Pastor's Blog https://www.disciple-demo.website Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:40:09 -0500 http://churchplantmedia.com/ 10 Things You Should Know about Shame and Guilt https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-shame-and-guilt https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-shame-and-guilt#comments Wed, 15 Feb 2023 11:00:00 -0600 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-shame-and-guilt Shame and guilt are often confused in people’s thinking. What are they, and how do they differ? More important still, how might we be set free from the debilitating effects of shame? Here are ten things to keep in mind.

(1) Shame is the painful emotion that is caused by a consciousness of guilt, failure, or impropriety, that often results in the paralyzing conviction/belief that one is worthless, of no value to others or to God, unacceptable, and altogether deserving of disdain and rejection. As you can see, shame and guilt are not the same thing.

Guilt is the objective reality of being liable to punishment because of something we’ve done. Shame is the subjective feeling of being worthless because of who we are. As someone said, it’s the difference between making a mistake and being a mistake. Feeling guilt when we sin is a good and godly and healthy response. So we run to God and seek his forgiveness. But feeling shame when we sin is a bad and destructive response that compels us to run from him for fear of his disdain and contempt.

(2) Shame can lead to a variety of emotions and actions. It leads to feelings of being not just unqualified but disqualified from anything meaningful or of having a significant role in the body of Christ.

People enslaved to shame are constantly apologizing to others for who they are. They feel small, flawed, never good enough. They live under the crippling fear of never measuring up, of never pleasing those whose love and respect they desire. This often results in efforts to work harder to compensate for feeling less than everyone else.

(3) Shame has innumerable effects on the human soul. Those in shame have a tendency to hide; to create walls of protection behind which they hunker down and hope no one will see the true you. They are terrified that their true self will be seen and known and rejected by others. So they put on a false face, they adopt a personality or certain traits that they think others will find acceptable. They are convinced that if someone were to see them for who they really are, they’d be repulsed and disappointed. So they are led to be less than their true self. They deliberately stifle whatever strengths they have. They say to themselves: “Whatever I do, don’t be vulnerable. It’s dangerous.”

(4) We must be careful to differentiate between justifiable, deserved, and well-placed shame, on the one hand, and illegitimate, undeserved, and misplaced shame, on the other.

When our actions, attitudes, or words bring dishonor to God we justifiably and deservedly should feel ashamed. There are other actions, attitudes, or words for which we should not feel ashamed, even though they may expose us to ridicule, public exposure, and embarrassment.

Misplaced or unjustifiable shame is often mentioned in Scripture. Here are four examples.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).

We should feel boldness and courage in proclaiming the gospel. If people mock us and mistreat us because of our vocal and visible declaration of the gospel, we should not feel any shame. After all, the gospel is the power of God to save human souls. The non-Christian world may think we are weak and silly, but the gospel is powerful and true.

“Therefore, do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God” (2 Tim. 1:8).

If you feel shame when the gospel is made known or when you are identified and linked with someone who is suffering for having made it known, you are experiencing misplaced or unjustifiable shame. Christ is honored and praised when we boldly speak of him and willingly suffer for him.

“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Pet. 4:16).

Being maligned and mistreated solely because of your commitment to Christ is no cause for shame. In fact, it serves to glorify God. Thus, shame is not determined based on how we are regarded in the minds of people but rather based on whether or not our actions bring honor and glory to God.

“Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor [shame] for the name” (Acts 5:41).

To be arrested and stripped and beaten and exposed to public ridicule is a shameful experience. But the apostles did not retaliate. The willingly embraced the feeling of shame because it ultimately honored God.

(5) Often the Bible speaks of behaviors or beliefs that ought to induce shame in a person’s heart.

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38).

In other words, when we refuse to obey the exhortation of Jesus to be humble and meek because we fear that people will laugh at us for it, we should feel ashamed. When we fail to strive to live a life free of sexual immorality and the world congratulates us for not yielding to an “outdated” view on morality, we should feel shame.

“I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?” (1 Cor. 6:5-6).

“Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame” (1 Cor. 15:34).

In both cases their behavior is bringing disrepute on God. They have dishonored him and thus should justifiably feel shame. Two other texts that speak of well-placed shame are:

“But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed?” (Rom. 6:21).

“If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).

(6) We wage war against the lies that bring shame by fighting for faith in the forgiveness of God. In other words, belief in the truth of the gospel is the power to overcome shame.

