Context is King

New Year's Resolutions

2010-01-01T04:51:00.000-08:00

I just put up a post on the topic of 'New Year's Resolutions' on my ministry website. Click here to read it.

The Discipline of Listening

2009-12-10T09:29:00.001-08:00

Just put up a new post, The Discipline of Listening, on my ministry website (biblecreed.com). Click here to read it.

Obssessed with Angels

2009-12-09T06:27:00.000-08:00

I want to draw your attention to a sermon I preached last week on the topic of angels. You can find it at my ministry web site (www.biblecreed.com). Click here if you want to watch it, read it, or just listen to it.

A Thanksgiving Challenge

2009-11-24T10:05:00.000-08:00

Since Thanksgiving is two short days away, I want to draw your attention to the last two sermons that I preached on the topic of Thanksgiving. Two weeks ago I preached a sermon, Give Thanks In Everything... Literally, from 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18, and this past Sunday I preached a sermon, Paul's Big Fat Sigh, from 1 Thessalonians 2:17-3:10. I trust that the Spirit of God will use these messages to both challenge and encourage you this Thanksgiving season.

Happy Thanksgiving!

If you want to access these sermons, click here.

A James Update

2009-09-10T03:05:00.001-07:00

Well, I thought it was time for an update on James. All in all, everything seems to be going pretty well for James at the moment. Since I last updated...

1. The docs put James on a few more seizure medications to try to get his brain out of what they call a "spiking" pattern. Next Wednesday they will be hooking James up to an EEG (which records brain activity) to see if the medication has been successful to get his brain out of the spiking pattern. I will fill you in after we get back the results.

2. James just got off his c-diff medication yesterday. For those of you who haven't stayed tuned, James has been struggling with c-diff now for over 9 months, and we cannot seem to get rid of it. They say that c-diff can take well over a year to get rid of because it builds immunity to medication. Since taking him off the c-diff medications we have been holding our breath waiting to see if it comes back. So far so good. I will keep you posted if it should come back.

3. As you know, James took a spill a few weeks ago and had to go to the ER. The Lord healed him really quickly! We thought for sure (as did his dentist) that he was going to need one of his teeth pulled, but the Lord was good to us and the tooth that seemed to just be hanging there formed back into his gums and has healed completely. He still has quite the red mark under his chin, but he really has healed quite well.

4. James got his Rifton Pacer, a piece of medical equipment that will help him walk. I will definitely be posting some photos of him in it soon. His eyes light up when he is mobile--it is quite the sight!

By the way, the photos are from James' first trip to the fair this past Monday.

Well, that is all for now. However, I must ask prayer for my brother and sister-in-law, Luke and Amy. They are adopting a baby girl. Her name is Sophie and she was born just yesterday afternoon! That is all I know for now. I am excited for them, but I am praying that the adoption process goes smoothly and quickly.

Book Review: "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth"

2009-08-18T06:58:00.001-07:00

I would like to direct your attention to a post that I put up on my ministry web site (www.biblecreed.com). In this post I review a book, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, that I consider to be one of the top 10 most important books for all Christians to read (apart from the Bible itself, that is). You can access it by clicking here.

Jamesy Update

2009-08-05T17:18:00.001-07:00

Well, it is time for another update regarding James. This time around we have four new important items up for business.

1. James is continuing to progress in regard to both his abilities to communicate and especially in his ability to use his legs. In fact, we have ordered him a gate-trainer that will help him to learn how to walk by holding up his upper body allowing him to use his legs without having to support his upper half. This is quite exciting!

2. James has been struggling with C-diff now for over six months. It doesn't seem to be going away. He has a pretty nasty and painful diaper rash, and there is no way of taking the edge off. He literally has no skin on his little butt, which makes changing diapers quite the event.

3. We had a meeting with James' neurologist this past Tuesday and he gave us some more information regarding James' previous EEG test (if you have not already, you can read about this test by clicking here). He said that James has ESES (electrical status epilepticus) syndrome. He said that James' brain is spiking (where all of the neurons in his brain fire off at once) over 75% of the night time. Most kids with ESES do not acquire language skills, because the brain is not able to store the information learned throughout the day (which is one of the purposes of sleep--to retain and store knowledge). He said that some of James' developmental delays are definitely linked to his eses. They are putting James on two other seizure medications to try to stop the brain from forming a permanent pattern of spiking. This is not good news, but with the help of meds it is possible that James' brain would stop this pattern. Apparently, eses has a wide range of effects in kids, some being severe while others are not so severe. Either way, the neurologist was quite alarmed and suggested that we take immediate action (by upping to the meds that he is already taking and adding a few to the list, and by scheduling another EEG in a few weeks). They will not know much about James' specific condition until or unless they can find out what is causing it. The good news here is that the negative EEG reading does give the doctors information to work with--this may help them get to the bottom of many of his developmental issues. One thing to pray about is kidney stones. Many of these seizure medicines have the tendency to create kidney stone problems. James' nutritionist put him on high calorie formula so that we are able get more water into him to help flush the medicines a bit better.

4. Lastly, James took a nasty spill yesterday. He had to go to the hospital. He fell out of his jimmy-rigged adaptive stroller while going up some nasty stone stairs. His tumble form, which he sits in, fell out of his stroller with him strapped in, hit the stairs, and then his face hit the stone steps pretty hard. He had a nasty cut on his chin (they used skin glue to fix it up), the inside of his bottom lip has the equivalent to road rash (which they cannot do anything about), and his two front teeth are about as loose as they can be without falling out. His gums are a nasty dark purple. They took him to the emergency room to get a cat scan just to make sure that he had no head trauma or anything, and the catscan came back perfectly. Praise the Lord! Today we go to the dentist to decide if he needs his front two teeth pulled or not. My guess is that they will keep them in. He will be sore for quite a few days, and he will need constant 24 hour speedy hands to keep him from rubbing and grabbing his face. It was quite the event--he was bleeding profusely from the mouth right after he hit. Our greatest concern was that he would either choke on his blood (because he takes neither water nor food by mouth), or that he would get some sort of head trauma (with everything else that is going on in his brain). His little mouth and chin are quite the site, but he should recover fine. Also, be praying that James does not bite his lip--it is swollen and thus keeping him from biting it is quite a chore.

Anyway, be praying for James' healing in regard to his c-diff, eses syndrome, and his nasty face injuries. He is quite the trooper. He still smiles and has a good time despite the storm raging around him. Also, be praying for Kristal as well. She is such a good mom, and was already overwhelmed about James' neurology visit before he took his spill down the steps. She is quite fried and worn out as you can imagine.

Thanks for your constant prayers. The Lord is in control and has things better than we can imagine in store, Kristal and I are both confident of this fact. You never go wrong when your hope is in the character and word of God.

Update and Prayer Request for Jamesy

2009-07-09T07:36:00.000-07:00

Well, it is time for an update regarding James. There is quite a lot of new news. First of all, Kristal and I must thank you all for your continued prayer on James' behalf. God has been gracious to us.

1. James has progressed in many ways. His ability to use his hands with accuracy has improved immensely. He is ultra-impressive with his ability to give high-fives, and he has also learned how to wave hello and good bye! His ability to hold up his head is still improving as well. He is also learning to communicate with us much better. He is in the beginning process of forming a few words (like mama, dada, grama, gampa, more, etc.). His words are not well formed, but the intentionality of what he is trying to say is clear. Furthermore, one of the things we have noticed is that he is starting to like new cartoons, but for a very good reason. The reason he is preferring different cartoons is because he is getting to the point where he can follow a story line. There is much more that could be said in regard to James' progress. We attribute these blessings to the God who heals both according to the natural processes that he infused into his creation and according to his supernatural intervention.

2. We do have new information regarding James' brain activity. James hasn't been sleeping through the night now for about a month and a half. It appeared to Kristal and I that when he woke up in the middle of the night that he was wanting to fall back asleep but couldn't because his body simply wouldn't let him. His body was jerking and he was altogether spastic. Well, James' neurologist decided that he wanted to get an overnight EEG (a study that tests his brain activity). We came up to the hospital yesterday, they put the EEG leads on his head and we stayed the night in the hospital with a camera on James all night. This morning the neurologist read the EEG report and had quite a few things to say.

I will be brief: James has had three EEG's prior to this one and the results were much different this time around. The neurologist has been concerned with James' brain activity in the past, but has never had any significant evidence for that concern from the previous EEG tests. This test, however, provided evidence that validated his concerns. This is both good news and bad news. It is bad news because it confirms that there are underlying problems that yield high potential for excessive seizure activity at all times of the day and night, and it is good news because it gives the neurologist specified data that will help him narrow his search for possible causes and other underlying problems. Basically, the neurologist said that James' brain is "spiking" at all times of the day and night. He said that these "spikes" are indications that James' body is wanting to have a seizure. He suggested that the spikes occur when all the neurons in his brain fire together at the same time, which is highly abnormal. He said that the EEG revealed that his brain was spiking almost every second of the night (literally). In other words, James is always on the verge of seizure activity, throughout the greater part of the day and almost every second of the night.

Praise the Lord that he hasn't had any full blown seizures (except for one time--last August when he was coming out of anesthesia after surgery; and he does have continual epilepsy throughout the day evidenced through staring spells and spastic, uncontrollable movements when he is overwhelmed). However, this is alarming news for us--as well as for the neurologist (who was quite puzzled and concerned). It is a confirmation of what we have seen, but it is not necessarily the best news in the world. The abnormal activity is much more frequent and much more drastic than we were expecting. The one thing that concerns the neurologist is that James' brain activity is alarmingly worse. Because of this, he believes that the next step is to continue testing for metabolic disorders. He is also put him on a new seizure medicine.

We praise God that this EEG test caught the underlying problems in James' brain. It is difficult when you know something is wrong and have no data to help you find the root of the problem to deal with it (you also begin to feel something like a paranoid hypochondriac because you are confident that there is something wrong with no technical data to confirm your concerns). Please pray for two things: 1. that the Lord grant the doc wisdom as he does further metabolic testing and 2. that James' brain "spikes" would not turn into actual seizures.

Thank you for your continued prayer and concern.

We are confident that God knows what he is doing.

Washer on the Immutability of God

2009-06-11T04:12:00.001-07:00

We have been taking the youth group at our church through Paul Washer's One True God workbook. This workbook is a systematic study on the character of God. We have found it to be incredibly helpful, interactive, and insightful.

I especially appreciated Washer's note regarding the immutability of God. The immutability of God refers to his unchangeable nature. To say that God is immuatable is to say that God does not change. Washer helpfully clarifies the fact that God's immutability does not mean that God is immobile. Take a look at what he has to say:

"In 1 Samuel 15:29, the Scriptures declare that God 'is not a man that He should change his mind.' From this passage and others, it is clear that God's immutability extends even to His counsel and will. He is perfect in wisdom and therefore does not err in what He decrees; He is all-powerful and therefore is able to do all He has decided. But how do we reconcile this teaching with other Scriptures that seem to teach the contrary? In Genesis 6:6, God 'was sorry that He had made man.' In Exodus 32:9-14, the Lord 'changed his mind' about destroying the disobedient nation of Israel. Finally, in Jonah 3:10; God 'relented' concerning the calamity which he had declared He would bring upon the city of Ninevah. Do the Scriptures contradict themselves? Does God indeed change His mind? The answer is not as complex or mysterious as one might think. The Scriptures clearly teach that God's perfections, purposes, and promises are always the same. But this does not mean that his relationship and disposition toward His 'always changing' creation cannot vary. Genesis 6:6 simply refers to God's holy response to man's sin and His determination to blot out man from the face of the earth--v. 7 (the same in 1 Samuel 5:11, 26). In Exodus 32:9-14, God 'changed his mind' with regard to Israel's destruction as a gracious answer to Moses' prayer (a prayer that God led and empowered Moses to pray). In Jonah 3:4-10, God simply 'relented' from destroying Ninevah when Ninevah 'relented' from its sin. These passages are reminders to us that the immutability of God does not mean immobility. He does not change, but He is not static, apathetic, and uninvolved with His creation. He is dynamic and interacts with His creation. He is always the same, but His relationship and dealings with mutable men will vary according to how they respond to Him (Jeremiah 18:7-10; Ezekiel 18:21-24). This is not a contradiction to immutability, but proof of it. He will always respond to men's actions in a manner consistent with His unchanging attributes." (pg 31-32)

I appreciate Washer's balanced (and Scriptural) approach to this subject. God is not changing, but he does respond to our prayers, sins, and obedience. Although Washer suggests that it is not as mysterious as one would at first think, I would credit a large element of mystery to the the immutable God's dealings with mutable men. After all, God is much higher than us--his ways and character transcend all finite human categories. His answer certainly clarifies the issue, but it certainly does not wipe out the depth of God's mysterious dealings with mutable men.

Washer has provided an online version of his One True God workbook for free online. You can access it by clicking here. I highly recommend it.

Reading the Bible Literally

2009-06-02T07:56:00.001-07:00

I want to direct your attention to a recent post put up on James Emery White's website. He interacts and critiques a liberal (or may I suggest, an "unchristian") article written by Miguel De La Tore put up on the Associate Baptist Press' website titled, "A Pop Quiz for Biblical Literalists." White's critique of this article is consice, and yet it gets at the very heart of the issue. Take a look at a paragraph from De La Tore's article;

Only God should be worshiped, not the book that reveals God. In spite of some minor contradictions and several immoral regulations or commands that appear in the Bible (as the pop quiz demonstrated for those who have eyes to see), it still remains the testimony of those who saw God move in their lives and in history. And, like all testimonies, it is subjective. As important as the Bible is in my life, to worship it and give it equal standing with the Creator would be blasphemous on my part.

Without a doubt, Dr. De La Tore raises issues which has confronted Christians since the formation of the canon. However, I do believe that White sufficiently defeats De La Tore's skewed reasoning. Surely, White does not thrash De La Tore's thinking on every front, but his dealing with the article is helpful. To access Dr. White's article click here.

Here is a little smidgeon from White's article:

I do not mind a learned discussion about biblical truth and authority. What I do mind is continually associating a ridiculously wooden interpretation of the Bible that violates the most fundamental rules of textual interpretation with “taking the Bible literally.” This is such a tired caricature. Suffice it to say, such “quizzes” as offered above reveal both a hermeneutical and a theological ignorance.

My Bride: A Gift to Be Enjoyed

2009-05-27T09:39:00.001-07:00

Apart from Jesus Christ, my bride, Kristal, is the best thing that has ever happened to me.

I pray that the infinite God of grace might grant me one thing: that I might be able to love, serve, delight in, wash (with the water of the word), and cherish her as He loves, serves, delights in, washes, and cherishes the Church (Epehsians 5:25-31).

Today we celebrate three years of exceeded expectations. To the unmarried: marriage is not a drag as the world would have you to believe. Marriage, in the fun, yet sufficient, words of Kristal, “Rocks the planet off its axis!” Only the selfish and pridefull chagrin the thought of commitment. Unconditional and sacrificial commitment in the covenant of marriage is not a ‘ball and chain,’ it is a channel through which mutual love and satisfaction flow. The only good reason to remain single, and it is a plenty good reason, is for the sake of being wholly devoted to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7).

Divine Blueprints

2009-05-12T14:07:00.000-07:00

Today as I was reading my devotional I noticed something that I had never noticed before (this happens on a regular basis--I have much to learn). Did you know that David received blueprints from the hand of God for building the temple (which he then passed along to Solomon) in a similar way that Moses received blueprints from the hand of God for building the tabernacle? See 1 Chronicles 28:19 and compare it to Exodus 25:9. Interesting! God takes his dwelling place seriously.

Now take a look at Hebrews 8:3-5:

For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; therefore it was necessary for this [priest] also to have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He wouldn't be a priest, since there are those offering the gifts prescribed by the law. These serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was warned when he was about to complete the tabernacle. For He said, Be careful that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain.

The pattern that God showed Moses on Mt. Sinai was the real deal tabernacle, the eternal one in heaven itself. The actual tabernacle that Moses built was just a physical, earthly representation. I wonder if David saw the same thing. Hebrews 8:3-5 really makes me question those dispensationalists who look forward to a rebuilt temple as if an earthly copy could in any way compete with the true one. In essence, dispensationalists drool over the match box while the Ferrari sits unused in their driveway. I look forward to entering a temple which doesn't need to be rebuilt. It doesn't need to be rebuilt because it is eternal, unchanging, unpenentrible, undefiled. Unlike the earthly one, the type and shadow, it could never have been destroyed in the first place, thus making rebuilding unnecessary. As they always say, and I will change it to fit my purposes; "If it can't break, don't rebuild it!" This is the temple we now enter confidently (Hebrews 4:16). Moses' temple and David's temple were nothing but claymation models. What is the facsination over such small representations when the Scriptures point us to the glories themselves!

Tennis Hopes Become Reality

2009-05-11T16:51:00.000-07:00

Following up on my last post: Well, although I have yet to see Nadal and Federer square off in the French Open championship match, I can happily say that Andy Murray (the guy on the right) officially overtook Novak Djokavic's (the guy on the left) #3 ranking.

Interestingly, I just read in an article by Iaian Rogers that Murray looks to Nadal for his motivation to improve his game (the 0.000034% of you who want to read this article can access it by clicking here).

I do not foresee Murray taking over Federer's #2 ranking this year; however, Murray, at 22, is still quite young while, at least in tennis years (I guess it is sort of like dog years), Federer is reaching old-timer status (at almost 28). He is not there yet, but it would be safe to say that Federer's time is running short, and I forsee Murray being the one to take his place when that time comes.

One thing is for sure, Murray would certainly like to break up the Nadal vs. Federer epic. After all, he said the following in an interview:

"Rafa and Roger are probably the two best players ever, so I'd love to try and break that up... The rankings reflect my good run and I just need to try and focus on winning."*

I don't think the question is if he will be able to do it, it is when. On the other hand, tennis stars often times come out of the wood work, jumping from being virtually unheard of to being in the top 10 within one single year. Unfortunately I lost my crystal ball, we'll just have to wait and see. Yes, I find following tennis to be a good lesson in theology. God is sovereign over all, even over rich, sweaty, long-haired tennis guru's.

*http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/sport/murray_eyes_top_two_ranking_spot

Will The Rival Continue?

2009-05-08T03:04:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, tennis is my favorite sport to watch on TV. Thankfully, our satellite company throws the Tennis Channel in as part of the standard package. Last year Nadal took over the #1 ranking in the world from the seemingly unstoppable, Roger Federer. Ever since Nadal secured the #1 ranking he has been virtually unbeatable. Federer had something of a meltdown at the Australian open when he lost to Nadal in the championship match. It seemed as if Federer finally realized that Nadal was not just going to be a force to be reckoned with on clay--he realized that Nadal had upped his game and was going to push him to the breaking point on every surface. Federer has not seemed to be the same since--he has lost his edge.

Although Nadal is by far my favorite player, it has been disappointing to see Federer pose so little threat to Nadal. One of the things that made the match up between Nadal and Federer so fun to watch was how neither of them seemed that they were able to win--it was always neck-and-neck, down to the very last point. It seems that once Federer lost the Austrailian open he lost something of his pizazz.

However, there are many naysayers out there who think that Federer, speaking in tennis terms, has died, never to return to the top again. Although there has been an apparent difference in Federer's confidence over the last few months I would have to completely disagree with those who think that Federer's reign as a champion is over. I have even read some sports columnists who suggest that although Federer, as a 26-year-old, is only 1 major shy of tying Pete Sampras' all-time record of 14 majors, he will never match Sampras' feat. I tell Kristal about 10 times a day (I am sure that she really doesn't care--I just need someone to vent to, and unfortunately I am the only one on the face of the planet who actually, like a goober, avidly follows tennis) that the only reason that Federer would not surpass Sampras' all-time record is if he has become mentally defeated. Federer still moves and jives like he did when he was virtually unstoppable. Nothing has changed in his ability, and I really don't think that Nadal has improved so much that he has out done Federer. If Federer could get over this hump of depression I think that we can expect to see the Nadal vs. Federer hype continue.

