team up with other superstars.

As crazy as it sounds, we recognize that faithfulness counts in sports — maybe even as much as winning does. If we’re honest, we know that our team might not win in the end, so at the very least, we want players to stick together and to stay with us. We want players to be as faithful to us as we are to them. For after all, the average fan would rather lose with loveables than win with thugs.

Whatever side we take, Durant’s choices demonstrate that ethical obligations do not exclude sports. Old-fashioned ideals such as faithfulness, trustworthiness, and kindness apply to professional athletes, just as to everyone else. At the end of the day, fans want athletes to represent them not only in terms of geography, but in terms of character.

In the eyes of loyal fans, Kevin Durant broke a promise. And that is what fans despise the most. Win or lose, no one wants to be betrayed, and no one wants to be left behind. That’s not to say that Durant did in fact break a promise; after all, he fulfilled his contract, and he has the legal right to move on. But to many basketball fans, what matters is that it felt like a broken promise.

End results only matter for so much. Veteran fans know that championships are few and far between. As decades pass, we learn that “doing things right” involves more than winning. When we look to the courts and fields, we hope our athletes represent our ideals, not merely add numbers to a scoreboard. As fans, we can still cheer after losses, as long as we believe in the character of our athletes.

More than anything else, sports of an insight into passion, drive, and character. No matter how bad a team may be, we are drawn to cheer for athletes who battle despite the odds — for those who fight on behalf of the people who love them. And that is how you do things right.

Synthesizer & Spirit

In response to Bob Kauflin’s recent post about synthesizers in worship, I agree with much of what he says (nearly everything), including the call for silence, variety, and Spirit dependence. Those are crucially important points, and I couldn’t agree more.

In my perspective, some further nuancing might be helpful in the article. Of course, the Spirit can work through physical means — just as He can work through other means. After all, we are embodied beings and certain sound waves affect us in different ways.

Too much cowbell would make us laugh. There’s nothing inherently spiritual or anti-spiritual about a cowbell, but culturally, we’ve associated cowbell with humor (e.g., SNL). Likewise, loud kick drum tends to be associated with dancing (or for others, headaches). These associations in themselves are not wrong.

As far as ambient pads go, in much of Western culture, that particular sound has been associated with contemplation, peace, and spirit. Like the sounds mentioned above, there is nothing moral or amoral about that in itself. In fact, synth sounds are used in contexts outside of worship (such as commercials) to communicate these same ideas.

For that reason, rather than comparing ambient pads to manipulation, I would compare it to the use of language. If culture uses certain metaphors (whether linguistic or not), then those metaphors can serve as vehicles of communication.

Again, I think Bob is awesome (a role model and a favorite!), and I agree with so much in his post. In my view, however, a bit more nuancing would be helpful, particularly some of the positive uses and/or more emphasis upon the fact that the Spirit not only uses spiritual means, but natural means. The Spirit’s activity is above and beyond our physical processes, of course, but neither is He absent from those processes.

How Should We Read Revelation?

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

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.

Older News »