The prostitute who anointed the feet of Jesus with ointment and wet them with her tears had much of which to be ashamed. She was a “sinner” and an outcast. But Jesus pronounced that her sins were forgiven and told her to “go in peace” (Luke 7:36-50). Jesus overcame her shame by promising that her sins were forgiven and that she could now live “in peace.” She could have chosen to believe the condemnation and judgment of the other guests, and remain mired in shame. Or she could choose to believe that Jesus had truly forgiven all her sins. The way to wage war against the unbelief that we are not truly forgiven is to trust the promise of Christ.

The solution to sin in our culture is to celebrate it, brag about it, join in a public parade to declare your pride in it. Thus, people tend to cope with the pain and weight of guilt by simply declaring that the behavior in question isn’t bad after all. It’s actually quite good and will contribute to my sense of identity and flourishing in life. As someone said, “By denying sin, they attempt to take away its sting.”

But the solution for shame isn’t celebration or denial but forgiveness. The message of Scripture is that you are probably far worse than even you can imagine, but that you are far more loved than you could ever possibly conceive. You can’t solve your struggle with shame. Only Jesus can. And God’s immeasurable and inconceivable love for you was demonstrated and put on display by his sending of his Son Jesus to endure the judgment you deserved.

Some of you think that the solution to your shame is to try harder, do more, obey with greater intensity. Sometimes you are tempted to create even more rules and commands than are found in the Bible and by legalistically abiding by them all you hope to suppress or diminish or perhaps even destroy your feelings of inadequacy and shame and worthlessness. No! The solution is found in only one place: the cross of Christ, where Jesus took your shame upon himself and endured the judgment of God that you and I deserved.

(7) We overcome the crippling power of shame when the Holy Spirit strengthens us to trust and experience the reality of God’s immeasurable love for us in Christ.

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:14-21).

The Holy Spirit is directly responsible for making possible our experience of feeling and rejoicing in the love God has for us in Christ.

(8) We break free from shame when the Holy Spirit awakens us to the glorious and majestic truth that we are truly the children of God.

“For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:15-16).

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God” (Gal. 4:4-7).

Notice that in both texts the experiential, felt assurance of our adoption as the children of God is the direct result of the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

(9) We win in the war against shame when, by the power of the Spirit, we turn our hearts to the unbreakable promise of Christ that nothing can separate us from his love.

“But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:12b-14).

Here we see that Paul overcomes the tendency to be ashamed by trusting the truth of God’s promise that he will guard him. It is “by the Holy Spirit” that we find the strength to guard the good deposit of the gospel. “The battle against misplaced shame,” says Piper, “is the battle against unbelief in the promises of God.” As Paul elsewhere says, “everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11).

(10) When we are made to feel shame for something that we didn’t do, we conquer its power by entrusting our souls and eternal welfare to the truth and justice of God.

“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God” (1 Cor. 4:3-5).

In other words, explains Piper, “for all the evil and deceitful judgment and criticism that others may use to heap on us a shame that is not ours to bear, and for all the distress and spiritual warfare it brings, the promise stands sure that they will not succeed in the end. All the children of God will be vindicated. The truth will be known. And no one who banks his hope on the promises of God will be put to shame.”

 

]]>
Shame and guilt are often confused in people’s thinking. What are they, and how do they differ? More important still, how might we be set free from the debilitating effects of shame? Here are ten things to keep in mind.

(1) Shame is the painful emotion that is caused by a consciousness of guilt, failure, or impropriety, that often results in the paralyzing conviction/belief that one is worthless, of no value to others or to God, unacceptable, and altogether deserving of disdain and rejection. As you can see, shame and guilt are not the same thing.

Guilt is the objective reality of being liable to punishment because of something we’ve done. Shame is the subjective feeling of being worthless because of who we are. As someone said, it’s the difference between making a mistake and being a mistake. Feeling guilt when we sin is a good and godly and healthy response. So we run to God and seek his forgiveness. But feeling shame when we sin is a bad and destructive response that compels us to run from him for fear of his disdain and contempt.

(2) Shame can lead to a variety of emotions and actions. It leads to feelings of being not just unqualified but disqualified from anything meaningful or of having a significant role in the body of Christ.

People enslaved to shame are constantly apologizing to others for who they are. They feel small, flawed, never good enough. They live under the crippling fear of never measuring up, of never pleasing those whose love and respect they desire. This often results in efforts to work harder to compensate for feeling less than everyone else.