The French Open starts at the end of this month (May). I am waiting with bated breath to see how things will turn out. Nadal is on course to break Bjorn Borg's record by winning 5 consecutive championships on clay in Paris. What makes this even more exciting (at least for a geek like myself) is that Federer has never won the championship at the French Open, making this the only Grand Slam that he has not won. To be honest, I will be stoked no matter the outcome of the final at the French Open so long as Nadal and Federer are in the finals. The worst thing, in my opinion at least, is if Novak Djokavic were to win. Whatever the result of the French Open, I just want to see Federer at the top of his game battling back and forth to reclaim his #1 ranking.

The Federer/Nadal rival must continue. I am an optimist who thinks that Federer is merely in a slump. All athletes go through slumps. I am not sure why sports analysts react to slumps the way they do. Every athlete goes through slumps, and it should surprise no one that Federer needs time to get used to being contested by someone as athletic and determined as Nadal.

My predictions: I expect the rival between Nadal and Federer to continue, and I expect Federer to surpass Sampras' record by at least one or two majors. I also expect to see Nadal, if he can remain injury free, come close to Sampras' record as well.

As for other top ranked tennis players: I find Novak Djokavic to be a bit prideful. He doesn't possess the humility, grace, and 'love for the game' that Nadal and Federer seem to have. It seems that Djokavic likes to win to prove himself to those who doubt him while Nadal and Federer like to win because they love the game of tennis. On another note, I am definitely excited about Andy Murray. Murray is not always the most animated tennis player, but he certainly is going to pose a large challenge to Nadal, Federer, and Djokavic. My hope is that Murray dethrones Djokavic from the #3 ranking. In regard to Andy Roddick: although I was thinking at the beginning of the season last year that Andy Roddick had become a 'has been,' he has really stepped up his game. I am looking forward to seeing him play this year, and especially at the U.S. Open.

I hope my tennis commentary has enlightened your day (ha).

Prayer Update on Sam

2009-05-06T05:18:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I put up a post asking for prayer for a 15 month old boy, Sam, who goes to our church and has stage 4 neuroblastoma cancer. I just wanted to direct you to the website that Sam's parents, Matt and Jen, are using to keep people updated regarding Sam. The link is http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/samlampron. Please visit the site often and continue to lift Sam, Matt, and Jen up in your prayers. Thanks.

Witherington on Ehrman

2009-04-21T03:42:00.000-07:00

I would like to direct your attention to Dr. Ben Witherington's blog. He has been doing a thorough and significant review of a new book, Jesus, Interrupted, put out by Bart Ehrman, a liberal, critical scholar of the New Testament who has become increasingly more popular because of his book, Misquoting Jesus. Dr. Witherington does an excellent job of exposing Ehrman's faulty approach to the text of Scripture. Dr. Witherington is not finished with the review (he is reviewing it chapter by chapter). I believe that it would be a benefit to any and every Christian to read what Dr. Witherington has to say about Ehrman and his approach to the Scriptures. Ehrman's skeptical, authority-of-Scripture-rejecting approach to God's word is becoming increasingly more popular in our culture today. It would be good for Christians to at least have a basic, cursory knowledge of what is out there so that you might be able to better deal with it when it comes your way (and it will sooner or later). You can access the first part of Witherington's review by clicking here.

A Shrimpy Day

2009-04-03T04:38:00.000-07:00

Oftentimes, before checking my email at yahoo.com I will look at the menu, "Today's Top Searches" on the Yahoo! front page. I do so just to get a feel for what is occupying the people of my world. Usually you find that people have been doing searches on Brad Pitt, MLB steroid scandals, Barnie Frank, and other things of that nature. Anyway, I went there this morning and noticed that "Shrimp Recipes" was #7 on the list. I guess there were just a whole lot of people who were interested in cooking shrimp on April 2, 2009. Weird! I mean really, was the entry "Shrimp Recipes" really the seventh most common entry in Yahoo's search box? This really is a strange world.

Urgent Prayer Request: 4/2/09

2009-04-02T11:24:00.001-07:00

Please be in persistent prayer with my church family as we pray for one of our own. A little 15 month old boy named Sam has been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. The doctors have identified it as a neuroblastoma. He has a tumor that has wrapped itself around his aorta and his left one of his kidneys unusable, and has cut off circulation to his legs. They said that his bone marrow had 5% cancer in it. At this point he cannot eat much because of the size of the tumor. They started giving Sam chemo treatments Monday to shrink the cancerous mass so that they can remove it. As you can imagine, the situation is dire. Please also be praying for his faithful parents, Matt and Jen. Matt and Jen both have evidenced an inordinate amount of faith and trust in the Lord through this situation. However, they are overwhelmed (as would be expected) and are in need of much prayer. Please be praying for this family.

I will update more when I hear more.

Introducing... Bible Creed!

2009-03-29T13:45:00.000-07:00

About a month ago, my good friend and fellow elder, Moe Bergeron, helped me set up a website for the purpose of making the fruits of my ministry available to the larger public. The name of the site is Bible Creed, and the web address is www.biblecreed.com

Although I will continue to post here at Context is King, Bible Creed will be my primary website. Please do not stop visiting Context is King because I will continue to post pictures of James, provide updates, share with you what I have been learning about God through his word, and speak my mind on all sorts of topics (primarily tennis and politics). Please, go to Bible Creed and rummage around a bit. Let me know what you think!

Chillin Out Max!

2009-02-28T13:23:00.000-08:00

I know... it has been way too long since I have posted. At this point, I have every intention on continuing this blog. However, I am in still in the process of adapting to the responsibilities of pastoral ministry. Please stay tuned... I will be writing much more in very near future.

As for a little update: I have really grown to love the people God has blessed me to serve, James is doing excellent, and Kristal and I are loving our life together more and more with each passing day.

Overshopped... Overtired!!

2008-12-26T13:54:00.001-08:00

He's just like his father... malls have the same effect as sleeping pills. I look forward to the days when we can complain to Kristal together. I feel your pain, buddy.

Are You Plugged-In? John 15:1-6

2008-12-18T05:41:00.001-08:00

One of my fellow elders, Kevin, has been teaching through Jesus' upper room discourse (John 14-16) over the last few months for our Wednesday night service (and it has been superb by the way). He has been in John 15 now for over a month. As he was teaching through the first few verses of John 15 the Lord impressed upon my mind a helpful way of looking at John 15.

First of all, if you have read John 15 you know that it is an image-laden passage. Jesus was communicating to his disciples their ultra-need of remaining/abiding in him. In essence, Jesus was teaching his disciples that he is the very source of their life. He communicated this rich truth by using imagery from the agricultural world. After all, he likens himself to a "vine," the disciples to "branches" and the Father to a "vine dresser." Jesus' principle point is that the disciples are quite a lot like branches in that they need the life-giving sap from the vine (Jesus) to help them produce fruit (produce love).

Because we in America do not have a massive amount of experience working in vineyards, we can often times be confused about what Jesus is talking about. In so doing we can miss his most principle point.

As I was sitting there listening to Kevin teach I began to think of a better, more accessible illustration than a vine and branches (Not that Jesus blew it by giving a horrid illustration, but rather because we do not live in the same context as the disciples). After the study I drove home, sat down with my Bible opened to John 15 and began to rework it with different imagery--imagery that connects with the everyday lives of Americans.

Anyway, here is my reworking of John 15:1-6 with up-to-date, Americanized imagery (by the way, this is adapted from the NIV):

"1 I am the true generator and the Father is the electrician. 2 He unplugs and throws away every extension cord which does not channel electricity, while every extension cord that does channel electricity he cuts, splices the wires, and then tapes back up so that it might channel electricity more efficiently in order that it might light more light bulbs (bear fruit). 3 You are already clean because of the word I preached to you. 4. Remain plugged into me and my energy or life will remain in you. No extension cord can generate electricity on its own, it must remain plugged in to the generator. Neither can you bear fruit (light light bulbs) unless you remain plugged in to me. 5 I am the generator you are the extension cords. If a man remains in me and I remain in him, he will light many light bulbs; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not remain plugged in to me, he like an extension cord which is thrown away and looses its electricity-channeling capabilities; such extension cords are picked up and thrown away and taken to the dump and melted in the incinerator."

How useful is an unplugged extension cord when it comes to channeling energy? Extension cords cannot generate electricity on their own. They are dependent upon a generator for the electricity. In fact, just like us, extension cords exist simply for the sake of channeling--channeling life which flows from another source. In the same way, how useful is a believer in bearing fruit to the glory of God if he is not plugged into Christ. The point is that Christ is the source of our life. We are useless if we are not plugged into him--"apart from him we can do nothing."

For those of you who are serious students of Scripture, you may not like the changing of the imagery because it cannot account for the serious historical significance of Jesus calling himself the "true vine" or his people "the branches." In other words, no... this changed imagery is not perfect. After all, one cannot truly understand John 15 without at least a cursory understanding of Isaiah 5. I suggest you to stick with Jesus' imagery and only provide this for you in order to deepen your understanding of his principle point. The imagery is helpful in establishing the main point of Jesus discourse: namely, that the disciples cannot do anything which brings glory to God (John 15:8) if they are not getting their life from Christ, remaining plugged into him. This change of imagery also helps communicate the worthlessness (at least when it comes to bearing fruit to the glory of God) of those who are not actively seeking life in him--everyone knows how useless an extension cord is when it comes to lighting light bulbs if it is not plugged in to a power source.

Now go and read John 15 in your own Bible and see if the changed imagery sheds some light on Jesus' words. Also, notice that the fruit that Jesus wants his disciples to bear is love (see John 15:11-17). In other words, you cannot fulfill the Greatest Commandment if you are not plugged into Christ. Christ is the life-giving sap which flows through you--he is the life-giving energy which flows through you, enabling you to love others as he has loved you.

An Unthinkable Confession

2008-12-01T10:01:00.000-08:00

I hate to say it... I can't believe I am going to splatter this confession on the all-access, all-the-time internet! My moral life and value has hit an all-time low. That's right, I payed $1.19 for a double cheeseburger at McDonald's this afternoon without even at least attempting to question the change in the menu. What have I become? What sort of a low-life victim have I become? As I saw the extra 19¢ leave my hand I tried to make myself spell out the world-wide consequences of raising the price of the burger. It reminded me of a middle schooler getting up the nerve to ask one of the school's cheerleaders out on a date--he walks around and around and around her locker, but can only belch forth air when he makes his stellar approach. It is not even as if the cashier beat me up and took the 19¢. Nope, I just gave it over like a goober.

I want to make an official apology to all of those college students out there that will go broke and hungry because of my lack of nerve.

I hate to say it, but the double cheeseburger, although making a much larger dent in my pocket (19¢ a pop to be exact), is still as greasy, cheesy, and scrumptous as ever.

Before I start sounding optimistic, however, I want to direct your attention to this slippery article put out by McDonald's regarding the change in the Dollar Menu. Click here to read it.

And I quote:

"When you visit us in December, also look for our latest addition to the Dollar Menu – the new McDouble® Burger. It’s pretty much the same as the Double Cheeseburger, just with one less slice of cheese."

What?! "Pretty much the same... just with one less slice of cheese." How can "pretty much the same" and "one less slice of cheese" be used in the same sentence? That's like saying, "Your car is pretty much the same as before you let me borrow it... umm... it just doesn't have an engine anymore."

They make it sound like a wedding as opposed to a funeral: "look for our latest addition to the Dollar Menu." They are actually optimistically telling you to gleefully look for the increase in price! 'Oh, next time you go to McDonald's you will be happy to know that you will have to pay more money to get less cheese.' Thanks for the promise! I will have to bring the whole gang along to maximize on the newness. I love price increases!

Ok, time to stop--I'm starting to drip with sarcasm.

Its Official!

2008-11-12T04:52:00.001-08:00

Well, it is official, I am now the full-time preaching pastor at Sovereign Grace Fellowship in Boscawen, New Hampshire. I am excited about this new task that the Lord has laid on my shoulders. Please be praying for me as I seek to be faithful to God and his word. I thank the Lord that I am not the only elder at the church. The Lord has blessed me by placing 3 older, more experienced, more godly men to partner with me in the ministry here in Boscawen. Click here to check out the church's website.

An Election Day Charge to Christians

2008-11-04T04:21:00.001-08:00

Well, the day of decision has finally come. I just want to list a few things to remember as the votes are being recorded and counted.

-No matter the outcome of the election God is the true ruler of the universe . Because this is the case we need not despair no matter who wins the election.

Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. (Psalms 96:10)

-Christians are to be an example to the world when it comes to respecting and obeying their leaders.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1-2)

and

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. (Mark 12:17)

-Christians are to be known for their love. This means that we need to be careful how we speak about our new president. The world watches Christians closely and if they hear us speaking against our new president in the same way that they speak against the president we will have completely destroyed what makes us distinct in the world. Often times Christians have the tendency to think that what makes us different from the world is how we dress, what music we listen to, or what TV shows we watch. Although this may be the case in some circumstances, it misses the point. Christians are not to be different from the world simply for the sake of being different. Rather Christians are to be different from the world in regard to biblical righteousness, which in most cases, at least for those who are actively seeking the Lord, righteousness different from the world has far more to do with how we speak about or to one another than what we wear, listen to, or watch on TV. No matter how badly you want to air the new president's dirty laundry, silence your mouth and be an example. This is so critical to our task as lights in the world. Sometimes it is necessary to speak up--in the face of injustice, outright nation-debilitating rebellion, or nation-debilitating misjudgment--however we must never let our speech against the man that God himself establishes to be the same as the world's. Respect ought to characterize our speech in regard to the man that God elects for the job.

Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40)

-If you feel that your life is going to fall apart if the wrong candidate gets in office your problem may be that you need to get right with God by setting your affections on the things above.

But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one, therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them. (Hebrews 11:16)

Post Surgery Update

2008-11-03T08:09:00.001-08:00

Thanks for praying for Luke (my brother). His surgery on Friday morning went well. There were no complications with the surgery. Luke is still quite uncomfortable, however the doctors say that he should be feeling better in just a few days.

Thanks for praying. Continue to pray for a complete and quick recovery.

Prayer Request

2008-10-30T04:39:00.001-07:00

Be praying for Luke. He has to have surgery on his stomach tomorrow. The surgery is not complicated. In fact, it will be an outpatient surgery. However, it is a surgery. Pray that the Lord would give the doctors skill and wisdom as they seek to operate on him. Also be praying for a quick, painless recovery for Luke. The exact time of the Surgery is 10:00 am eastern time.

If you can't eat it you might as well play with it!

2008-10-03T03:43:00.001-07:00

Bug Man!

2008-10-03T03:41:00.000-07:00

Brian Regan Got it Wrong!

2008-10-01T14:22:00.001-07:00

I am sad to report that Brian Regan got his information wrong. Brian Regan is my favorite comedian. Below I have pasted a video of one of his comedy routines making fun of Dora the Explorer. Watch the video and then read my concluding comments.

All of us up here in New England know that Regan's postulation that those in the Kennedy household would pronounce it "Dora the Explora" is completely off base. Rather, those in the Kennedy household (and the rest of New England for that matter) would pronounce it "Dorer the Explora." Oh well...

Soon to be Seminaryless

2008-09-29T10:56:00.000-07:00

Well, my Master of Divinity degree will be officially completed on Friday, October 10th. That's right, that means that I will be graduated in about 11 days! I am excited about graduation. There are a few things that have me smiling:

1. I will get to spend more time with Kristal and James.

2. I will get to spend more time evangelizing, mentoring, and preaching.

3. I will get to read whatever the poop I want--and I wont have to regurgitate it verbatim on a test or suffer the consequences.

I have truly had a great seminary experience. You can bet your bottom dollar that I have about 15 posts in my head regarding seminary. I plan on writing quite a few posts regarding seminary (whether or not its biblical, its pitfalls, its strengths, some advice to those who are thinking about going to seminary, some advice to those who are already in seminary, and whole boat load about my own experience). Anyway, I hope these future posts will be interesting to the two of you out there who have always wondered what the life of a seminarian is like.

Because graduation is so near, I am pretty slammed with the homework and thus I will not be writing much in the next 11 days.

Please be praying for me as the Lord opens and closes doors regarding what my life will look like after I graduate. The Lord is doing some amazing things up here in New Hampshire. Please especially be praying for the church Kristal and I are presently members of--they are in the process of considering whether or not they want to bring me on board as their preaching/teaching pastor. Pray as they (and us as well) seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is our desire to do whatever it is that the Lord wills.

I leave you with the lyrics of a song by Robin Mark that has been an incredible encouragement to me over the past three years or so. Heck, I'll put a youtube video of Robin Mark playing the song at the bottom of the post--you can thank me later! The quality of the youtube video is pretty poor but it is all I could find so leave me alone (just kidding). Ok, the video is rather weird, so just listen to the music without watching the video. I have no clue who made the video but the images seem to have nothing to do with the song--oh well. On a serious note, the words of this song have been the prayer of our (Kristal and I) hearts as we face the unknown of where the Lord is going to take us. May you make these words the prayer of your life as well.

Jesus, all for Jesus,
All I am and have and ever hope to be.
Jesus, all for Jesus,
All I am and have and ever hope to be.

All of my ambitions, hopes and plans
I surrender these into Your hands.
All of my ambitions, hopes and plans
I surrender these into Your hands.

For it's only in Your will that I am free,
For it's only in Your will that I am free,
Jesus, all for Jesus,
All I am and have and ever hope to be

New Moose A. Moose Song: "Can't Stop Rhyming Blues"

2008-09-18T16:32:00.001-07:00

Well, I thought it was time to put up another one of Jamesy Poopy Pants' favorite songs by Moose A. Moose. This one is titled "Can't Stop Rhyming Blues." Enjoy!

Walter Marshall Update

2008-09-14T14:01:00.000-07:00

Well, Water Marshall, the man from my church who had meningitis, was apparently sent home from the hospital on Saturday, which is good news. However, today at church I was told that he is starting to regress. Hopefully he will not have to go to the hospital again. Please be praying for full healing for Walter. Thanks for your prayers. I will update as soon as I have new information.

Prayer Request: Walter Marshall

2008-09-11T12:28:00.000-07:00

A dear brother in our church, Walter Marshall, has been in the hospital with meningitis for over a day now. It seems that his condition is getting worse. At this point he is not able to swallow. This, obviously, is serious. They will be doing an MRI soon. Anyway, please take a moment to pray for Walter. Also, pray for strength and rest for Toni, Walter's wife, during this trial. Thank you for your prayers. I will update as soon as I hear more.

Jimmy

The Cleft Coffee: A Guest Post!

2008-09-08T05:30:00.000-07:00

I have asked my good friend Chris McSmith to write an informative post about a coffee house ministry that he and his wife, Debi, have established. I have pasted his post below. I am excited about the work that Chris and Debi are undertaking. Please commit yourself to praying for Chris and Debi as they seek to "Impact the Nations" through their coffee house ministry!

The Cleft Coffee

Cleft Coffee-“Impacting the Nations one cup at a time!” We’re changing lives with coffee! Not only are lives changed by building relationships over a cup of coffee – Nations are being impacted with the Gospel because of people purchasing Cleft coffee.

Here’s what we’re doing. We’ve taken something that most people purchase on a regular basis – coffee – Amazing quality specialty coffee’s from all over the world – sell them at a premium price and then donate our profits to do ministry. 100% of our roaster’s profits are donated to feed malnourished infants 24/7 at the Rock Solid Infant Re-Nutrition Center in Matagalpa, Nicaragua. We’re feeding 300-400 youth below the age of 12 twice a week and also put on a medical clinic to reach out to all the surrounding communities of Matagalpa.

Ok-that’s cool-great things are being done and lives are being impacted overseas when people purchase Cleft coffee. But, what about here at home? We believe strongly that if we’re going to impact nations it begins by impacting across the street. As we reach across our streets and overseas, we want to help financially empower your local church and ministries to reach across the streets of your community. So often ministry requires funding that’s not always readily available. We’re here to help! We work hard to raise funds for your ministry! We’ve launched 2 opportunities for churches and ministries to raise funds that can help you reach out into your communities while also impacting nations with the Gospel.

1) E-Impact Fund-Raiser

Working for you 24/7!
~Our web specialist is available to assist your ministry with inserting our logo link on your website.
~Your ministry supporters click the logo link from your page – order coffee – that order is tagged to your ministry – you raise $2.00/lb for your ministry and do absolutely nothing.

2) Impact the Nations Fund-Raiser

PERFECT FOR YOUTH GROUPS!
Your ministry chooses a lead person whom we work with step by step to launch and run this simple Fund-Raiser.
~We choose which day of each month to order...ie. 2nd Sunday of each month.
~You place our coffee sign up sheet in designated place with a payment box.
~Announcements are made to remind people of when the order will be placed.
~Coffee arrives and names of those who purchased coffee are written on bags.
~Members pick-up coffee!
~You raise $2.50 for every pound sold!

The coffee we sell is of absolute quality! You’re sure to love them!

-Quality Beans- We source and select only the finest Arabica coffee beans, favored for their characteristic sweetness and robust, nuanced flavor.
-Quality Roast- Fresh roasted in small batches. Each batch of coffee is carefully crafted by our artisan roasters.
-Freshness- We roast our customer’s beans when the order is placed. We do not roast coffee and let our beans sit – waiting to be purchased. Our beans are in our customer’s hands 4 – 5 days after being roasted. Now that’s fresh coffee!

What we do, we do with integrity and upmost conviction to live and uphold God’s Word! We’re not a business using ministry-throwing the cross on our business card to farther a corporation. We are a ministry using sound business principles to help empower kingdom work! When someone purchases coffee from the grocery store or coffee house chain-the profits are growing a company-which is not a bad thing. However, when someone purchases coffee from the Cleft-our profits are empowering your ministry and being donated to do ministry around the world-and this is a great thing! Amazing quality coffee at a great price with an incomparable purpose!

We’re asking coffee lovers and people who have a heartbeat for ministry to make the commitment. When you buy coffee-buy Cleft coffee. Imagine this-every morning you wake up and sit to have your morning cup of coffee-you’re making a difference in the lives of uncountable children and families around the world. You’re impacting the Nations one cup at a time!

Take the first step and check us out at:

www.cleftcoffee.com

-Chris McSmith

The Cleft Coffee--A Ministry to the Glory of God!

2008-09-05T11:10:00.000-07:00

Greetings faithful blog readers. I am going to do something that I have never done on my blog before: I am going to have a guest post! One of my good friends from Hannibal-LaGrange College (where I did my undergraduate work), Chris McSmith (my old roommate's brother), just recently started a coffee house ministry called The Cleft Coffee (click here to access his website). I have asked him to write a post for my blog so that y'all can both lift his ministry up in prayer, and check the ministry out for yourself and your own church. I am excited about the work that Chris and Debi (Chris' wife) have begun. I trust that you will find this ministry to be as Christ-honoring, useful, encouraging, and down right creative as I have.

You can expect to see the post written by Chris regarding his coffee house ministry, Lord willing, this coming Monday, Sept 8. Please be praying for Chris and Debi as they seek to "Impact the Nations" through their coffee house ministry.

Will the Clowns Continue to Fall: A Plea for the Unborn

2008-09-04T09:50:00.000-07:00

We are all familiar with the famous “Shoot the Clowns” game present at every carnival across the country. The game is set up as such: A dozen clowns sit on a board just above eye level about 15 feet away. The participant is given some sort of a gun appropriate for shooting the clowns down. The goal is to knock as many clowns down in the allotted time as possible.

As soon as you knock one clown down you simply move to the next. As I consider the clown game I am reminded of America and her many injustices throughout her short history. Many consider America to be “God’s nation.”

“He’s got our back because we have been faithful to Him,” many say.

My purpose in writing this is not to make you think that America is the worst nation on the planet. No, we are not the worst nation on our planet. I love being an American. However, we are not a faultless nation.

The birth of America began with the slaughtering of the Indians. As soon as that clown was knocked down she moved to the blacks. This clown was knocked down less than 40 years ago. Within eight years of this clown being knocked down, America continued her killing rampage to unborn humans. The clowns continue to fall, one by one.

We advance our troops into Iraq to liberate her people (which does not upset me—although I can understand why it upsets many). Meanwhile, our own people are being massacred by the droves. We speak of Saddam Hussein as if he were the antichrist while our own leaders snuff out the lives of over 1 million unborn humans a year (that makes well over 40,000 million since 1972). Our mass graves are full of much smaller humans, yet they seem to be filling much faster than Hussein’s.

Is God going to send a foreign nation to our land to liberate our (unborn) people?

When will the American people learn? Do they not realize that 50 or 100 years down the road they will be saying the same thing about the killing of unborn humans that they have said about the mass killing of the Indians or Blacks? Is it all that different? When will we realize that future generations will consider us to be the infant murdering nation.

The great injustice of our “noble” settlers was that they drove the Indians off their land. They massacred them and stole their property. And why did they do it? Oh yeah, because they were savages—less than human. Such savages do not deserve the same rights that us white folk have.

After her bloody entry to this land, America simply moved her injustice to the blacks. Lynching, slavery, beating, and murder. And why? Because they are sub human, they don’t deserve the same rights that we have.

Although slavery ended in 1865, the injustice continued till 1965. With Martin Luther King Jr and the civil rights movement things started looking up for the Blacks. The white man began to see his error. America spent a good eight years washing her hands from all her filth. But the hand washing ended quicker than it began. In 1972 (eight short years later), America decided that the killing spree would continue. This time it would not be the Indians or the Blacks that were considered less than human, it would be the unborn. For the same exact reasons the killing continues: the unborn are simply not as superior as we are—they deserve no rights.

The graves continue to fill because we think that we have the edge. We think that we are above every other form and race of life. We feel that our rights have been put at jeopardy by those who are different than we are.

Will the clowns continue to fall? If the abortion war ends, where will America move next? Which subhuman savage will stand in the way of our great freedom next?

We need to wake up to the great injustice taking place in our land. We Christians need to be a voice, an advocate for the unborn in the same way that Brainerd, Edwards, Wilberforce, King, and others were for the Indians and Blacks. It is the same battle with a different, helpless victim.

No doubt about it, I love my freedom. I thank God for it everyday. But while I am thanking God for my freedom, I am also thanking Him that I am now a full grown WASP and no longer a living human in the confines of my mother's womb. I thank Him that I am now safe from the perils of the womb.

Just a few concluding remarks in light of the above address:

1. I in no way take lightly the freedom that I enjoy as a result of those who have fought (and are still fighting) on my behalf. I thank each and every veteran who has put their life on the line for my freedom. My concern is that the freedom secured by our beloved veterans has not been meted out to all Americans. Too many veterans have died for the freedom of Americans for American infants to have no freedom. That is my point. I am not an unpatriotic person, but I also cannot let grave injustice go in the name of patriotism.

2. If you have ever had an abortion (or coaxed someone else to do so), I want you to know that the blood of Jesus Christ can cover any and every sin you have ever committed. If you are a Christian and have had an abortion in the past and it haunts you every day, I want you to know that your sin is no match for the grace and love of Jesus—he took your sin upon himself and received the penalty for it on your behalf—you have been set free. Those of you who do not know the saving power of Jesus Christ, please feel free to contact me to learn about the all sufficient power, love, and grace of Jesus Christ to cleanse you from all of your sin.

3. Lastly, I never want to undermine the horrid situations that some women have found themselves in. It is my contention that the church exists to help women in these situations. Maybe this post, more than anything, can be a call to the church to get busy helping struggling mothers.

McCain/Palin: I Like It

2008-08-29T18:24:00.000-07:00

I can honestly say now that I am excited to be an advocate for John McCain for President. After listening to his statements to Rick Warren regarding abortion, and after knowing who he chose as his running mate, Sarah Palin, I became convinced that McCain has every intention on being an advocate for the unborn. I make no bones about the fact that I am one of those hard-headed and ignorant (at least to many) people who vote primarily according to values. To be honest, I would rather have a president who runs the country into the ground financially than have a president who either advocates or turns a blind eye to the ultra injustice of the mass killing of the unborn. Anyway, I am officially excited about the McCain/Palin ticket. Only time will tell if McCain's choice of Palin was beneficial or not. One thing is for sure, his choice of her has determined my vote (have I mentioned how important my vote is? Let me just say this, "Ok, so my vote isn't that important." Leave me alone).

Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Set

2008-08-27T05:26:00.000-07:00

Logos Bible Software (I wrote a post about Logos a few months ago, click here to read it) has announced the publication of a new commentary set, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (9 vols). The editors of the set are Philip W. Comfort, Tremper Longman III (OT), and Grant Osborne (NT). Anyway, it really does look like a good commentary set. You can check it out at their blog, http://blog.logos.com. Also, they are, for a limited time, giving away the first volume of the series (Matthew and Mark) for free! Check out their blog for details.

Got Gratitude?: An Exposition of Psalm 50

2008-08-26T04:06:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I wrote an exposition paper on Psalm 50 for a class I was taking at seminary. I found both the studying and writing of it to be a large blessing. I have pasted the paper below for your own edification. It might be difficult to follow without a Bible by your side as you read it. If the exposition part of the paper proves to be difficult, skip down to the last part of the paper (the section entitled Theological Significance). This part of the paper is easy to read and it contains the major theological and practical points of the passage. Anyway, I hope you find it to be as encouraging as I did. Enjoy!

GOT GRATITUDE?: AN EXPOSITION OF PSALM 50

Exposition of the Text

I. Historical Setting

Psalm 50 is the first of twelve psalms which bear the superscription, “A Psalm of Asaph.” Although not much can be inferred from this superscription, it is possible to gain an understanding of who the sons of Asaph are from the Old Testament. Michael D. Goulder considers Asaph to be “David’s senior musician.”¹ David appointed two of Asaph’s sons, Heman and Jeduthun, to the “ministry of prophesying, accompanied by harps, lyres, and cymbals” (1 Chr 25:1). Thus, Asaph and his children were worship leaders at the temple.

Goulder postulates that the Psalms of Asaph were all written in Bethel somewhere in the 720s b.c. during a time of national crisis,² however Psalm 50 neither reflects nor rules out this hypothesis. C. Hassell Bullock says, “In view of the long and continued service of these temple servants, we cannot be absolutely sure when these psalms were composed.”³ Because the date cannot be ascertained, it is nearly impossible to read information from outside sources into the psalm. Whatever background information there is to Psalm 50 must be gained from internal evidence.

Psalm 50 is not easily categorized. L. C. Allen suggests that it “is a literary tapestry in which stylistic, thematic and form critical patterns have been articulately interwoven.”⁴ Willem A. VanGemeren accurately identifies the following features in the psalm: “theophany, accusation, warning, and invitation to repent.”⁵ Samuel L. Terrien is most accurate in identifying it as a “prophetic oracle.”⁶

II. Literary Analysis

Yahweh summons his people for judgment (50:1-6)

Although Psalm 50 may not strictly adhere to a certain style, it certainly does have a unified message. Artur Weiser correctly identifies the central concern of the psalmist, “God himself appears to sit in judgment on the overestimation of the sacrifices in the cult.”⁷ The psalm begins with what has been considered by many commentators to be “theophanic language.”⁸ In essence, God has appeared in his resplendent glory to call his people to account for both their theological immaturity and their lack of faithfulness to his covenant. VanGemeren suggests that Yahweh primarily indicts Israel for their formalism and hypocrisy.⁹ The psalmist uses three different names for Yahweh in vs. 1: el (The mighty one), elohim (God), and Yahweh (the Lord). Robert Davidson accurately defines the terms and communicates the significance of the psalmist’s use of all three in direct succession:

el, an old Semitic term for deity and the name of the supreme god in the Canaanite pantheon… elohim, the generic word for deity in Hebrew; and “Yahweh,” the personal name of the God of Israel… The bringing together of these three divine names… probably serves to underline the awesome majesty of the God who comes to his people.¹⁰

While VanGemeren has identified the summons of the earth in vs. 1 as an indication of a universal covenant that God has made with the earth,¹¹ John Eaton is most likely correct in understanding that the earth is called forth in order to be a witness to the covenant infidelity of the Israelites.¹² After all, not only is Israel the only one rebuked in the context, but the earth is summoned as a witness against Israel on other occasions (see Deut 31:28 and Isa 1:2).

The Psalmist, in 50:2-3, does everything he can to present Yahweh as the judge who is not to be taken lightly. First, he is pictured as coming from Zion. In the Scriptures Zion is associated with both the temple of Yahweh and the city of Jerusalem. The reference to Zion is a metaphorical way of referring to the throne of Yahweh—after all, his presence was manifested above the mercy seat in the temple which was in Jerusalem.¹³ The psalmist’s words are purposed to create a posture of humility, fear, and silence. He wants the Israelites to know that the King has left his throne for the purpose of bringing a charge against them. He is further pictured in terms of beauty and radiance with a fire going before him and a storm raging around him (50:2-3). The imagery used by the psalmist is almost contradictory. The purpose of this imagery is not to detail specific aspects of who God is, rather it is to present the Lord, the one who is about to bring the charge, as the one who towers over any awe-inspiring image man may conjure up—he must be taken seriously. Weiser may be correct in associating this imagery with Israel’s experience with God at Mt. Sinai (Ex 19:10-15).¹⁴

Once again Yahweh summons the earth to be a witness against Israel, but this time he calls forth the heavens as well (50:4). One wonders whether this could be Yahweh’s way of fulfilling the law he laid forth in Deut 19:15 regarding the need for two or three witnesses for the purpose of conviction. It almost appears as if the Psalmist is trying to create a court room scene. Yahweh has come from his throne, summoned his witnesses, and sent for the culprit.

The psalmist then exposes those whom the Lord is about to convict. They are ironically identified as “my consecrated ones” and “those who have made a covenant with me by sacrifice” (50:5). Weiser says,

It is precisely his own people whom God has the right to call to account because they are under a special obligation to him as a result of the covenant which they solemnly made with him by sacrifice (Ex. 24:4 ff.). The phrase ‘my godly ones’ is also to be understood as pointing in the same direction, since it addresses the members of the people of God on account of their special virtues but on the strength of their responsibility, which follows from their relationship with God.¹⁵

Yahweh, in 50:6 is identified as the righteous judge. VanGemeren suggests that Yahweh’s judgment is righteous in that he will “order everything on earth in accordance with his will.”¹⁶ In other words, he will judge that which is opposed to his will so that it might conform to it.

Israel’s Misuse of the Sacrificial System (50:7-15)

The psalmist, it appears, continues to speak of God’s encounter with Israel as if it were a courtroom session. In 50:1-6 God identified himself as the judge, sent for his two witnesses, and identified the culprit. Now, here in 50:7, God orders the court in session by calling the convicted to attention. The rebuke set forth by Yahweh in this section of the psalm can only be fully appreciated in front of the backdrop of 50:1-6. The Israelite’s main problem was the result of an insufficient view of God and his character—they did not see him as “God, your God” and therefore they did not take him nor his word seriously. Weiser says,

The tremendous background of the theophany produced such an impression of God’s power and superiority that the people’s fundamental mistake in their behaviour at the sacrificial cult and in their moral conduct first became clear and can now be comprehended as a denial to the sovereign God of his due.¹⁷

Before explaining to them the reason for their condemnation, he first wants to clarify the reasons for which they are not being judged. Thus, in much the same way that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their neglect of justice, mercy, and faithfulness for the sake of other commands which made them look better in the public eye, and then says, “you should have done the former without neglecting the latter” (Matt 23:23), Yahweh wanted his people to understand that his issue with their sacrificial offerings had nothing to do with the act of offering itself. Rather, his issue with their offerings was directly linked to their attitude, mindset, and commitment to Yahweh.

Here in 50:8-15 Yahweh confronts a theological error of the Israelites and its consequent results. The Israelites problem could have been the result of the infiltration of Canaanite theology and practices into their worship of Yahweh.¹⁸ Canaanite idolatry was, in many ways, a religion of equality: the idol worshipper would fulfill a certain need for the needy idol, which then put the idol in a position where he was expected to fulfill one of the needs of the needy idol worshipper. The problem with bringing this paradigm into the worship of Yahweh is that he has never had a need. However, the Israelites actually thought that God was in need of their sacrifices. Weiser helpfully suggests that their “cardinal mistake is, in spite of all their religious zeal, a lack of respect for God.”¹⁹ They had it in their minds that God was in desperate need of their sacrifices. They felt that they were, in the words of Eaton, “obligating God in some way.”²⁰ They were making him their debtor.

However, the Lord rails against them for their preposterous thinking. They actually thought that Yahweh, the one who created them, would starve if they discontinued their sacrificial duties. Yahweh reminds them that if he were hungry he would not tell them because he, by right of his creatorship, owns everything in the world, including all the animals (50:12). In fact, Richard Whitekettle has suggested that the list of animals in 50:10-11 represent a truncated way of setting forth an exhaustive list of all of the animals, including those which are not offered upon the altar. His conclusion is that God “knows or owns all animals.”²¹ Thus, the Israelites were not scratching God’s back by presenting their offerings. Rather, the sacrificial system was set up precisely because of their great need and God’s overflowing abundance which alone was sufficient to meet that need. The Israelites were in need of understanding that the only reason God set up the sacrificial system in the first place was because of his self-sufficient, independent nature.

God responds to their wrong-headed pride by exhorting them to “offer a thank offering” (50:14). VanGemeren suggests, “The ‘thank offerings’ and ‘vows’ (i.e., votive offerings) belong to the category of voluntary offerings, in which the offerers shared by eating from the offering (cf. Lev 7:12; 22:29).”²² He then goes on, however, to suggest that the emphasis of Yahweh’s exhortation has less to do with the specific kind of offering than with the motive and heart attitude of the offerer: “Instead of presenting ‘dedicatory offerings’ in a spirit of pride, the people had to learn that the ‘Most High’ invites them for a banquet to enjoy his presence.”²³ In a similar vein, Davidson suggests that “sacrifices are meaningless unless they are the expression of inner thanksgiving for the way God has enriched life and of the vows or promises made to God which must be kept.”²⁴ The thanksgiving offering, thus, at its foundation, is an offering which arises out of a recognition of both the self-sufficiency of God and the need that humans have of the sustenance, redemption, and life which God alone can offer. It is this sort of offering, along with its humble and needy posture, which the Israelites were failing to bring to God.