(3) Shame has innumerable effects on the human soul. Those in shame have a tendency to hide; to create walls of protection behind which they hunker down and hope no one will see the true you. They are terrified that their true self will be seen and known and rejected by others. So they put on a false face, they adopt a personality or certain traits that they think others will find acceptable. They are convinced that if someone were to see them for who they really are, they’d be repulsed and disappointed. So they are led to be less than their true self. They deliberately stifle whatever strengths they have. They say to themselves: “Whatever I do, don’t be vulnerable. It’s dangerous.”

(4) We must be careful to differentiate between justifiable, deserved, and well-placed shame, on the one hand, and illegitimate, undeserved, and misplaced shame, on the other.

When our actions, attitudes, or words bring dishonor to God we justifiably and deservedly should feel ashamed. There are other actions, attitudes, or words for which we should not feel ashamed, even though they may expose us to ridicule, public exposure, and embarrassment.

Misplaced or unjustifiable shame is often mentioned in Scripture. Here are four examples.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).

We should feel boldness and courage in proclaiming the gospel. If people mock us and mistreat us because of our vocal and visible declaration of the gospel, we should not feel any shame. After all, the gospel is the power of God to save human souls. The non-Christian world may think we are weak and silly, but the gospel is powerful and true.

“Therefore, do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God” (2 Tim. 1:8).

If you feel shame when the gospel is made known or when you are identified and linked with someone who is suffering for having made it known, you are experiencing misplaced or unjustifiable shame. Christ is honored and praised when we boldly speak of him and willingly suffer for him.

“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Pet. 4:16).

Being maligned and mistreated solely because of your commitment to Christ is no cause for shame. In fact, it serves to glorify God. Thus, shame is not determined based on how we are regarded in the minds of people but rather based on whether or not our actions bring honor and glory to God.

“Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor [shame] for the name” (Acts 5:41).

To be arrested and stripped and beaten and exposed to public ridicule is a shameful experience. But the apostles did not retaliate. The willingly embraced the feeling of shame because it ultimately honored God.

(5) Often the Bible speaks of behaviors or beliefs that ought to induce shame in a person’s heart.

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38).

In other words, when we refuse to obey the exhortation of Jesus to be humble and meek because we fear that people will laugh at us for it, we should feel ashamed. When we fail to strive to live a life free of sexual immorality and the world congratulates us for not yielding to an “outdated” view on morality, we should feel shame.

“I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?” (1 Cor. 6:5-6).

“Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame” (1 Cor. 15:34).

In both cases their behavior is bringing disrepute on God. They have dishonored him and thus should justifiably feel shame. Two other texts that speak of well-placed shame are:

“But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed?” (Rom. 6:21).

“If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).

(6) We wage war against the lies that bring shame by fighting for faith in the forgiveness of God. In other words, belief in the truth of the gospel is the power to overcome shame.

The prostitute who anointed the feet of Jesus with ointment and wet them with her tears had much of which to be ashamed. She was a “sinner” and an outcast. But Jesus pronounced that her sins were forgiven and told her to “go in peace” (Luke 7:36-50). Jesus overcame her shame by promising that her sins were forgiven and that she could now live “in peace.” She could have chosen to believe the condemnation and judgment of the other guests, and remain mired in shame. Or she could choose to believe that Jesus had truly forgiven all her sins. The way to wage war against the unbelief that we are not truly forgiven is to trust the promise of Christ.

The solution to sin in our culture is to celebrate it, brag about it, join in a public parade to declare your pride in it. Thus, people tend to cope with the pain and weight of guilt by simply declaring that the behavior in question isn’t bad after all. It’s actually quite good and will contribute to my sense of identity and flourishing in life. As someone said, “By denying sin, they attempt to take away its sting.”

But the solution for shame isn’t celebration or denial but forgiveness. The message of Scripture is that you are probably far worse than even you can imagine, but that you are far more loved than you could ever possibly conceive. You can’t solve your struggle with shame. Only Jesus can. And God’s immeasurable and inconceivable love for you was demonstrated and put on display by his sending of his Son Jesus to endure the judgment you deserved.