God concludes his first charge with a logical exhortation. The Israelites were neither seeing themselves as helpless beggars nor God as a compassionate savior, and therefore they were not dependently crying out to him in the midst of their trouble. He wants them to know, however, that if they humble themselves by acknowledge their need and his self-sufficiency, he will deliver them in time of need. The sacrifices and prayers which the Lord desires and responds to are those which flow out of a needy heart of gratitude. Weiser helpfully comments on 50:15:

The people are to realize to what large extent they depend on God in everything; they are to give expression to their recognition of his supreme power and saving will (which is in no need of first being persuaded by sacrifices) by adopting the attitude which alone befits man in his relationship with God—that of prayer.²⁵

Charge 2: Israel’s lack of obedience (50:16-21)

Although Davidson suggests that the Psalmist, in 50:16-21, is turning away from those addressed in vv. 7-15 in order to speak to another group of people, the wicked,²⁶ this is probably not the case. The “But” in 50:16 suggests that the author is about to contrast those who are described as acceptable to God in vv. 14-15 with the “wicked.” Those who are identified as “the wicked” in 50:16 are much like those addressed in the preceding section. After all, the wicked are apparently committed to the formal externalities of the law: “what right have you to recite my laws, or take my covenant on your lips” (50:16 cf. 50:8). Yahweh’s issue with the wicked is not that they have neglected the sacrificial cultus altogether, rather he is fed up with the wicked for hypocritically using religion as a way of parading their religiosity and righteousness. Weiser says, “the superficial appropriation of the commandments, learning them by heart, reciting them and boasting of knowing and keeping them… has been a symptom of the fact that the religious life of the people of Israel has become superficial.”²⁷ The wicked are those who will work all day to look better than the next man by memorizing the law, but will not take a second out of his day to obey the law he has memorized. As S. Edward Tesh and Walter D. Zorn have said, “They give lip service to the word of God, but refuse to be guided by its teachings.”²⁸

Yahweh accuses the wicked of hating and disregarding his law in 50:17, and then describes what he means by this in vv. 18-20. The charges brought against the wicked in vv. 18-20 have to do with thievery, adultery, and slander. VanGemeren suggests that the “particular charges are representative of the whole Decalogue.”²⁹ In front of the backdrop of their sin Yahweh issues a stern warning: “I will rebuke you and accuse you to your face” (50:21). Interestingly, Yahweh accuses the wicked of misunderstanding his character in two ways: (1) they either question his justice or presume upon his grace, and (2) they deemed God to be just like them. Ultimately, the wicked thought that God’s silence meant that he was not going to do anything about their lawlessness. Weiser helpfully explains the heart of Yahweh’s rebuke:

It is an anthropomorphizing of God to think that the absence of an immediate retribution, which they conceive in human terms, and God’s silence justify their equating their own will with the will of God and holding that God is one like themselves. This is their actual ‘sin’. For they always see God only in that light in which he appears to be useful to them and not as he really is, as the One whose claim and command are unconditionally valid.³⁰

Yahweh’s Final Plea (50:22-23)

Yahweh urges his wicked covenant people to consider their relationship to him. He lays before them two options: they can either (1) obey his word with a grateful heart and receive salvation (50:23), or (2) ignore his word and be thoroughly judged (50:22). Here, in 50:23, it is thanksgiving itself, rather than a votive offering, which is offered as a sacrifice to the Lord.

III. Theological Message

Two primary theological emphases can be clearly seen in Psalm 50: (1) the aseity of God and (2) the consequent posture of worship. D. A. Carson correctly connects Psalm 50 with Acts 17:25. Carson says,

This passage not only insists that God sustains life and rules providentially, but that he is characterized by aseity… This fine word has largely dropped out of theological discussion… It means that God is so independent that he does not need us. We cannot give him anything he lacks or wheedle something out of him by cajoling him.³¹

Thus, while God expects, honors, delights in, and gets joy from worship of and service for him, Christians are to never think that he needs their worship or service. In fact, according Malachi 1:10, God would rather have no worship than worship which does not flow forth from a reverential heart of thanksgiving. The foundational problem with the Israelites in Psalm 50 is that they saw God as their lowly and needy servant; they were intent on following him as long as it benefited them in the public square. There really is no difference between the Israelites in Psalm 50 and the Pharisees in both Matt 5-7 and 23. God is to be neither pitied nor manipulated.

In conclusion, John R. W. Stott says,

It is absurd… to suppose that he who sustains life should himself need to be sustained, that he who supplies our need should himself need our supply. Any attempt to tame or domesticate God, to reduce him to the level of a household pet dependent on us for food and shelter, is again a ridiculous reversal of roles. We depend upon God; he does not depend upon us.³²

Footnotes:

[1] Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch (Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 15.

[2] Ibid., 35-36.

[3] C. Hassell Bullock, Encountering the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 63.

[4] L. C. Allen, “Structure and Meaning in Psalm 150,” Vox Evangelica 14 (1984): 33.

[5] Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 372

[6] Samuel L. Terrien, The Psalms (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 396.

[7] Artur Weiser, Psalms (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2000), 393.

[8] James D. G. Dunn and John William Rogerson, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 393.

[9] VanGemeren, Psalms, 372.

[10] Robert Davidson, The Vitality of Worship (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 163.

[11] Vangemeren, Psalms, 373.

[12] John Eaton, The Psalms (New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 2003), 202.

[13] VanGemeren, Psalms, 355.

[14] Weiser, Psalms, 395.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1994), 852.

[17] Weiser, Psalms, 396.

[18] VanGemeren, Psalms, 852.

[19] Weiser, Psalms, 396.

[20] Eaton, Psalms, 203.

[21] Richard Whitekettle, “Bugs, Bunny, or Boar?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67, no. 2 (2005): 263.

[22] VanGemeren, Psalms, 376.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Davidson, The Vitality of Worship, 164-65.

[25] Weiser, Psalms, 397.

[26] Davidson, The Vitality of Worship, 165.

[27] Weiser, Psalms, 398.

[28] S. Edward Tesh and Walter D. Zorn, Psalms (Joplin: College Press Publishing Company, 1999), 361.

[29] VanGemeren, Psalms, 377.

[30] Weiser, Psalms, 399.

[31] D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 500.

[32] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), 285.

Some Pre-surgery Pictures

2008-08-13T11:31:00.001-07:00

These were some pictures that Kristal took before James went into surgery--we were having a bit too much fun for it being surgery day (and also for having gotten up at 3:15 am that morning).

Yep, Kristal took that one--her arms are sufficiently long for such a task.

I must have ticked him off or something.

Another evidence of Kristal's sufficiently long arms.

These are James' surgery clothes. The cap is just for fun. I liked the pants. We called them his Nadal pants. If you want to know what I am talking about, click here.

What can you say to this? Pathetic, just pathetic.

This is James interceding on his own behalf.

Doesn't the lunch lady hat accent his eyes. It would have possibly fit him if he either had two heads or massive dread locks. Oh well, maybe it will fit better next year.

We're Home!!!

2008-08-13T09:44:00.001-07:00

Well, James was released from the hospital this morning around 11 am. We were quite surprised--we thought we were going to have to stay a few more days. Praise the Lord! I told Kristal on the way to the car, "My favorite part about going to the hospital is... leaving."

James had a successful surgery with no complications. He experienced much unbearable pain for about 24 hours or so after the surgery. We felt bad for the little guy--he woke up at 2 am after his surgery and couldn't go back to sleep. Kristal held him from 2-7 am and then I held him from 7-10 am. He would fall asleep for about 2 minutes and then startle awake, scream his head off a bit, wail his arms and legs, and then go back to sleep for about 2 more minutes, and then he would startle awake again.... over and over and over. However, he started getting much better yesterday afternoon. He is not completely back to his normal self yet, but he is doing much much better.

A few things that you can be praying about:

1. James had a seizure after his surgery in the recovery room. The neurologist told us that it was probably just circumstantial, especially considering the fact that this was the first seizure he has had since birth. He said that he would only be concerned if it were to happen again. That's good news. Just be praying that it doesn't happen again.

2. Pray for continued recovery. He has about a 3 inch incision on his stomach just above his g-tube site (which is pretty large on a small tummy). Infection is always an issue when dealing with fresh wounds. Also, pray that the stitching of his stomach to his esophagus does not tear. If it were to tear, food and stomach acid could leak out and form an abscess, which is down right painful.

3. James has still been retching as if he were going to vomit. This is to be expected because the Nissen does not stop throw up reflexes, it just keeps stuff from coming up. However, pray that his retching stays to minimal at least until his stomach is fully healed (while you are at it, just pray that it would go away forever. It's uncomfortable for him and not fun to watch for us).

4. Pray for the Lord to take any pain or discomfort away. At this point his belly is still pretty tender when touched.

5. Pray that the Nissen continues to do what it is supposed to do (DUH! And most of you probably wouldn't have prayed for this if I wouldn't have reminded you to). It is designed to keep food and reflux from coming up his esophagus. The doctor told us that the Nissen does not work on about 10% of the patients who get it. Pray that he is not one of those 10%.

6. Pray for his feeding. They sent us home with a plan to gradually increase his feeds to where he was before he had the surgery. Pray that his retching and gagging do not increase with the amount of food that is in his belly (because it usually gets worse when more food is in his belly).

7. Pray for Kristal: She is pretty worn out. I am so proud to call her "my wife." Every single doctor we come across expresses amazement at how attentive and knowledgeable she is about James. She is such a good mommy--James is a blessed little boy.

8. Pray for me: I have a large paper due on Friday. I am making good headway, but I still have a lot left. I am starting to wonder if I will be finished by the deadline.

Thank you all for praying for us while James was in the hospital. The Lord has been so good to the three of us. I would write more but I have to get to my paper.

James In Surgery

2008-08-11T08:32:00.000-07:00

Be praying for Jamesy Poopy Pants (our son). He is in surgery as I type this post. They are giving him a Nissen fundoplication (click here if you don't know what a Nissen fundoplication is--there is a really informative picture on the site to give an idea of what it is.) He should be getting out of surgery anytime now. Be praying for a successful, non-complicated surgery and a quick recovery. Also be praying that this operation helps stops his awful reflux, and helps him hold his food down. The doc told us that we will be in the hospital for 3-5 days: pray for me as I try to finish up a large, difficult paper for my Baptist History class. Also be praying for Kristal--as you could imagine, she is beyond exhausted.

I'm in Good Company

2008-08-09T12:16:00.000-07:00

I just found out that I am in good company: Rafael Nadal hates the olympics for the same exact reason that I hate to go shopping. Martyn Herman reports, "Spain's hard man of tennis, Rafael Nadal, said today the Olympic opening ceremony had tired him out because it involved a lot of waiting around." (click here to read the full article). Amen to that Nadal!

It will be interesting to see who will come out on top at Beijing. Nadal will be officially ranked #1 in the world as of Aug 18. I wonder how long he will hold it. Any thoughts (or I am the only geek on the blogsphere)?

Double Cheeseburger to Leave the McDonald's Dollar Menu: A True National Crisis

2008-08-04T14:45:00.001-07:00

Anyone who knows me more than they know their neighbors carpet cleaner knows that my favorite sandwich is the McDonald's $1 double cheeseburger. Not only are they tasty, but they are also impressively cheap. If there was ever a time for America to follow in the footsteps of the prophets of old by calling a holy day of prayer, beginning a fast, rending garments, and roaming about in sackcloth and ashes--it is today. What possible good can come from McDonald's taking the best sandwich in the history of the burger off the dollar menu? What on earth will life be like without affordable double cheeseburgers? Will the earth be thrown off its orbital pattern? Will TBN celebrities get hair cuts? One cannot even begin to consider the damage that will be done. Here is what I foresee: a mass extinction of college students. What on earth will college students eat? If it were not for the McDonald's $1 double cheeseburger I would have died of starvation during college (I blew up like a big balloon instead). College students need a food which is (1) made for them (because they are lazy), (2) cheap (because they are poor), and (3) tasty (because they are picky). If McDonald's cares for the future of America they will keep the double cheeseburger both tasty and affordable. I tremble to think of the damage that is bound to be done. If you think you can handle it... and you want to learn more about this national crisis, click here and read the most depressing article to appear in the Chicago Tribune since the day Crystal Clear Pepsi lost its place on the shelves of local convenience stores.

While reading this article put out by the Chicago Tribune I just could not help but identify with the broken spirit of one of Veggie Tales most beloved characters, Mr. Lunt. I feel a certain connection with him. If you want to know what I am talking about, watch the video below.

Open Season on the President?

2008-08-04T03:47:00.000-07:00

What I am about to write will be offensive to almost everyone who reads this. As of late I have been burdened by a ridiculous immaturity on the part of most Christians when it comes to politics. God's word makes it abundantly clear that gossip has no place in the life of a Christian--we are to be people characterized by love and not by slander (Proverbs 16:28; 26:20-22; Matt 15:19; 1 Cor 5:11; 2 Cor 12:20; Titus 3:2; James 4:11). However, almost every Christian I know immediately throws off such commands as soon as the conversation turns to things of a political nature. I have heard many people question the motives of the president without having rock solid evidence for doing so. We have all heard it from time to time, "The only reason Bush went into Iraq was because of oil and money." The next time someone says this to me I will respond by saying, "Where's the rock solid, incontrovertible evidence? If you can't give it to me then knock it off." The Scriptural commands regarding gossip and slander apply to our conversations involving civilians and presidents alike.

I hear the same sort of things being said about Senator Barak Obama. I have gotten so many emails from Christians who will do everything they can to ruin the reputation of Senator Obama. For some reason we feel that the commands regarding gossip and slander do not apply to us in these situations. For example, I got an email that was trying to convince me that Obama is an undercover, closet Muslim extremist. Ben Witherington helpfully wrote against this email on his blog (click here to read it. I didn't agree with everything that Witherington said, but the overall message was excellent). I am not suggesting that Christians are not to call sin for what it is. There is a need to discuss the character, policies, and stances of those who are running for president. However, Christians are to never take anyone out of context, and they are to never entertain speculative gossip about another individual no matter their status, rank, or position.

Let me just tell you right here; I will never vote for Barak Obama. I just cannot support a man who advocates abortion. I find abortion to be one of the most gruesome injustices in the history of mankind. I will refrain from voting before I vote for someone who advocates abortion (no matter how great their policies are). This is just my personal conviction. You see, I am not against calling sin for what it is. However, I will never stand alongside a fellow believer and encourage the slander of Obama, Bush, Clinton, or any other public official. The fact that Obama supports abortion can be proven with incontrovertible evidence. Because of this I can talk about his stance on abortion. Even still, I must be careful to not entertain gossip about this man. There is a great deal of difference between stating, acknowledging, and dealing with the facts and engaging in reputation-destroying slander. And yet, the majority of Christians in America engage in such slander without a second thought.

As a Christian I cannot support misrepresentation, gossip, or slander. I just can't do it. I want to speak of Senator Obama in the same way that I would want him to speak about me. If the Devil himself were to come up to me and say, "Jimmy, nice hat!", and you (the reader) went around town telling people that the Devil told me, "Jimmy, I hate your hat!", I would tip my forehead into the wind, cross my eyes, and tell you to knock off your childish misrepresentation. I don't care if it were spoken by the Devil himself, Christians are to have too high of a standard of love, respect, and kindness to inconsiderately take others out of context.

Such misrepresentation makes Christians look both unloving and ignorant. First of all, it makes Christians look unloving because the political conversations that Christians engage in involve so much speculation--the conversation is built solely upon things which cannot be proven. Those in the world look on and say, "Wow, they fight dirty." Second, it makes Christians look ignorant because most Christians would rather debate things which cannot be proven than the real issues. The reason they prefer the unproven things is because it takes a lot of time and work to deal with facts. If your involvement with politics puts you in a position where you have no other choice but to slander your opponent, throw politics on trash heap--it's not worth it. The Lord can put the right man in office without our anti-scriptural help.

I will be an advocate for my candidate (and I don't have a clue as to who he is at this point), but I will treat the opponent as a human who has been created in the image of God. There is no such thing as open season on the President. I encourage you to back your candidate, but do not engage in politics as the world engages in politics. Do not let your disagreements regarding the policies of your opponent led to hatred and slander. Most Christians are hypocrites because most Christians shame the Clinton's for their smear politics while using the same tactics. These tactics are to be expected from those who know not the righteousness of the Gospel. However, Christians are without excuse.

I told you that you would be offended.

Jamesy Poopy Pants' First Boat Ride!!!

2008-07-26T15:03:00.001-07:00

Jesus' Melchizedekan Priesthood: Hebrews 7

2008-07-24T04:33:00.000-07:00

For a class I took on the book of Hebrews I wrote a research paper on the topic of Jesus and Melchizedek. I have pasted the paper to this post. Although it may be a bit more difficult to read than a Reader's Digest article, it is doable. I encourage everyone to read it. I really do see Hebrews 7 as one of the most encouraging chapters in the entire Bible. If you decide to read it keep a Bible next to you so that you might be able to follow along. Enjoy!

JESUS’ MELCHIZEDEKAN PRIESTHOOD

Introduction

Many consider Hebrews’ discourse regarding Melchizedek to be overly complicated—a topic reserved for the intellectual elite. However, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews expressed frustration at the recipients of his letter, considering their inability to assimilate the truths concerning Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood to be a mark of pitiable spiritual immaturity (Heb. 5:11-14). If the rebuke resounding from the pen of the author of Hebrews was not amiss, and it is the present author’s contention that it was not, modern day Christians are in need of a similar rebuke. Surprisingly, the author of Hebrews did not go about fixing their problem by offering crash courses on the high priesthood of Jesus Christ, rather he stretched them by unreservedly throwing them into the thick of Christ’s Melchizedekan priesthood (Heb 6:13; 7:1-28). In this essay, the present author will argue that the author of the Letter to the Hebrews leans heavily upon the Old Testament to prove the insufficiency of the Aaronic priesthood, and thus the necessity of a change of law to allow for a priest of a different kind, “according to the order of Melchizedek,” who might bring about that which the Aaronic priests could not.

Melchizedek in the Old Testament

Interestingly, appearances of Melchizedek in the Biblical record are rather sparse. In fact, the author of Hebrews has much more to say about Melchizedek than the rest of Scripture combined. The only other passages which mention Melchizedek are Genesis 14:18-20 and Psalm 110:4. The following discussion on these two passages will not be exhaustive, but rather will focus on what is necessary for a correct understanding of Hebrews’ discourse regarding Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood

Genesis 14:18-20

Genesis 14:18 identifies Melchizedek as both a king and a priest. J. G. Vos aptly states, “Thus, this man combined in his own person the two offices of kingship and priesthood—something unknown among the Israelites, where these two divine institutions were always kept distinct and separate.”[1] The name Melchizedek literally means “my king is just.”[2] He is specifically identified as the king of “Salem,” which is usually associated with Jerusalem.[3] Second, he is called “priest of the Most High God.” Although “Most High God” (El Elyon) was associated with the supreme God of the Canaanites, Kenneth A. Matthews is correct in asserting that “As a Canaanite king Melchizedek acknowledged the God of the patriarch as the one true God by using the El-language that he knew.”[4]

Melchizedek appears on the scene as Abraham is returning home from defeating Chedorlaomer, King of Elam. Abraham attacked Chedorlaomer in order free his nephew, Lot, who had been taken as a prisoner of war while fighting on behalf of the nation of Sodom. The king of Sodom threw a welcome-home party in the Valley of Shavez for the sake of retrieving everything that Abraham won back from Chedorlaomer.[5] Melchizedek is found among those praising Abraham for his mighty feat in the Valley of Shavez. Genesis 14:18-20 mentions four things that Melchizedek did upon meeting Abraham in the valley: he “brought out bread and wine” (14:19),[6] blessed Abraham (14:19), blessed God (14:19),[7] and received a tenth of the booty Abraham gathered from battle (14:20). Because Melchizedek received a tenth of the spoils, scholars have suggested that he must have been “the principle king of the region.”[8] In essence, Melchizedek disappears from the narrative almost as fast as he appears.

Psalm 110:4

Psalm 110 was penned by David and has been widely accepted as being a psalm looking forward to the coming Messiah.[9] As can be seen by the first three verses of the chapter, Psalm 110 is written to King David. In essence, the Lord promises military victory to David. Strangely enough, although the covenant which the Israelites were under at this time only allowed those of the tribe of Levi to become priests,[10] the Lord swore on oath to the king that “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). The significance of this oath regarding Melchizedek is quite clear: the only figure in the biblical record up to this point that fulfilled the full-fledged duties of both king and priest was Melchizedek. Thus, the Lord swore on oath of one who would fulfill both the priestly office in a similar way to that of Levi and the kingly office in a similar way to that of David. One of the distinctives of this priest-king’s priesthood is that it will last “forever.”

Hebrews’ Use of Melchizedekan Passages

Before threshing out the details of Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood from Hebrews, it will be profitable to make three different generalizations regarding Hebrew’s usage of the Old Testament Melchizedekan passages. First, as can be seen from the section above, the Old Testament does not have much to say about Melchizedek. Ironically, it is precisely because of this that the author of Hebrews has much to say about him. F. F. Bruce points out that the author “finds as much significance in what is not said about Melchizedek as he does in what is said about him.”[11] A great deal of the author’s discourse is built upon an argument from silence. Although arguments from silence may be taboo in modern scholarship, D. A. Carson helpfully points out that silence can be remarkably informative where there should be noise.[12] He explains that for Genesis to omit information regarding the birth, death, and lineage of a character of such prestige—so much prestige, in fact, that he conferred a blessing upon the great patriarch, Abraham—to appear in a book which connects all of the important characters to a genealogy, is silence which speaks volumes.[13] It is a silence which should cause the casual reader to pause and consider what must be inferred in light of such a great omission.

On another note, George Guthrie suggests that the author of Hebrews uses the Rabbinic hermeneutical technique, verbal analogy.[14] Verbal analogy “refers to an interpreter’s utilization of one passage to explain another in light of a term or phrase the two have in common.”[15] In other words, verbal analogy is much akin to the modern day hermeneutical tool, “Scripture Interprets Scripture.” Guthrie argues that the author’s argument in Hebrews 7 is the result of interpreting Genesis 14:18-20 in light of Psalm 110:4: “with use of the words ‘forever’ (eis ton aiona), Scripture associates eternality with a Melchizedekan-type priesthood… When our author reads the Genesis passage in this light, the lack of reference to Melchizedek’s heritage and death makes sense.”[16] Guthrie’s observation is useful against those who surmise that the author of Hebrews was exegetically careless, or that he was sold out to mindless allegorical interpretations. Guthrie concludes, “Thus, the author of Hebrews interprets Genesis 14:17-20 contextually rather than grasping facts from thin air, but the context, in this case, is the broader context of Scripture.”[17]

Lastly, the author interprets the pertinent Melchizedekan passages typologically. Grant R. Osborne correctly states, “Hermeneutical principles in Hebrews must begin with typology. In one sense this permeates the whole book.”[18] Some, including the early Gnostics, have postulated that Melchizedek was a preincarnate appearance of Jesus. However, such an assertion overlooks the all-important phrase in 7:3 which suggests that Melchizedek was “made like the Son of God” (emphasis mine). In other words, “Melchizedek, for the author, is a type of Christ; he pictures imperfectly what will be realized in Jesus, the antitype.”[19] Guthrie says, “Melchizedek is not the Son of God but is ‘like the Son of God’ in that he ‘remains a priest forever’ (7:3) in the perspective of Scripture.”[20] Douglas McCready summarizes Hebrew’s typological teaching regarding Melchizedek: “The entire Melchizedek typology in Hebrews based Jesus’ qualification to be the priest of God’s new covenant on his eternal existence (Heb 7:24).”[21] The eternal priesthood promised to David in Psalm 110:4 finds its fulfillment in the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ.

The Need For Jesus’ Melchizedekan Priesthood

The Lord did not swear on oath about an eternal priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” because he simply wanted to add to what the Levitical priests were already doing. Rather, the establishment of a priesthood of a whole other order was a necessity. The author of Hebrews, in 7:18, says that “there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness” (emphasis mine). “The former commandment refers in particular to the legislation whereby the Levitical priesthood and its succession were regulated.”[22]

The Old Covenant Levitical priesthood was “weak and useless” primarily in the sense of 7:11, it could not bring about “perfection.” The word “perfection” has less to do with moral perfection than with “reaching a goal or fulfilling a function.”[23] Guthrie correctly suggests that, in light of the context, the Levitical priesthood was imperfect in the sense that it could not effectively establish “an eternal relationship” between God and people.[24] The author of Hebrews provides many reasons why the Levitical priesthood was incapable of bringing this end about, however only one is centrally pertinent to the author’s discussion regarding Jesus priesthood in the order of Melchizedek: the fact that Levitical priests were “prevented by death from continuing” their high priestly ministry (7:23).

The purpose of the priesthood was to make the needed provisions so that defiled men could draw near to a holy God. Without the proper sacrifices there could be no access to God. Thus, death was no mere bump in the road—it was an avalanche blocking men from God. So long as those who mediated between God and man were “prevented by death from continuing,” eternal salvation simply could not be attained. This is not to suggest that the Old Covenant sacrificial system was bad in any sense of the word. Guthrie helpfully explains: “Hebrews 7:11-28 really confronts us with two paradigms of relating to God, one that has anticipated but has now been replaced by the other, because by nature it was unable to arrive at God’s ultimate aim.”[25] Thus, the inevitability of death was a glaring problem which plagued the Levitical priesthood. Bruce states, “In generation after generation the high priest died and his office passed to another, until in all (so Josephus reckons) eighty-three high priests officiated from Aaron to the fall of the Second Temple in A.D. 70.”[26]

The Character of Jesus’ Melchizedekan Priesthood

There are three things, at least according to Letter to the Hebrews, that characterize Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood. Because the author of Hebrews was calling his recipients away from the pull of Judaism unto the superior hope of Christ, he primarily explains Christ’s priesthood by comparing it to that of the Old Covenant. All three of these characteristics of Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood have to do with it’s superiority over/against the Aaronic priesthood.

First of all, Jesus not only fulfilled the basic requirement of becoming a high priest by “being called by God” (5:5-6), but he surpassed the basic requirement by being sworn in by God on oath: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, you are a priest forever” (7:21). David R. Worley says, “Within the author’s syncrisis (comparison) in 7:20-22, the presence of an oath for Jesus’ priesthood is in stark contrast to the absence of such an oath for the Levitical priesthood.”[27] While the Levitical priesthood was established on the basis of a command (Ex. 29:35), Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood was established on the basis of something much more binding than a command, an oath.[28] Worley explains the significance of God’s oath: “What God’s oath does is to assure the reader that he will not awake tomorrow and find that while he slept God decided to change priests. No: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind.’ Jesus will be priest forever.”[29] Hebrews 6:18 is the central text concerning the reliability of God’s oath concerning Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood. After all, 6:17-18 points to the trustworthiness and unchangeable nature of God’s oath.

Interestingly, Guthrie suggests that the “two unchangeable things” in 6:18, rather than referring to God’s promise and God’s oath,[30] refers to the fact that “Jesus is of the order of Melchizedek and that he has been declared by God as an eternal high priest.” Although Guthrie’s position is not standard, it fits the context much better. The whole purpose of this section is to show the superiority of Christ’s priestly ministry by calling attention to its unchangeable, eternal nature. Here we see that the unchangeable nature of Christ’s high priestly ministry is sure and solid because the one who cannot lie has sworn on oath that it will last forever.

Second, in 7:1-10 (primarily 7:4-10) the author expounds upon two different things explicitly mentioned in Genesis 14:18-20 regarding Melchizedek’s meeting with Abraham: (1) the fact that Abraham gave a tenth of all of the plunder to Melchizedek as a tithe and (2) that Melchizedek blessed Abraham. The author brought these two features of the Genesis passage to the fore so that he might prove Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham and thus his posterity, for the purpose of establishing the superiority of the order of Melchizedek over/against the order of Aaron. Hughes explains,

The purpose is to demonstrate how great Melchizedek is in comparison with Abraham—a superiority that is especially startling in view of the fact that Abraham is himself the patriarch, that is, the ancestral founder of the Hebrew people, the one to whom the covenant promises concerning his posterity had been given by God, and therefore the possessor of a position of primacy in the long history of the Jews. The great boast of the Jews was that they were the descendents of Abraham, the friend of God and the recipient of the promise… But here is someone in their own Scriptures who is manifestly Abraham’s superior.[31]

Surely, if Melchizedek is seen to be greater than Abraham, he is, without equivocation, greater than Abraham’s posterity (i.e., those still in his loins, 7:10). The first observation made by the author is that Abraham gave one tenth of the spoils of war as a tithe to Melchizedek. The principle which drives the author’s argument is that “the person who receives tithes is superior to the person who pays them.”[32] Numbers 18:21-32 establishes the Levites as those among the Israelites who are to collect the tithes.[33] This specific function of the tribe of Levi “set them apart as unique among the people of Israel.”[34] And yet, it is almost as if, the Levites were paying tithes to Melchizedek through their father Abraham (7:9-10). Bruce explains the author’s logic on this point:

Levi was Abraham’s great-grandson, and was yet unborn when Abraham met Melchizedek; but an ancestor is regarded in biblical thought as containing within himself all his descendents. That Levi may be thought of thus as paying tithes to Melchizedek is an afterthought to what has already been said about the significance of this particular payment of tithes; lest it should be criticized as farfetched, our author qualifies it with the phrase “one might almost say.[35]

The author also calls attention to the fact that Melchizedek blessed Abraham (and thus his descendents still in his loins). Guthrie suggests that 7:7 “is not… a maxim that assumes only superiors give blessings.”[36] He continues, “Not only do subordinates give blessings throughout the Old Testament, but in Genesis 14:17-20 Melchizedek blesses God immediately after he blesses Abraham!”[37] His conclusion is that the author of Hebrews is not here arguing for the superiority of Melchizedek on the basis of the blessing conferred upon Abraham and his posterity, but rather on the basis of receiving Abraham’s tithe. Thus, Guthrie suggests that, here in 7:6-7, the author “parenthetically proclaims… the superiority of Melchizedek in connection with the blessing offered by him.”[38]

Lastly, and most preeminently, the author establishes the superiority of Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood on the basis of his eternal nature. As already noted above, Levitical priests were “prevented by death from continuing in office” (7:23). The eternal nature of Christ and his high priestly ministry is set in stark contrast against those of a more feeble order. Worley correctly identifies Psalm 110:4 as the author’s key Old Testament text in proving Jesus’ superior high-priestly ministry.

Without Ps 110:4 there would be no chapter 7 in Hebrews. The commissive utterance in the Psalm suggests the two main considerations of the chapter: the greatness of Melchizedek (who resembles the son of God, 7:3-4) and Jesus, a priest forever (7:3, 17, 20, 28). These twin considerations in turn are magnified and elevated by frequent comparisons to the inferior Levitical priesthood. But what is highlighted above all in these comparisons is the permanence of Jesus’ priesthood (7:8, 24).[39]

The author first seeks to prove the high priestly ministry of Christ by interpreting the Genesis narrative in light of Psalm 110:4. In 7:3 the author is in no way suggesting that Melchizedek is some sort of a demi-god or super-human not susceptible to death. Hughes helpfully explains:

The description without father or mother or genealogy, accordingly, should not be taken literalistically to mean that Melchizedek had no parents or family, nor does the statement that he had neither beginning of days nor end of life intend us to understand him as an eternally existent being who experienced neither birth nor death. The point is that these assertions apply positively to Christ, not to Melchizedek. The significance of the biblical silence is that it makes Melchizedek out as a type who in these respects resembles the Son of God, who alone exists everlastingly, from eternity to eternity. Surrounded by this silence, Melchizedek is the figure, but Christ is the reality.[40]

Much the same argument is made in 7:8 where Melchizedek is set in contrast to Levitical priests as one who, unlike them, “is declared to be living.” The point is that, in the Biblical record, “no mention is made of his death, not because he did not die, but because he symbolizes a priesthood that abides eternally.”[41]

Interestingly, Jerome H. Neyrey postulates that the way in which the author of Hebrews details Christ’s eternal nature is much akin to the way Hellenistic philosophers describe what they deem to be a true God. Neyrey explains, “Unmistakably, the author of Hebrews intends his readers to understand the figure described in 7:3 as a true deity, completely in accord with the topoi which describe true gods as fully eternal, uncreated or ungenerated in the past, and imperishable in the future.”[42] Whether or not the author of Hebrews was heavily borrowing concepts from the Greek philosophical world in order to suggest that Jesus is God here in 7:3 is not all that clear from the text. After all, whether the language used parallels that of Hellenistic philosophers or not, the author’s words in chapter 7 are crucial to his overall point. Nevertheless, Neyrey correctly calls attention to the fact that “the author of Hebrews seems considerably more interested in Jesus’ imperishability and eternity in the future than he is in his eternity in the past.”[43] This is a point of utmost importance considering the fact that the author’s purpose is to prove the superiority of the priestly ministry of Christ over/against that of the Levitical order—the crucial flaw with Levitical priests was that they were “prevented by death from continuing.”

In 7:16 the author gets to the heart of the reason why the Levitical priesthood was so insufficient in its function: namely, insufficient qualifications. The main qualification, on the one hand, which needed to be met in order to be a priest in the order of Aaron, was to be born in the tribe of Levi. Christ’s priesthood, on the other hand, set the bar much higher. Being born into the right tribe was simply too low of a standard for a priest in the order of Melchizedek; rather the base line qualification to be a priest in this order is possession of “an indestructible life.” Bruce comments, “Like everything else in the Levitical regime, the Aaronic order of priesthood was marked by transience; it stands thus in contrast to the permanence and effectiveness of the priestly office of Christ.”[44]

Implications of Jesus’ Melchizedekan Priesthood

The author of the Letter to the Hebrews draws out three main implications regarding Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood. First, in 7:12 the author asserts that a change of priesthood necessitates a change of law. Carson correctly suggests that the logic of 7:11-19 is entirely dependent upon the information in the parenthesis of 7:11.[45] In other words, it is the knowledge that the law was given on the basis of the Levitical priestly system that leads one to the conclusion that if there is a change in the priesthood, there must of necessity be a change of the law. Simply put, the law is so thoroughly shot through with regulations, ceremonial procedures, and the like which all pertain to the priestly system that to make a change in the priestly system requires a change in the basic foundations of the law itself. Such a change of priesthood was necessary because the Levitical system would not allow for the only one who possessed “the power of an indestructible life” to offer sacrifices. The only one who possessed such a “power,” Jesus Christ, belonged to the tribe of Judah—“and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests” (7:14). Thus, in order for an eternal priest in the order of Melchizedek, as opposed to a mortal priest in the order of Aaron, to arise, the whole foundation of the law must be changed.

Tom Wright helpfully points out that the necessity for a change does not, in any sense, call attention to the fact that the law was a bad thing; rather, he suggests that the author “is contrasting something… good with something better.”[46] In fact, both the law and its priestly system were a success. Truly, the law adequately bore witness to Christ. The purpose of the law and its priestly system was never to bring about “perfection” in the first place. Rather, it was to be preparatory for something much greater. Guthrie says, “Progression may be seen in the relationship between Jesus and the Levitical priests. God has not started over—he has brought to perfection, in the sense of arriving at a desired goal, to that which was anticipated but unachievable in the Levitical priesthood.”[47]

Secondly, Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood guarantee’s an eternal salvation. This is the author’s most central point in his discourse regarding Jesus’ high-priestly ministry. Everything said about Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood finds its climax in 7:22-28. The major point is that since God has sworn on oath (and it is impossible for him to lie, 6:18) that Jesus’ priesthood will last forever (7:21), Jesus can eternally intercede for those who receive him (7:24-25). This is why Worley is correct when he says that without Psalm 110:4 there would be no Hebrews 7.[48]

It is precisely because Jesus is able to eternally intercede for his people that he “has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (7:22). Wright is accurate in communicating the concept of covenant in relational terms. He says,

Psalm 110 reports God swearing on oath that the Messiah, the coming king, will indeed be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not for awhile but for ever. And this, as the next three chapters will go on to explain, is the basis of the claim that in Jesus the covenant itself, the marriage bond between God and his people, has been renewed.[49]

The eternal nature of Christ’s priesthood is set in contrast to the temporal (yea, hopelessly temporal) nature of the Levitical priesthood, in order to prove the completeness of salvation mediated by Christ over/against the inadequate ministry of the levitical priests. Because Christ’s ministry is eternally effective, men can eternally relate with God—their sins never interfere because Christ always lives to make intercession (7:25). Thus, Guthrie gets at the heart of this passage when he says,

Hebrews 7:11-28 really confronts us with two paradigms of relating with God, one that has anticipated but has now been replaced by the other, because by nature it was unable to arrive at God’s ultimate aim. So the question posed by this passage is, ‘Who provides a superior basis for relating to God?[50]

In conclusion, Christ’s Melchizedekan priesthood is greater than the priesthood of Aaron because it can, in light of its eternal nature, win eternal gifts.

Relevance for Original Recipients

The author of Hebrews did not expound upon Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood for the mere sake of indoctrinating his audience. Rather, the reason he put so much thought and work into such a seemingly complex instruction was because they were in need of finding great reason to cling to Christ as the preeminent priest. The Letter to the Hebrews was written to a group of Jewish believers who were toying with the idea of going back into their native religion, Judaism, for the sake of avoiding the reproach of bearing the name of Christ.[51] The author set forth to dissuade them from such an action by proving the superiority of everything associated with Christ against the backdrop of the limited, temporal nature of everything associated with Judaism. In essence, they were looking to the Levitical system for something that it could not give, a lasting relationship with God. Worley summarizes the author’s intent for his original audience,

“Tired people can keep on going if there is hope for rest… For some the hope was failing and so was their endurance. The author decides upon a rather stunning, novel approach to encourage endurance: He will tell them how great a high priest we have. His rhetorical quiver is not lacking as he shoots his arrows, through teaching this primary consideration, admonishing them throughout the letter, and using syncrisis extensively as a way of magnifying the greatness of Jesus’ priesthood.[52]

It is a knowledge of Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood that will be effective to make them stand strong against the pressures of persecution, because it is Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood which guarantee’s their eternal salvation. Thus, “We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6:19-20)

Conclusion

The author of Hebrews leans primarily upon Psalm 110:4 to prove the eternal nature of Jesus’ high priestly ministry. It was the author’s intent to not merely show the efficacy of Jesus’ priestly work, but to package it in such a way to demonstrate both the folly of clinging to the Levitical priestly system and the reasonableness of clinging to Christ. While Melchizedek was neither a super-human nor a demi-god, the absence of details regarding him in Genesis 14:18-20, read in the light of Psalm 110:4, provide the author of Hebrews an excellent illustration of the eternal nature of Christ’s new covenant priesthood. The most crucial point in all that it said about Jesus’ Melchizedekan priesthood is that it provides those trusting in Jesus an eternal way of relating with God.

[1] J. G. Vos, Genesis (Pittsburg: Crown and Covenant Publisher, 2006), 226.

[2] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), 409.

[3] Vos, Genesis, 226.

[4] Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26 (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2005), 64.

[5] Hamilton, Genesis, 408.

[6] This is most likely a reference to hospitality rather than to a priestly duty. He was merely providing refreshments to a weary warrior after battle. Matthews, Genesis, 149.

[7] Matthews suggests that “To bless God means to recognize goodness as shown in the bestowal of divine benefits to his subjects.” Ibid. 150.

[8] John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 47.

[9] Robert Davidson, The Vitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998) 363.

[10] Surely, David did fulfill certain priestly functions (2 Sam 6:14, 17-18), however David was not a priest-king; rather he was a king who irregularly performed priestly duties.

[11] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), 157.

[12] D. A. Carson, “Hard Texts: Why Does Hebrews Cite the Old Testament Like That?”; available from http://pjtibayan.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/d-a-carson-audio-sermonslectures/; Internet; accessed 16 June 2008.

[13] Ibid.

[14] George Guthrie, Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 255.

[15] Ibid., 25.

[16] Ibid., 256.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2006), 340. Typology refers to “the recognition of a correspondence between New and Old Testament events, based on a conviction of the unchanging character of the principles of God’s working.” R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 40.

[19] Harold S. Songer, “A Superior Priesthood: Hebrews 4:14-7:27” Review and Expositor 82, no. 3 (1985): 355.

[20] Guthrie, Hebrews, 257.

[21] Douglas McCready, He Came Down from Heaven (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2005), 131.

[22] Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 264.

[23] Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 371.

[24] Guthrie, Hebrews, 266. Hebrews 7:19 solidifies Guthrie’s statement: “(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”

[25] Guthrie, Hebrews, 271.

[26] Bruce, Hebrews, 172.