Some of you think that the solution to your shame is to try harder, do more, obey with greater intensity. Sometimes you are tempted to create even more rules and commands than are found in the Bible and by legalistically abiding by them all you hope to suppress or diminish or perhaps even destroy your feelings of inadequacy and shame and worthlessness. No! The solution is found in only one place: the cross of Christ, where Jesus took your shame upon himself and endured the judgment of God that you and I deserved.

(7) We overcome the crippling power of shame when the Holy Spirit strengthens us to trust and experience the reality of God’s immeasurable love for us in Christ.

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:14-21).

The Holy Spirit is directly responsible for making possible our experience of feeling and rejoicing in the love God has for us in Christ.

(8) We break free from shame when the Holy Spirit awakens us to the glorious and majestic truth that we are truly the children of God.

“For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:15-16).

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God” (Gal. 4:4-7).

Notice that in both texts the experiential, felt assurance of our adoption as the children of God is the direct result of the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

(9) We win in the war against shame when, by the power of the Spirit, we turn our hearts to the unbreakable promise of Christ that nothing can separate us from his love.

“But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:12b-14).

Here we see that Paul overcomes the tendency to be ashamed by trusting the truth of God’s promise that he will guard him. It is “by the Holy Spirit” that we find the strength to guard the good deposit of the gospel. “The battle against misplaced shame,” says Piper, “is the battle against unbelief in the promises of God.” As Paul elsewhere says, “everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11).

(10) When we are made to feel shame for something that we didn’t do, we conquer its power by entrusting our souls and eternal welfare to the truth and justice of God.

“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God” (1 Cor. 4:3-5).

In other words, explains Piper, “for all the evil and deceitful judgment and criticism that others may use to heap on us a shame that is not ours to bear, and for all the distress and spiritual warfare it brings, the promise stands sure that they will not succeed in the end. All the children of God will be vindicated. The truth will be known. And no one who banks his hope on the promises of God will be put to shame.”

 

]]>
The Compassion of Christ and Healing https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/the-compassion-of-christ-and-healing https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/the-compassion-of-christ-and-healing#comments Fri, 07 Oct 2022 02:00:00 -0500 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/the-compassion-of-christ-and-healing Often times people argue that the primary (if not sole) purpose for the healing ministry of Jesus was to confirm his messianic identity and deity. Others suggest that it was also designed to signal and confirm the in-breaking of the kingdom of God and to provide us with a foretaste of the blessings that will be ours when the kingdom is consummated upon Christ’s return.

Whereas there is truth in both of the above noted explanations, we must also consider the expressly stated purpose of Jesus himself. On several occasions he healed because he had compassion on those who were afflicted. Some are then prompted to ask, “Should we conclude from the scarcity of healing today that God is less compassionate than he was in the first century?”

The answer of course is No. God is as compassionate today as he was then and no more or less compassionate now than he will be in the age to come. But whether or not he manifests that compassion equally at all times is subject both to his secret and sovereign purpose as well as the depth of zeal and faith with which his people pray.

Ultimately, of course, our inability to fully understand why God does or does not heal can never justify diminishing commitment in praying for the sick. Confusion is never an excuse for disobedience. Neither is the lack of experience.

Similarly, God is always gracious. But he does not always save the souls to whom we witness or for whom we pray. But still we must pray. If more souls should be saved in one generation of the church than another, we must not think that God has diminished in his love for the lost or that we now have an excuse not to pray with the same fervency and frequency as we did those in times of great spiritual harvest.

There are actually a number of reasons why God doesn’t always heal the sick. Although we must be careful in giving more weight to the role of faith than does the NT itself, we also must be willing to acknowledge that occasionally healing does not occur because of the absence of that sort of faith that God delights to honor (see Matt. 9:22, 28-29; 15:28; Mark 2:5,11; 5:34; 9:17-24; Mark 10:52; Luke 17:19; Acts 3:16; 14:8-10; James 5:14-16).

Sometimes healing does not occur because of the presence of sin for which there has been no confession or repentance. James 5:15-16 clearly instructs us to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another that we may be healed. Again, please do not conclude from this that each time a person isn't healed it is because he/she has committed some specific sin of which they have refused to repent. But in some cases (not necessarily all) this is undoubtedly true. We have to reckon with the possibility that lingering bitterness, anger, resentment, envy, or unforgiveness in our hearts and our refusal to confess and repent of such sins is the reason why God withholds physical healing from our bodies.

Although it sounds odd to many at first hearing, healing may not happen because the sick don't want it to happen. Jesus asked the paralyzed man in John 5:6, “Do you want to be healed?”