[27] David R. Worley, “Fleeing Two Immutable Things, God’s Oath-Taking and Oath-Witnessing,” Restoration Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1994): 231.

[28] Ellingworth, Hebrews, 384-85.

[29] Worley, “Fleeing Two Immutable Things,” 232.

[30] This is the standard position on this passage. It is held by Bruce, Hughes, Ellingworth, and many others. Bruce, Hebrews, 154; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 342; Hughes, Hebrews, 223.

[31] Hughes, Hebrews, 251.

[32] Ibid.

[33] In one sense, therefore, the order of Melchizedek predated the law in much the same way that the Abrahamic promise predated the law (Gal 3:17).

[34] Guthrie, Hebrews, 254.

[35] Bruce, Hebrews, 164.

[36] Guthrie, Hebrews, 254.

[37] Ibid., 254-55.

[38] Ibid., 255.

[39] Worley, “Fleeing Two Immutable Things,” 232.

[40] Hughes, Hebrews, 248.

[41] Ibid., 253.

[42] Jerome H. Neyrey, “‘Without beginning of days nor end of life’ (Hebrews 7:3),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53, no. 3 (1991): 440, 54. The “figure” Neyrey is speaking of is Christ and not Melchizedek. He clarifies, “That predication… is directed not to Melchizedek, but to Jesus. The author of Hebrews inflated the character of Melchizedek in 7:3 beyond anything found in Scripture or Midrash, so as to make comparable statements about Jesus, who is unquestionably acclaimed a divine figure in Hebrews.”

[43] Ibid., 452.

[44] Bruce, Hebrews, 169.

[45] Carson, “Hard Texts”.

[46] Tom Wright, Hebrews for Everyone (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 76.

[47] Guthrie, Hebrews, 166.

[48] After all, it is in Psalm 110:4 that God’s oath concerning an eternal priesthood is found.

[49] Wright, Hebrews, 79, 182.

[50] Guthrie, Hebrews, 271.

[51] Ibid., 19-22.

[52] Worley, Restoration Quarterly, 235.

Theological Help Please!!!!

2008-07-17T06:03:00.000-07:00

Kristal and I have run into a theological conundrum regarding James. Last Sunday at church while we were taking communion Kristal leaned over chuckling and whispered into my ear, "What in the world are we going to do in the future when, if James becomes a Christian--How is he going to take communion?" For the uninformed: Our son, James, cannot eat through his mouth.
Are we going to administer it to him through his g-tube? Are there any theological issues with this (those who hold to transubstantiation are not allowed to answer)? I wonder if they make special communion blenders for those who have eating challenges. Unblended crackers would certainly clog his tube.

Maybe his eating issues will cause a change in the way that communion is done from this time forward. I can see it now....

500 years from now...

Little Joey: "Mom, why does communion come in a syringe?"

Mommy: "You know Joey, that's a good question. I guess that's just the way things have always been done. You will have to ask Pastor Jackleg after the service."

Pastors will distort all sorts of texts to prove their form of administering the Lord's supper:

500 years from now...

Pastor Jackleg: "Turn in your bibles to Matthew 26:26-27. In this passage Matthew says that Jesus "broke" the bread. Everyone knows that the Greek word for "break" (clao) does not mean to break but to "grind in a blender." Yes my friends, that's right, Jesus invented the blender. There are actually people out there who don't grind their communion. They are heretics!"

Good going James!

As you can tell... we need instruction.

Hebrews 6:1-8: Commentary Search Project

2008-07-15T03:03:00.000-07:00

I took a class on the Letter to the Hebrews during the first part of this summer. I had to do a commentary search project on a highly debatable passage in Hebrews. I chose (unoriginally) Hebrews 6:1-8. I will paste my paper to this post. You will want to have a Bible next to you as you read--it will help you follow along. If you want to study the meaning and implications of the warning passages in Hebrews (and the 6:1-8 is one of them) further I suggest reading "Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal" by Thomas R. Schreiner. Schreiner's article is excellent. You will not waste your time by reading it. You can access it by clicking here. This is one of the most debated passages in the New Testament. Enjoy!

Hebrews 6:1-8: A Commentary Survey

Introduction

Hebrews 6:1-8 is one of the most controversial passages in the entire Bible. This section of scripture is not controversial only because of its difficulty, but also because it has to do with paradigm-shifting concepts. George Guthrie suggests that the only way one can objectively deal with this passage is if their primary concern is a passion for truth as opposed to hearing an echo of already held convictions.[1] In this (short) essay the author will survey how three different commentators (F. F. Bruce, George H. Guthrie, and Philip E. Hughes) have dealt with this controversial passage. Although all three of the commentators adequately handle the text in view, Guthrie’s approach, while not being perfect, is much more hermeneutically sound than that of Bruce and Hughes.

Hebrews 6:1-3

The author, in Hebrews 6:1-2, exhorts his hearers to do something about the spiritual immaturity unveiled in 5:11-14. Bruce finds irony in the author’s progression from 5:11-14 to 6:1-3. Considering the fact that he has just told his hearers that they cannot handle the food that he thinks would be helpful for them, one would think that he would condescend to what they are accustomed to. But he doesn’t. Bruce explains: “their particular condition of immaturity is such that only an appreciation of what is involved in Christ’s high priesthood will cure it.”[2] Hughes and Guthrie point out the fact that the verb for “let us press on” is passive. The passive suggests “that it is not a matter of learners being carried forward by their instructor, but of both being carried forward together by God.”[3]

Both Hughes and Guthrie point out that the author has no intention of leaving the elementary teachings behind as if they were dispensable. Rather, he wants to build upon the foundation set by the “elementary teachings.”[4] In 6:2a, the author identifies what he means by “elementary teachings” by laying forth a non-comprehensive list of things considered “elementary.” Bruce asserts that the each of the teachings listed in 6:1b-2 “acquires a new significance in a Christian context; but the impression we get is that existing Jewish beliefs and practices were used as a foundation on which to build Christian truth.”[5] Because of this, Bruce focuses much attention on the Old Testament (and other pre-Christian writings) as he explains what the author of Hebrews meant by each of the things mentioned in the list.[6] Guthrie, holding to much the same position, quotes Donald Hagner:

this may suggest that the readers were attempting somehow to remain within Judaism by emphasizing items held in common between Judaism and Christianity. They may have been trying to survive a minimal Christianity in order to avoid alienating their Jewish friends or relatives.[7]

On the other hand, Hughes pointedly says,

It would no doubt be attractive, and ease some of the exegetical problems of the passage, if the readers are being encouraged to abandon beliefs that are distinctly Jewish rather than Christian, but it is impossible to believe that ‘the elementary doctrines of Christ’… can be anything but specifically Christian doctrines, as the tenor of the immediate context seems to require.[8]

Hughes ultimately considers the “elementary teachings” to be “the first simple presentation of the gospel message” in Acts 2.[9] Although he is correct in identifying these teachings as Christian teachings, only a cursory reading of the Old Testament would be enough to establish the fact that these teachings are scattered throughout the Old Testament as well. Thus, Bruce and Guthrie’s position holds much more weight. After all, their point is not to say that that the New Testament has no influence on how these teachings ought to be interpreted. Rather, their emphasis is on the fact that these teachings are foundational, in their own respective ways, for both Judaism and Christianity.

All three commentators agree that, although the six teachings listed can be organized into 3 separate pairs,[10] it is “best to interpret the word ‘instruction’ as in apposition to ‘foundation.’ When read in this manner, teachings ‘about baptisms, the laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment’ fill out the content of the foundation of repentance and faith.”[11] While Bruce deals with “repentance from dead works and faith in God” in a general sense,[12] Hughes and Guthrie suggest that these two refer to the negative (repentance) and positive (faith) steps of conversion.[13] Either way, both are to be a consistent mark of the Christian life.

After wading through a mass of historical interpretations regarding what the author of Hebrews means by “ablutions,” Hughes states, “our author is referring here to instruction regarding washings and baptisms, but quite naturally, with particular respect to Christian baptism, by which all others are surpassed and replaced.”[14] Both Guthrie and Bruce object to this emphasis because the author speaks of “baptisms” (plural) and not “baptism” (singular).[15] On another note, Bruce highly suggests that the plural usage, “baptisms,” might be a reference to the Hippolytean Apostolic Tradition.[16] Hughes disagrees with this, naming it a “supposition built upon a supposition.”[17] Guthrie takes a much more preferable approach. Rather than postulating guesses without a point of reference, he remains uncommitted to any one particular view (he merely offers suggestions). After all, the text does not provide any clues which aid the reader in nailing to exact precision what he is referring to.

Although Bruce and Guthrie suggest that the “laying on of hands” refers to the coming of the Holy Spirit and empowerment for ministry,[18] Hughes helpfully adds to this list the ministry of healing by pointing to Mark 6:5, Luke 4:40, and Acts 28:8. While Bruce emphasizes the Old Testament in his discussion of the last two “instructions” in 6:2, both Guthrie and Hughes generalize the last “two ‘instructions’ into a similar category: “‘resurrection of the dead’ and ‘eternal judgment’ provide theological cornerstones related to the end of the age.”[19] Guthrie suggests that the author, in 6:3, expresses his confidence in the original hearers—he optimistically states that they are going to, in essence, press on to maturity.[20] Hughes helpfully sees a connection between 6:3 here and the passive verb “let us press on” (6:1): “It is God who enables us to make progress toward the maturity of those who are well instructed in the deep truths of the faith, but always, as our author repeatedly emphasizes, in conjunction with our own earnest effort and application.”[21]

Hebrews 6:4-6

Guthrie’s commentary on these three verses is, by far, much more helpful than Bruce or Hughes’. One of the most crucial aspects of biblical interpretation is identifying the genre of the passage under inspection. Interestingly, only Guthrie consciously factors the literary genre of the passage into his interpretation of it. He correctly identifies the genre to be exhortation: “Of course, theology underlies the author’s hortatory material in Hebrews, but the primary purpose of 6:4-12 is to motivate to action rather than to offer theological instruction.”[22]

Guthrie also points to the fact that the author uses “ambiguous phrases (such as ‘once been enlightened,’ ‘tasted the heavenly gift,’ etc.)” without defining them.[23] This does not mean that it is a waste of time to attempt an accurate understanding of these ambiguous phrases, but it does mean that the questions asked of this text must not primarily be theological. Guthrie suggests that the reader ask the following two questions: “‘In what way did the author intend this particular passage to challenge his hearers to change their attitudes and actions?’ and ‘What are the dynamics here that could be misinterpreted if we do not keep the ‘hortatory factor’ in view?’”[24]

All three of the commentators in view agree that the author is laying forth a real warning, and thus the recipients are in real danger.[25] They all hold to what Guthrie identifies as the “phenomenological unbeliever view.”[26] Hughes states, “The danger of apostasy, it must be emphasized, is real, not imaginary; otherwise this epistle with its high-sounding admonitions must be dismissed as trifling, worthless, and ridiculous.”[27] At the same time, however, all three of the commentators assert that this warning in no way calls into question the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. They all call attention to the fact that those who “fall away” were never truly converted in the first place.[28] Bruce explains the warning by saying:

he is stating a practical truth that has verified itself repeatedly in the experience of the church. Those who have shared the covenant privileges of the people of God, and then deliberately renounced them, are the most difficult persons of all to reclaim for the faith.[29]

Guthrie states, “the author places the term translated ‘impossible’ (adynaton) first in the passage for emphasis.”[30] The author then lists six things that characterize those who are in danger of the “irremediable” effects of apostasy.[31] First, the author describes those in danger of apostasy as having “once been enlightened.” Although Hughes and Bruce strongly suggest that the author is, at least in part, referring to baptism,[32] the author simply does not detail what enlightenment entails. Thus, it may be best to, with Guthrie, consider it as reference “to their initial exposure to the gospel or early instruction to Christian doctrine.”[33]

Guthrie and Hughes prefer a metaphorical meaning behind the word “taste.” For example, Guthrie asserts that “tasted” means “to experience something.”[34] Thus the original recipients have “experienced the heavenly gift.” With this rendering of “taste,” “the heavenly gift” most likely does not refer, even in part, to the Eucharist as Bruce suggests.[35] Rather, it refers to, as both Hughes and Guthrie point out, “the blessing of God surrounding salvation.”[36] All three of the commentators approach this differently: (1) Bruce, using Simon Magus in Acts 8:9, suggests that this refers to those who had hands laid on them but were not truly converted;[37] (2) Guthrie takes a much safer approach by merely defining the word “companions”: ‘to have a close association with’ or ‘participate in’”;[38] (3) Hughes suggests that it refers to the bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit evidenced in 1 Cor 12:4.[39] Although Guthrie’s approach may seem too easy for its own good, simply defining the terms while remaining open to the possible interpretations is best.

The author once again uses the word “tasted” but this time in regard to the “goodness of God’s word and the powers of the age to come.” Guthrie points to the fact that, in the book of Hebrews, “the Word of God and his power are closely linked.”[40] They, just like those in the Exodus generation, had received the word of God, witnessed supernatural miracles, and yet failed to enter the “Promised Land” because of unbelief. Ultimately, this passage points back to 2:3-4: they have received the word of Christ which was “testified” to them by supernatural miracle-signs.

“At the climax of this string of participles comes the clause ‘if they fall away.’”[41] Hughes identifies this act of falling away not as a passive action, but “a deliberate and calculated renunciation of the good he has known.”[42] Bruce explains: “to say that they cannot be brought back to repentance so long as they persist in their renunciation of Christ would be a truism hardly worth putting into words.”[43] Ultimately, those who have turned from the grace of Christ unto a life of renouncing and shaming his name disqualify themselves from being recipients of his grace (having turned from embracing Christ to crucifying him “to themselves” and putting “Him to open shame”). After all, “there is nowhere else to go for repentance once one has rejected Christ.”[44] They are in danger of rejecting their only hope of salvation (Acts 4:12). Hughes unhelpfully places much emphasis on baptism: “verses 4 through 6 describe the irremediable state of those who, having publicly confessed allegiance to Christ in baptism, subsequently turn their backs on the gospel and thereby renounce their baptism and all that is implied in it.”[45] Surely, baptism should be a part of the equation, but there is not sufficient evidence to postulate that it is central to the passage.

Hebrews 6:7-8

The author concludes his exhortation by using an agricultural metaphor. Guthrie points out the fact that this passage is characteristic of “widely used wisdom form in both biblical and extrabiblical literature, which depicts the blessing associated with fruitfulness over against the curse associated with barrenness.”[46] Thus, although the agricultural metaphor points to spiritual realities, it does not directly refer to the spiritual realities.[47] Although Guthrie and Hughes point to Genesis 3:17-18 as they deal with this text, the author of Hebrews is most notably must be referring to Isaiah’s vineyard song (Isa 5:1-7). In Isaiah 5, the Lord speaks of himself as a vintner who has, in essence, pampered his vineyard, Israel. However, in spite of his gracious and meticulous care of his vineyard it has produced nothing but thorns and rotten fruit. Because of its failure to produce good fruit, God promised to come upon the vineyard in judgment. Hughes explains the parallel:

“the man who has been brought within the sphere of the blessings of the gospel so graciously showered on mankind by Almighty God and has publicly professed faith in Christ crucified and associated himself with the company of the redeemed, and whose life then produces the baneful crop of ‘thorns and thistles… invites not the blessing but the curse of God upon himself.[48]

Conclusion

While Hughes’ commentary dealt much more in the realm of historical theology, his exegesis was not as hermeneutically informed as Guthrie’s; While Bruce’s commentary had it’s high points (and especially in regard to his emphasis on the Old Testament in 6:1-2), Guthrie’s commentary evidenced not only a faithful explanation of the text, but also an entire philosophy of hermeneutics which protects one from over-theologizing the text. Each commentator essentially ended up with the same conclusions in regard to the larger aspects of the text (for example, they all held to the phenomenological unbeliever view, suggested that the warning issued is not hypothetical, etc.). Without a doubt, each commentator made their own unique contributions to the passages in view. However, Guthrie’s general approach proved to be much more sensitive to principles of biblical interpretation. Surely, sifting through the possibilities of what each phrase refers to is not purposeless activity (in fact, it is necessary activity), however one must remember that the author may not have had an eye on specific realities, but on general, over-arching concepts.

End Notes:

[1] George Guthrie, Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 223-24.

[2] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 138.

[3] Guthrie, Hebrews, 204.

[4] Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle Hebrews (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 194-96; Guthrie, Hebrews, 204-05.

[5] Bruce, Hebrews, 139.

[6] Ibid.,139-143. For example, he refers to the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas in his discussion on “repentance from dead works,” Gen 15 and Hab 2:4 in his discussion on “faith in God,” Num. 19 and Ezek. 36 in his discussion on “ablutions,” Num 27 in his discussion on “laying on of hands,” Isa 26 and Dan 12 in his discussion on “resurrection of the dead,” and Dan 7:9-14 in his discussion on “eternal judgment.”

[7] Guthrie, Hebrews, 205.

[8] Hughes, Hebrews, 195.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Bruce, Hebrews, 138-39; Guthrie, Hebrews, 205; Hughes, Hebrews, 196.

[11] Guthrie, Hebrews, 205.

[12] Bruce, Hebrews, 139-41. Bruce suggests that “repentance from dead works” are “works which issue in death because they are evil.”

[13] Guthrie, Hebrews, 205; Hughes, Hebrews, 196-97.

[14] Ibid., 202.

[15] Bruce, Hebrews, 141; Guthrie, Hebrews, 205.

[16] Bruce, Hebrews, 142.

[17] Hughes, Hebrews, 200.

[18] Bruce, Hebrews, 142-43; Guthrie, Hebrews, 205.

[19] Guthrie, Hebrews, 206.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Hughes, Hebrews, 206.

[22] Guthrie, Hebrews, 224.

[23] Ibid., 223.

[24] Ibid., 224.

[25] Bruce, Hebrews, 144-45; Guthrie, Hebrews, 230; Hughes, Hebrews, 206, 212.

[26] Guthrie, Hebrews, 230-31.

[27] Hughes, Hebrews, 206.

[28] Bruce, Hebrews, 144; Guthrie, Hebrews, 231; Hughes, Hebrews, 222.

[29] Bruce, Hebrews, 144.

[30] Guthrie, Hebrews, 218.

[31] Bruce, Hebrews, 144.

[32] Ibid., 145-46; Hughes, Hebrews, 208-09.

[33] Guthrie, Hebrews, 218.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Bruce, Hebrews, 146.

[36] Guthrie, Hebrews, 218; Hughes, Hebrews, 209.

[37] Bruce, Hebrews, 146-47.

[38] Guthrie, Hebrews, 218-19.

[39] Hughes, Hebrews, 210.

[40] Guthrie, Hebrews, 219.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Hughes, Hebrews, 216.

[43] Ibid., 149.

[44] Guthrie, Hebrews, 220.

[45] Hughes, Hebrews, 221.

[46] Guthrie, Hebrews, 224.

[47] Ibid

[48] Hughes, Hebrews, 222-23.

Nadal Does it Again!

2008-07-07T03:15:00.000-07:00

That my friends is a picture of Rafael Nadal celebrating (in his own strange way) his championship victory over Roger Federer at Wimbledon yesterday (6-4, 6-4, 6-7. 6-7. 9-7). I happily report that Nadal ended Federer's five-year reign at Wimbledon. I have been waiting for Nadal to beat Federer at Wimbledon for the past 3 years.

My devotion and loyalty to the church won out against tennis once again. Eternal victories are much more sweet than temporal championships. However, I wish I didn't have to miss it. This match is going down as one of the greatest tennis matches of all time. It lasted four hours and 48 minutes, making this the longest men's final in the history of the Wimbledon tournament. I will be interested to see if this win gives Nadal the #1 spot. Either way, I will be watching tonight when they replay it on ESPN Classics.

More Tennis!

2008-07-03T05:17:00.000-07:00

I am sure that all of you have been waiting with baited breath for another post about tennis. Wait no longer! This is your official reminder that Wimbledon is underway. I know... I know... it started over a week ago. Leave me alone, I have been a bit busy.

Things are starting to get exciting. It is looking like Rafael Nadal (the one serving in the picture) and Roger Federer are going to, once again, meet in the finals. Both of them still have to win their semi-final match to get there, but they are both at the top of their game right now. I think that Nadal might be able to beat Federer this year. Although Nadal put up a good fight against Federer in the finals last year at Wimbeldon, it was clear that Federer had the upper hand. I am not so sure if that is the case this year. Nadal has been so good as of late. If both Nadal and Federer make it past the semi's (and they should), you won't want to miss the final.

I haven't been able to watch much of the tournament because of everything that has been going on with James. I call it "sacrificial love." One day he will understand how much I sacrificed for his care. My greatest fear is that the final will be during church again. I think I am already getting a cold. I just don't know if I want to contaminate all those poor saints at church with my ailments. I think I might have to stay home this Sunday--I call it a labor of love. I'm kidding.

We're Home!

2008-07-02T05:19:00.001-07:00

Well, James got released from the hospital yesterday around 5:00 pm. He is doing much better. Last night both Kristal and I realized how much more comfortable our bed is than the pseudo-beds at the hospital.

They are still not exactly sure why James was throwing up so violently. They pretty much sent us home saying, "There is nothing else that we can do here. James no longer needs an IV, he is holding his food down, and he seems like he is back to normal."

James still has extreme vomiting in the morning. We are going to be working with his Primary Care and Gastroenterologist doctors to come to further conclusion.

I do have a number of prayer requests regarding James.

1. They gave him medicine to stop his wild saliva-making abilities. Apparently, James cannot handle the large volume of saliva he creates. The downside of this medicine is that it causes him to overheat. Yesterday on the car ride home James looked like he took a 24 hour nap in the desert--he was about as red as a cracker can get! Kristal and I decided to not give him his next dose of this medicine because of the dangers of heat stroke. Well, he has been struggling with his saliva all morning this morning. He has been throwing up, gagging, and choking as much as he was before we brought him into the hospital. Because of this we gave him another dose of his medicine this morning. Pray that the Lord would give us discernment regarding the pros and cons of each medicine. We are sort of "between a rock and a hard place" (props to my Mom for this phrase) on this one. We don't want to take him off of it because his vomiting comes back when we do. We don't want to keep him on it because if we take him out (to his doctor visits, chiropractic visits, etc.) he will over heat (and we have no AC in our car).

2. Pray for us and the doctors as we continue to get at the root of James' issues. Pray for healing. Pray that the Lord would show us how to stop James' vomiting.

3. Praise the Lord for his goodness. It is so nice to be home. Although hospitals are a blessing from the Lord, they are hard to live in.

4. The Lord has been very gracious to me in regard to school. This past Sunday was the first time I have ever fell behind in a class as a seminarian. I was super nervous about it. However, on Monday the Lord helped me accomplish twice as much as I usually do. I feel that I am "up to speed" again.

4. Continue to pray for sleep for both Kristal and I.

5. Thank you all for your persistent prayers for us. I know that so many people have been pleading with the Lord on our behalf. We cannot thank you enough. Doctors are only effective as the Lord allows them to be. God is the mover and shaker behind "Operation Heal James." This is why prayer is so essential--more essential than pills, iv's, and smart, geeky doctors.

6. I just want to stress again how great Jesus is. He is such a kind savior. He is not a petty little fairy in the sky. No! He is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, and yet, he is full of compassion. We do not serve a God who is easily manipulated. But we do serve a God who is passionately in love with his children. God does not answer our prayers because he wants a friend. God answers our prayers because of his great love. He doesn't need you or I. He doesn't even need your prayers. But he loves you and I. He does take your prayers seriously. He is no genie in a bottle. He is the King. He is my King. He is a good King. Don't for one moment question the fact that he is in absolute control of everything that is going on with James. Don't for one moment question the fact that everything that he is initiating and allowing comes from a hand of infinite goodness. If you lose either one of these, your outlook will only lead to despair. We pray to him because he is in complete control (he can do something about it) and because he is merciful (he wants to do something about it).

James Update 6/27

2008-06-27T17:04:00.000-07:00

I know that many of you are probably waiting for an update regarding Jamesy Poopy Pants. Sorry for not updating sooner (things have a been a bit hectic). To make things simple I will number each item.

1. James' vomiting has gotten much better. The docs put him on a certain type of medicine which dries up his saliva. They are thinking that his vomiting is, at least in part, due to his inability to handle his saliva (and he has a lot of it). Ever since they put him on this medicine things have gotten much better. It is not as if James is not throwing up at all now. He is still throwing up, spitting up, and gagging much more than normal. However, it has gotten much better.

2. They wanted to see if he could handle a full feeding at normal pace a few hours ago. Kristal and I were both skeptical about it. Anyway, he ended up throwing it up in the first few minutes of the feed. It was pretty extreme. They now have him on a continuous feed (10 ml's an hour--that's not that much). He is breathing much heavier after having thrown up--pray that he didn't get anything in his lungs.

3. Tomorrow they are going to replace his g-tube (feeding tube) with a jg-tube. A jg-tube is like the g-tube in that it feeds him through his belly. However, the jg-tube's tube goes into the belly and dumps his food into his intestinal tract. They want him to get the jg-tube so that if he needs to throw up he will dry heave. This is important because he cannot protect his air way. The jg-tube also helps with reflux and thus will prevent esophagitus. Since his food will be directed to his intestinal tract it won't sit in his stomach. Thus, there will be no food to reflux.

4. Pray that the Lord would grant healing to James' little body. Pray that the placement of the jg-tube goes well tomorrow. He has to be sedated for it. Also be praying that the Lord protect him from all of the radiation he is exposed to from all of the x-rays and everything else.

5. Continue to pray for rest for Kristal and I. Last night we both got good sleep (well... good as far as hospital sleeping goes). However, we are both still very tired.

6. I am really having a hard time keeping up with my schooling. Not only am I tired, but I have found very little time for studying in the midst of all the errand running, puke cleaning, and doctor visiting. It is not that I have fallen way behind, however I am taking accelarated (8 week, as opposed to 16 week, courses). Getting behind is not an option. On another note, I have been learning a lot. I am sure you will, as usual, get some posts regarding some of the things I have been learning.

7. The Lord has provided many opportunities for us to share the goodness of Christ with the doctors and nurses. Pray for boldness. Pray for evangelistic opporunities.

8. Lastly, and most importantly, pray that the Lord would grant both us and the doctors discernment regarding James. There are just no clear diagnosis. Nothing seems to add up. We still have come to no clear reason as to why James' vomiting has been this drastic. Pray for wisdom. The sooner we know what is causing it, the sooner we can know how to treat it. Pray also for his heavy breathing. It has been getting worse and worse since I started this post.

9. Praise the Lord for his grace. He is a good God. He is such a good Father. If you don't know my God, I want you to know that you are missing out. If you have rejected my God and his love, you are a fool. I hate to be blunt, but how can anyone but a fool reject infinite love? I encourage all of you (and not just those who do not know my Jesus) to run to him and be embraced by him. He will not do everything you think he should, but he will do everything that he knows is best for you. And he knows what is best for you much more than you do. Lean on Him, he will not disappoint you. Let his ideas (they can be found in the Bible) shape everything you do, say, and hope for. He is such a good God. He is such a good Father.

James Update 6/25

2008-06-25T17:47:00.000-07:00

Well, the Docs decided to admit James into the hospital. We are not sure how long we will be here. James' vomiting has gotten much worse even since this morning. He is now throwing up around 5-10 times an hour. The Docs are pretty convinced that his issue involves more than just reflux. They will be doing trial and error stuff with him to figure out why he is reacting so drastically. For now they are putting him on medicine to help with nausea. There just seems to be no good external reason for why James is reacting the way he is.

Continue to pray for healing for James, sleep for Kristal, and help for me and my studies.

I will update again once we know what is going on.

Romans 5:3-5: "Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us."

I used to wrestle when I was in highschool (I hated it by the way). I always knew when my dad came to watch because whenever I was in a position to score against my opponent I could hear him yelling to me from the edge of the wrestling mat , "USE IT JIM!! USE IT!" I can hear the Lord in the midst of this trial yelling, "USE IT JIMMY!! USE IT!" Pray for Kristal and I as we actively seek to let the Lord do his work on us. Pray that this trial not go to waste. Pray that we proactively "use it" for the good. Pray that the Lord use it to conform us into the image of his Son.

Urgent Prayer Request 6/25

2008-06-25T05:38:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, James (our 1 year old) has been struggling with reflux for quite some time now. Well, a few weeks ago we had to change his formula in order to meet his one year old nutritional needs. We have him on a double dose of two different acid reflux medicines and yet the reflux continues. James has been violently vomiting anywhere from 5 to 10 times a day for the past 7 days. For every one vomiting episode, he chokes and gags and spits up 10-20 times or so (literally--no exaggeration). He will often times turn all sorts of shades of red and blue while throwing up. It takes him quite a while to catch his breath. He has been gagging and choking in his sleep throughout the night as well.

Yesterday we went to the Doc to make sure his throw up was not getting in his lungs (he has never been able to protect his airway well and so has chronic aspiration). Miraculously, nothing got into his lungs! Well, this morning everything has gotten much worse. He hasn't eaten since yesterday in the early evening, and yet is throwing up (nothing) about once every 6 or 7 minutes. The weird thing is that he is not sick, and his vomiting in no way correlates with his eating schedule. We called the Doc this morning and are preparing for whatever they might tell us. Our greatest concern right now is James getting fluid in his lungs. We are also concerned about him getting dehydrated. Lastly, the Doc expressed concerns about esophagitis (where the esophagus gets damaged from reflux stomach acid).

We will probably be talking to the Doc today about the possibility of getting a nissen. In essence, a nissen is where they wrap the upper part of the stomach around the esophagus to keep fluid from going up.

Pray for the James: Pray for complete healing and comfort. He is overly tired and way uncomfortable.

Pray for the Docs: That the Lord would grant them good decision making abilities.

Pray for Kristal: We haven't been getting much sleep lately. This morning we got up at 4 am.

Pray for me: I have to stay up with my studies in the midst of all of this.

Thank you for your urgent prayers.

Who's the Pharisee? Part II

2008-06-23T02:45:00.000-07:00

Luke 18:9:

"And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:"

The New Religious Pharisaism: "Oh Gosh Lord, I just thank you that I am not like those who heap up rules. I thank you that I do not walk around like I have a corn cob stuck in my buttocks. Frankly, I am just thankful that I am not like those who live with conflicted consciences. Oh Lord, grant me opportunities to show them the silliness of their actions. Grant me opportunities to expose their self righteousness. I thank you that my worship is driven by my heart. I thank you that my worship is not tainted by evil desires to be seen as righteous."

"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'
"I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:13-14).

Who is it that the Lord esteems? Those who keep all the rules? Those who heap up the rules? Those who don't heap up the rules? Those who wouldn't touch a Pharisee with a 20 foot poll? Those who can detect self-righteousness like a new GPS unit? None of the above.

"But to this one I will look: To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word" (Isaiah 66:2b).

Who's the Pharisee?

2008-06-20T05:26:00.000-07:00

Many theologians have suggested that there is no new sin under the sun. Rather there are merely the same old sins that men have always struggled with, expressing themselves in new ways. The more I study church history and the more I see the cultural changes around me, the more I realize the truth of such thinking. Generally, when we think of religious pride our thoughts generate to those who think they are more righteous than the next because of all of the extra rules they keep--we associate pride with self-righteousness and legalism. However, without surprise, our anti-legalism, anti-rules, freedom-craving culture has found a way to evidence the same pride evidenced by the legalists of yesterday.

I cannot even begin to count how many modern day Christians I have met who think themselves superior because of their ability to not be bound by rules. For many it is almost a game--"How uncomfortable can I make legalists feel while I am around them?" That's right, people today get cocky (self-righteous) in their own ability to not fall prey to a self-righteous disposition. Let me fill you in on something: you are probably less novel and more annoying than you think if you surmise that your lawless actions are that which is going to "fix" Christianity.

Don't get me wrong, legalism is wrong. Heaping up rules for the sake of... heaping up rules is wrong. Heaping up rules for the sake of appearing more righteous than you actually are is wrong. But so is fleeing from rules for the sake of... fleeing from rules. So is fleeing from rules for the sake of appearing more righteous than you actually are. So is fleeing from rules for the sake of teaching your legalistic brethren a lesson on "true" righteousness.

Jesus did not go about fixing the legalistic Pharisees by getting a big head about how much beer he could drink without it effecting his conscience, how many dirty movies he could watch without it making him feel less spiritual, or how many dirty words he could spew out of his mouth without it effecting his righteousness. Rather, he sought to show up the Pharisees by not allowing the lesser laws dealing with externals to get in the way of the more important laws of love, mercy, and justice. Do you want to teach the legalists a lesson (and they probably need one)? Obeying less rules is not going to do the trick, but love, a love which cannot be bound by rules involving externals, will.

I do not in any way want to communicate that extreme legalism should not be countered. It should! However, we must be careful about how we counter it. We must be afraid of going to the same place of self-righteousness that they are at. In the same way that we should counter those who add laws to the Scriptures, we ought to be concerned to not extract principles laid down in the Scriptures. I hate to say it, but really... it all boils down to love. Loving others to the point of self-forgetfulness. So, who's the Pharisee? Well, if you think your life, as opposed to your love, is what people need--if you do what you do for the sake of making a point rather than doing what you do out of love--you're the Pharisee.

"For you are called to freedom, brothers; only don't use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love." (Gal 5:13).

Rafael Nadal Makes History

2008-06-09T05:27:00.000-07:00

As a good, biblically-minded Protestant I do not believe in any form of salvation by works. However, if I did, I would have an unhindered, straight-shot right to heaven. Do I have your ear? Well, yesterday I sacrificed the French Open final on the alter of going to church. There was a slight temptation to fake a cough. But then I realized that I had agreed to preach the Sunday morning message. Was I to do the unthinkable and miss watching one of the most historically significant matches in the history of the game of tennis, or do I fulfill the calling of the Lord? Talk about persecution; talk about suffering.

As expected, #2 in the world, Rafael Nadal, squared off against #1 in the world, Roger Federer. Nadal has won the French Open the past three years in a row, but Federer has always given him a run for his money. This year things were a bit different. Nadal smoked Federer 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. If you don't know what 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 means, just understand that it is a "good, ol' fashion whoppin." Nadal is now the second man to ever win four consecutive French Open titles (the only other is Bjorn Borg).

Moose A. Moose

2008-06-06T06:34:00.000-07:00

This is James' favorite song. It sung by "Moose A. Moose," the host of "The NOGGIN Channel." Make sure to watch the video. Every time Moose A. Moose comes on the TV James smiles real big, kicks his legs, and flails his arms. Enjoy!

"Everywhere I Go" (lyrics)

Days are the sunniest
Jokes are the funniest
Rabbits are the bunny-est
Hives are the honey-est
Elephants the ton-iest
Troubles - they're the none-iest

Everywhere I go!

Straws are the bend-iest
Time is the spend-iest
Cards are the send-iest
Books are the lend-iest
Fun's the pretend-iest
Friends are the friend-iest

Everywhere I go!

Berries are the fruit-iest
Shoes are the boot-iest
Puppies are the cute-iest
Treasure is the loot-iest
Teams are the root-iest
Horns are the toot-iest

Everywhere I go!

Birds are the tweet-iest
Candy is the sweet-iest
Socks are the feet-iest
Tricks are the treat-iest
Drums are the beat-iest
Lunch is the eat-iest

Everywhere I go!

Flowers are the smelliest
Jams are jelly-est
Rain's the umbrell-iest
Tales are the tell-iest
Wishing is the well-iest
Buttons are the belly-est

Everywhere I go!

Skies are the blue-iest
Cows are the moo-iest
Gum is the chewiest
Ghosts are the boo-iest
Goo is the gooey-est
You can be your you-iest

Everywhere I go!

The French Open

2008-05-29T09:45:00.000-07:00

Tennis is my favorite sport to watch on T.V. On top of that, my favorite tennis tournament to watch is The French Open--which is happening right now, even as I type this. I love watching Rafael Nadal (Spain--in the picture to the left) run around like a wild maniac, chasing down shots that not even Inspector Gadget could get. This may make some of you think less of me, but I honestly prefer to watch tennis over any and every sport, whether it be football, basketball, baseball, etc. I am not sure, maybe this makes me less of a man. If so, I humbly accept "sissy-boy" status.

Anyway, I just wanted to do my little part in making tennis, once again, an appreciated sport. Now stop being such a dead beat and watch it! (Just kidding). Although Roger Federer (Switzerland) is undoubtedly the best all-around tennis player in the world right now, no one is more exciting to watch than Nadal. There is just a determination and intensity in Nadal that puts you on the edge of your seat. Everything he does is amazonish, goofy, unorthodox, and ultimately mannish. Oftentimes Federer is sorta boring to watch--he is so good, smooth, and rhythmic that he doesn't even look like he is trying. Federer is so fluid that his playing is almost like a lullaby--it puts you to sleep. Whats the point of watching tennis while sleeping. Do you see my point? Do you see now why I like Nadal better?

It will be interesting this year to see if Federer can be a match against Nadal on clay (for those of you who are not up on the tennis world, Federer has never beaten Nadal on clay. The French Open is the only Grand Slam title (major tennis tournament) that Federer hasn't one, and Nadal is the reason for that). No matter who wins, it's always fun to watch.

Got Toilet?

2008-05-28T04:35:00.000-07:00

Apparently, 7 astronauts are left in space without a way of relieving themselves. The New York Times reports that the only toilet on a "Russian-built service module" is broken. I am starting have second thoughts about wanting to be an astronaut. I once thought that being stuck in traffic was the worst place to be when in need of relief--I stand corrected.

"Faith Lives From It's Object"

2008-05-22T05:52:00.000-07:00

I have a few words in response to a study I have recently done on the topic of "faith" in my leadership class at Liberty.

The power of faith is found in the object of faith and not in the act of faith. Many people view faith (belief) as if it were an actual energy that accomplished stuff. Not to be blunt, but this is nothing more than New Age mysticism. The emphasis in scripture is that faith is dependence upon, and confidence in, the goodness, strength, and sovereignty of God. In other words, as my Theology professor at Midwestern, Dr. Mark Devine, said almost every class period, "Faith lives from it's object." There are many people who bear the name of Christ who put more hope in their ability to make their faith work and effect change than they do in God to work and effect change.

This is an issue in modern day Christianity that needs to be attacked. Much television preaching is characterized by this view of faith. Whenever hope is put in some subjective force (called "faith" by many) rather than in the strength of the living God, dependence is the last item on our agenda.

Those who have this view of faith are usually the first to yell, "I'm going to do great things for God!" rather than, "God is going to do great things through me." Those who have this view also tend to put more hope in the perfection of their prayers, and the amount of time they pray, than in the God who makes the prayer effective. As I have often said, "God is mover and shaker of prayer."

Maybe a good (and unique) definition of faith could be "dependence and confidence put into action." Any thoughts?

Jesus: The Death of Death

2008-05-15T11:44:00.000-07:00

Think on this little poem by S. W. Gandy for a few minutes. Don't pass over it once you think you got it. Mull it over and then read Hebrews 2:14. And then rejoice and proclaim if you know you have been set free.

He hell in hell laid low,
Made sin, he sin o-erthrew,
Bowed to the grave, destroyed it so,
And death, by dying slew.

Leon Morris says, "Jesus broke the devil's grip on his people when in death he became the death of death" (Morris 1990, 86).

O Jamesy Tree O Jamesy Tree, I Really Love Your Branches

2008-05-07T09:40:00.001-07:00

Somethin' Changed!

2008-05-07T09:32:00.001-07:00

Commentary Search Project: John 21

2008-05-01T07:15:00.000-07:00

For my class on the book of John I had to write a paper on one of the 15 sections of the book of John that has underwent heavy criticism in recent scholarship (called aporias). I decided to write my paper on whether or not John 21 was originally part of John 1-20. This paper is quite thick. If you find yourself having difficulty understanding it, don't worry about it--go do something else. I think it is important for Christians to defend the historicity and reliability of the Scriptures, but not to get so side-tracked by it that the Gospel takes a small place in our preaching, teaching, and writing ministries. This is my little two cents on John 21. If it is helpful--Praise the Lord--if it is not--I'm not losing any sleep over it. Enjoy!

Introduction

The Gospel of John contains a significant number of controversial texts in which the “chronological, topical, or dramatic flow of the narrative appears disjointed.”[1] One such text is John 21. For certain reasons (which will be discussed below), many scholars question whether John 21 was originally a part of the Fourth Gospel. This article will consist of four parts: (1) a description of the controversy regarding John 21, (2) a survey of three different commentators (D. A. Carson, Herman N. Ridderbos, and W. Hall Harris III) and how they deal with the controversy, (3) an evaluation of the approach and conclusion of the three different commentators from the vantage point of the author, and (4) a conclusion.

Description of Controversy

Many Johannine scholars question whether or not John 21 was originally a part of the Fourth Gospel. Because of this, the authorship of John 21 has also been under scrutiny in recent scholarship. Even the most conservative Johannine scholars concede that there is definite cause to at least question whether John 21 was originally part of the Fourth Gospel. The reasons for questioning the authorship and placement of John 21 are many, but the skepticism centers on three main observations: (1) John 20:30-31 is written as if it were the conclusion to the book; (2) John 21 contains many words (twenty-eight to be exact) that are not found in the rest of the book; (3) John 21:24 contains the pronoun “we” which suggests that John 21 was written by more than one person.

Survey of 3 Commentaries

1. D. A. Carson

D. A. Carson, in The Gospel According to John, approaches the controversy surrounding John 21 with conservative presuppositions. Carson argues that “ch. 21 was composed with the rest of the Gospel and was designed to be a kind of Epilogue that balances the Prologue (1:1-18) by tying up some loose ends and pointing the way forward.”[2] Rather than offensively attacking the opposing view, Carson begins his discourse by first answering the questions raised by those skeptical of the view that John 21 was originally a part of the Fourth Gospel.

The first matter of controversy addressed by Carson is Bultmann’s striking observation that there are twenty-eight words within John that are unique to John 21. Although he concedes this to be a reality, he responds by calling attention to the fact that a great majority of the words unique to John 21 “are so tied to the subject matter that they cannot be viewed as particularly significant.”[3] Furthermore, Carson strongly suggests that although there are many words in John 21 unique to the rest of the book, there are also many similarities between John 1-20 and John 21. For example, he points to John’s use of “Truly, Truly,” and then states there to be twenty-five other words and constructions which point to literary unity between the two bodies of the Fourth Gospel. By way of conclusion, Carson, quoting and expounding upon C. K. Barrett, says “As a result, even those scholars who are most thoroughly convinced that John 21 came from a different hand usually admit that these ‘linguistic and stylistic considerations… are not in themselves sufficient to establish the belief that ch. 21 was written by a different author.”[4]

Secondly, Carson attacks the argument which states that John 21 must have been added later because 20:30-31 most smoothly reads as the conclusion to the Gospel. Generally, scholars who hold to this position take things a step further by adding the observation that John 21 really does not do much to add to the content of John 1-20. They argue, “Jesus has risen, he has appeared, his ascension has been dealt with, the Spirit he promised has been bequeathed and his great commission solemnly uttered. What more is there to say?”[5] Carson does not argue that 20:31-33 is a conclusion of sorts, but he adds,

there remains certain authorial discretion: the book may end abruptly with the act of disclosure, the solution to the mystery, or it may wind down through a postscript that tells what happens to the characters, especially if what happens to them sheds a certain light backward into the principal plot of the work.[6]

Carson has much to say about what he thinks this information added by John, that “sheds a certain light backward into the principle plot of the work,” is. In fact, he provides nine different things that John 21 helpfully adds to the book as a whole.[7] Carson, quoting Hoskyns, sums up the most major contribution of ch. 21 by stating that “‘a Christian gospel ends properly... with a confident statement that this mission to the world, undertaken at His command and under His authority, will be the means by which many are saved.’”[8]

Carson ends by calling attention to the fact that “There is no textual evidence that the book was ever published without John 21.”[9] Even if Carson’s arguments in the previous two sections were weak (and it is the author’s contention that they were not), the argument in this section is highly effective to prove his thesis. The fact is that the manuscript evidence is in the favor of Carson so much so that he can say, “even if ch. 21 were added later, it was added by the same Evangelist who composed the rest.”[10] After stating this, he embraces ignorance in regard to the author’s use of “we” in 21:24. In essence he states that whoever the “we” refers to (an amanuensis or an informed group of John’s disciples), it “does not alter these basic realities.”[11]

2. Herman N. Ridderbos

Like Carson, Herman N. Ridderbos approaches the controversy regarding John 21 as a conservative. Ridderbos’ central thesis regarding John 21 is that “The primary facts are that it is no where lacking in the text tradition, and that, if it was added later, what existed before was only the Evangelist’s original unpublished position.”[12] Although his thesis sounds much like Carson’s, there are some differences in how the two go about defending it. While Carson argues that the stylistic unity between John 1-20 and John 21 is strong enough to be considered proof, Ridderbos suggests that “Besides typically Johannine characteristics, ch. 21 also contains a number of words and expressions that do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel, that one cannot simply ascribe to the special nature of the material.”[13]

Ridderbos then goes on to assert, “Though, then, style can probably not settle the issue, the case is stronger if one looks at content.”[14] The content which Ridderbos is primarily referring to is that which brings Peter and the beloved disciple into sharper focus. He further identifies the content as that which both vindicates Peter and reveals the role which Peter and the beloved disciple were to have in the church.[15] Thus, it is appropriate for him to say that ch. 21 was “added to describe the passage from Jesus’ work on earth to its continuation through the disciples.”[16] Ridderbos concludes this argument by saying, “If, with many contemporary authors, one concludes that all of ch. 21 was added by a later author, then one must also say that ch. 21 is made up of material that is closely connected with all that goes before and that completes the earlier material.”[17]

Ridderbos goes much further than Carson in suggesting that the “we” definitely refers to more than one author.[18] However, like Carson, Ridderbos does not let his conviction about who the “we” refers to affect his view of the unity between John 21 and the rest of the book.

3. W. Hall Harris III

Although W. Hall Harris III, the third commentator in view, is conservative and asserts basically the same thesis as Carson and Ridderbos, he approaches the controversy in his own unique way. Harris’ thesis is as follows:

If chapter 21 was indeed a later addition to the Fourth Gospel by a different author, it must have been added very early, because no extant Greek manuscript lacks the last chapter, and there is no serious evidence in the manuscript tradition for later addition.[19]

In much the same way as Ridderbos, Harris does not consider stylistic similarities and differences between John 1-20 and John 21 to be telling either way (i.e., they neither prove nor disprove unified authorship from ch. 1 to ch. 21). However, Harris does point out that one of the prominent scholars, C. K. Barrett, who holds to disconnected authorship between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21 says, “These linguistic and stylistic considerations, when weighed against the undoubted resemblances between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21, are not in themselves sufficient to establish the belief that ch. 21 was written by a different author.”[20]

Like Ridderbos, Harris suggests that it is the content and thought-flow of ch. 21 that is most helpful in establishing unified authorship for the Fourth Gospel. He then summarizes the content of ch. 21 in a way that reveals its contribution to the book as a whole:

chapter 21 is not as much of an addendum as some believe, and… it does in fact provide a necessary conclusion to the Fourth Gospel, which does not merely end with Thomas’ confession, but has repeatedly emphasized that the disciples will continue Jesus’ witness to the world after he has departed (15:27) and will carry on his mission in the world.[21]

Commentary Evaluation

The three commentaries in view were all very helpful in dealing with the issue of John 21 and its relationship to the rest of the book. All three of the commentators were correct in emphasizing the lack of manuscript evidence against the view which sees John 21 as being a later addition to chs. 1-20. The amazing thing about this discovery is that there is no need to provide proof for this thesis because the proof lay in the absence of proof to the contrary. Ultimately, this is the primary argument against those who postulate that John 21 was a later addition to the Fourth Gospel. Although it does not necessarily leave room for doubt, it successfully puts those who disagree on the defensive—at best, it relegates their position to unproven theory.

The only thing which could have been added is information regarding the earliest manuscript which shows John 21 connected to the rest of the book. This information could either solidify their observation or cause it to hold less weight. For example, if the earliest manuscript dates to the later part of the first century or the early part of the second century their position holds much more weight; however if the earliest manuscript dates to the last part of the second century or later their position is much weaker. Either way, the lack of manuscript evidence is not easy to dismiss as a staggering argument.

One difference which is evident between the three commentators is how they deal with the stylistic similarities and differences between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21. Carson puts much more weight in the stylistic similarities than does Ridderbos and Harris. Essentially, Ridderbos and Harris suggest that although there are stylistic similarities between the two bodies in the Fourth Gospel, they do not see them as being so striking as to be a solid argument for unified authorship. On the other hand, although Carson does not come out and specifically state that these stylistic similarities are enough to build a strong case for unified authorship, he does communicate that they add much weight to the overall argument. While Ridderbos and Harris are correct in suggesting that the stylistic similarities do not “slam home” an argument for unified authorship, Carson is correct in emphasizing these similarities as one proof among many. Surely, these similarities will not be sufficient in and of themselves, but, when considered alongside the rest of the evidence, they make more certain what is already convincing. Not only that, but they also provide a helpful framework for dealing with the differences in vocabulary and style between the two bodies of the Gospel.

Although Carson’s list of nine things that John 21 adds to the Gospel of John was enlightening, about three or four of the nine things were not helpful in establishing what Carson was trying to prove—i.e., that certain information in ch. 21 is so closely linked with the rest of the book that it proves that the two bodies of the Gospel are inseparably linked. For example, Carson mentions the fact that ch. 21 teaches that “Jesus is still ahead of the disciples, providing their needs and serving them.”[22] Although this observation is helpful, it does not prove anything regarding the unity of chs. 1-20 and ch. 21. Insightful teaching is not a proof of unity.

Nonetheless, about four or five of the things mentioned by Carson were helpful in understanding why John was so urgent to add ch. 21 to a document which seemed to come to a close in 20:31-33. Although these four or five insights were helpful, Ridderbos and Harris, by focusing on the overall teaching of John 21, seemed to be a bit more convincing. Surely, Carson did deal with the general teaching of John 21 (as seen previously in this article) and how it adds to the entire Gospel, however he put more emphasis on the specific details of John 21. The single most helpful statement regarding the addition that John 21 made to the Gospel was made by Ridderbos: “it was added to describe the passage from Jesus’ work on earth to its continuation through the disciples.”[23]

All three of the commentators were in agreement in regard to the use of “we” in 21:24. This verse is not evidence enough to establish a verifiable disunity between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21. John 21:24, rather than establishing proof that ch. 21 was written by someone other than the author of chs. 1-20, more like likely points to (as Carson suggests) a comment made by an amanuensis or an informed group of John’s disciples. Although it is possible to argue from this text that there was “minimal redactional activity” (emphasis mine) on the Fourth Gospel, there is no reason to suggest that the redactor added an entire chapter—namely, ch. 21.[24] There is simply too much evidence to suggest that, if there was a redactor, such an extensive addition would have been made to this Gospel.

Conclusion

Although there are many viable reasons to question whether John 21 was actually a part of the original book of John, there is simply not enough evidence to suggest that chs. 1-20 and ch. 21 were ever disjointed from one another. It is not as if there are some manuscripts which reveal that they were together and others which reveal that they were separate. Rather, there are only manuscripts which reveal that they are to be taken together. However, additional research on the earliest document which contains John 1-21 as a unified whole would be telling. On another note, there is no reason to suggest that the stylistic differences between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21 are so great that the same author could not have possibly written both bodies as one unified whole. Rather, the differences are easily dealt with by first understanding that many of them are the result of unique content in ch. 21, and then also by calling attention to the many parallels between the two bodies within the Fourth Gospel. Furthermore, it is not as if John were merely adding information disconnected from the rest of his Gospel.

The message contained within ch. 21 successfully brings the Gospel to a close with an eye on Jesus’ continued work through his disciples. Thus, although 20:31-33 reads as the conclusion to the book, John saw it necessary to end the Gospel in such a way as to show that Jesus’ work was not over upon his resurrection, but that it was to continue through his disciples with just as much emphasis as it did before. Although some may suggest that the author’s use of the first person plural personal pronoun “we” in 21:24 provides proof that ch. 21 was written by someone other than the author of chs. 1-20, because of all the information stated above, and because of the all-too-common use of an amanuensis, there is no reason to suspect that ch. 21 was written by someone other than the author of chs. 1-20. In conclusion, John 21 is best considered to be the Epilogue to the Gospel of John in the same way that John 1:1-18 is considered to be the Prologue to the Gospel of John.

[1] Gary M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 62. Burge labels these passages as “aporias” and “seams.”

[2] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 665.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 666.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 666-67.

[8] Ibid., 666.

[9] Ibid., 667.

[10] Ibid., 668.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 655.

[13] Ibid., 655-56.

[14] Ibid., 656.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 658.

[17] Ibid., 656.

[18] Ibid.

[19] W. Hall Harris III, Commentary on the Gospel of John, (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 667.

[23] Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, 658.

[24] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1997), 173. Blomberg actually does support the idea of a redactor, however he suggests that the redactor did very little. Here is the full quote: “The closing two verses of the Gospel (21:24-25) support at least some minimal redactional activity, as they distinguish the beloved disciple who wrote down the events of the Gospel from a group of people (‘we’) who ‘know that his testimony is true’ and an ‘I’ who supposes that the whole world couldn’t contain the books that could be written about Jesus.”

The Pruning Power of Grace

2008-04-28T04:05:00.001-07:00

So yesterday Kristal and I were on our way home from church and we had the following conversation:

Me: Kristal I feel like I have been a bubbling fool for the past 3 months. So often I presume to know more than what I do. Over the past few months I feel like I have taken the body of Christ for granted; I haven't realized the worth in the people God has put in my life; I feel like I have been too picky; that I have overemphasized everyone's faults; I have been consumed by myself and my own agendas. Kristal I have not been right with the Lord in these things. I want to value the people of God and their ideas; I want to not be nit-picky; I want to only speak when it will be beneficial.

Kristal: Wow. I think we all struggle with those things.

Me: Yeah, I know. But I feel like I have been extra careless lately. I honestly am ashamed of myself. This is a part of myself that I don't want anyone else to see.

Ok, we have to take a break in the narrative. So, I was in the middle of confessing the blackness of my heart, and then out of no where I start to laugh. Ok, back to the narrative:

Kristal: Why are you laughing?

Jimmy: I love this!

Kristal: What? What do you love?

Jimmy: Kristal, the Lord isn't through with me! He is still pruning me; He is still purifying me; He is not leaving me in my sin. I AM HIS!

Yesterday I experienced first hand the purifying power of the grace of God. These are the strangest moments in the world--one second you feel like a run-over, bloated toad in the middle of the road on a hot day, and then, out of nowhere, you feel like a Child of the Most High. Then you wonder how such great joy could fill your heart in the midst of such inner chaos. Then you see the grace of God and the power of His Spirit and you just don't care anymore how awful it feels to be pruned by him--your only desire is to be like Christ. Your joy becomes bound up in the cross. You know you are a failure and you are just happy that God's love for you does not depend upon your performance but upon the perfect and completed work of Christ.

Chillin With the Church--Acts 2

2008-04-21T05:14:00.000-07:00

I am presently taking a class on discipleship at Liberty. For this class I am reading a book by Bill Hull entitled "The Disciple-Making Church." Although I haven't agreed with everything in the book, it has been a good read thus far. At one point in the book Hull talks about the importance of being committed to the church. So often when we talk about being committed to the church we emphasize the importance of attending the Sunday and Wednesday night services, doing ministry together, praying together, and things like this. Now, don't get me wrong, these things are important. However, one of the things that Hull talks about is the simple need for the church to just simply hang out. Luke (the author of Acts), in Acts 2, says, "They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts."

Look at what Hull says,

"The Jerusalem Christians had gotten beyond coffee and doughnuts; their conversation had bridged the treacherous chasm between the world, the weather, and work and cares, conflicts, and concerns. Because they spent large amounts of time together, eating, working, and playing together, they could make this crucial transition.

The Body of Christ needs to have enough fun together to set the stage for accountability and obedience. When a parent takes time to have fun with a child, he builds up relational equity that makes it much easier for the child to obey when friction occurs. The bond causes the child to say, 'Okay, I'll do that for you, even though I disagree.'

In the body of Christ, living and playing together smooth the way for moments when people must go along with tougher tasks required of the church.

I have found this true in one-on-one accountability as well. Here's the rule: if my accountability partner and I only talk about spiritual things and never hang out just for fun, it will ruin our relationship. Our relationship will become nothing but seriousness and rules. Folks, hang out time is so important for the people of God. Is church dull to you right now--does your time with the people of God feel stiff and over-serious? Try and practice some genuine hang out time. Invite some of your fellow church members over to your house to watch a baseball game, or have a Bar-B-Q, or go to a movie or something. Don't be afraid to talk about God, but don't be afraid to just hang out and have fun.

I feel that I must end by making it clear that I think one of the greatest problems with many of the churches in America today is that once the sermon is over the people of God simply stop their "God talk" because their spiritual duty is done. I don't want to downplay this problem. However, it is also a problem when we can only talk about theology. We all know people who only know how to talk about theology and the Bible. These sorts of people are unstable and are in need of realizing that God has made many things in this world for us to enjoy--yeah, enjoy together.

Before moving on, go back up to the top of this post and take a look at the picture of the grill with the food on it--this is what it means to break bread (in the Acts 2:46 way) in our present day context.

Mohler on Pope Benedict XVI

2008-04-16T06:32:00.000-07:00

I just read an article by Dr. Albert Mohler (president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY) on Pope Benedict XVI's present visit to the US. You can access the article by clicking here. Mohler is thoroughly biblical and has, in this (short) article, concisely given his take on the pope and his present and future involvement in Christianity as a whole. At the end of the day, although Mohler applauds the Pope in his steadfast conviction, he does not foresee the Roman Catholic Church, under Benedict's leadership, making the changes that we Protestants feel convicted are necessary.

Here is a little blurb from the article:

"Perhaps the most clarifying moment since his election came last July when the Vatican released the document known as "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" – a document that reasserted the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church.
The secular press and a good many non-Catholic church leaders expressed outrage and offense at the Pope's comments – assuming that such teachings were simply out of place in the modern world. But Benedict was restating the tradition and teaching of his church – and he did so because he cared for those he believes are outside the blessings of grace he is certain are given to those in the communion of his church – and to that communion alone.

I actually appreciated the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Yet, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right in understanding the church."

I am not a Catholic-hater or anything like that (in fact, I have Catholic friends), but I can say that the Scriptures lambaste any doctrine which teaches that people are saved (or disqualified from being saved) for any reason other than faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict clearly teaches that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. He expresses concern for anyone who rejects the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Well, I guess I fall in that boat. With Luther I cry out my allegiance to Christ and his word. I affirm the Catholic Church in so far as they have faithfully interpreted and applied the Scriptures, but I knowingly separate ties where they part ways with the Scriptures.

I am not one of those who says that you cannot possibly be a Christian if you are a part of the Catholic Church, however I can say that you cannot possibly be a Christian if your hope (confidence) of salvation lies anywhere but in Christ and what he has won for you on the cross.