Some people who suffer from a chronic affliction become accustomed to their illness and to the pattern of life it requires. Their identity is to a large extent wrapped up in their physical disability. I realize that sounds strange to those of us who enjoy robust health. But I’ve actually known a handful of folk who in a very real sense enjoy their dependence on others and the special attention it brings them. Then, of course, in some instances people don't want the responsibilities that would come with being healthy. To their way of thinking, it’s easier (and perhaps even more profitable) to remain the object of someone else’s beneficence and good will than it would be to be healthy and thus expected to get a job and show up 9-5 on a daily basis.

We must also consider the principle articulated in James 4:2, where we are told that “you do not have, because you do not ask.” The simple fact is that some are not healed because they do not pray. Perhaps they pray once or twice, and then allow discouragement to paralyze their petitions. Prayer for healing often must be prolonged, sustained, persevering, and combined with fasting.

Some are not healed because the demonic cause of the affliction has not been addressed. I am not suggesting that all physical disease is demonically induced. But we must also consider the case of the woman in Luke 13 “who had a disabling spirit [or, a spirit of infirmity] for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself” (Luke 13:11). According to Jesus, “Satan” had “bound” her (Luke 13:16; see also Acts 10:38).

We must also consider the mystery of divine providence. There are undoubtedly times and seasons in the purposes of God during which his healing power is withdrawn or at least largely diminished. God may have any number of reasons for this to which we are not privy, whether to discipline a wayward and rebellious church or to create a greater desperation for his power or to wean us off excessive dependence on physical comfort and convenience or any number of other possibilities. If this leaves you confused, that's why it's called a mystery!

Often times there are dimensions of spiritual growth and moral development and increase in the knowledge of God in us that he desires more than our physical health, experiences that in his wisdom God has determined can only be attained by means of or in the midst of or in response to less than perfect physical health. In other words, healing the sick is a good thing (and we should never cease to pray for it), but often there is a better thing that can only be attained by means of physical weakness.

Let me personalize this principle. If I believe Romans 8:28, that God sovereignly orchestrates all events in my life for my ultimate spiritual good (and preeminently for his ultimate glory), I can only conclude that, all things being equal, if I'm not healed it is because God values something in me greater than my physical comfort and health that he, in his infinite wisdom and kindness, knows can only be attained by means of my physical affliction and the lessons of submission, dependency, and trust in God that I learn from it.

Matthew tells us that when Jesus saw the great multitude he had compassion for them and healed their sick (14:14). My question is simple. As the exalted Son of God looks down from the right hand of the Majesty on High, does he feel differently toward the sick and infirm? Is he now less compassionate or, dare I say, apathetic toward their pain?

No one denies that healing now is less frequent than it was then. But what shall be our response to this? Personally, I am not content to deal with this problem by minimizing, if not denying, compassion as a preeminent factor in why God heals the sick. I would rather ground my confidence in the immutability of God's character, lay prayerful hands on the sick with the unfailing assurance that whereas the church may have changed, God has not, and live with the mystery of unanswered prayer until Jesus returns.

]]>
Often times people argue that the primary (if not sole) purpose for the healing ministry of Jesus was to confirm his messianic identity and deity. Others suggest that it was also designed to signal and confirm the in-breaking of the kingdom of God and to provide us with a foretaste of the blessings that will be ours when the kingdom is consummated upon Christ’s return.

Whereas there is truth in both of the above noted explanations, we must also consider the expressly stated purpose of Jesus himself. On several occasions he healed because he had compassion on those who were afflicted. Some are then prompted to ask, “Should we conclude from the scarcity of healing today that God is less compassionate than he was in the first century?”

The answer of course is No. God is as compassionate today as he was then and no more or less compassionate now than he will be in the age to come. But whether or not he manifests that compassion equally at all times is subject both to his secret and sovereign purpose as well as the depth of zeal and faith with which his people pray.

Ultimately, of course, our inability to fully understand why God does or does not heal can never justify diminishing commitment in praying for the sick. Confusion is never an excuse for disobedience. Neither is the lack of experience.

Similarly, God is always gracious. But he does not always save the souls to whom we witness or for whom we pray. But still we must pray. If more souls should be saved in one generation of the church than another, we must not think that God has diminished in his love for the lost or that we now have an excuse not to pray with the same fervency and frequency as we did those in times of great spiritual harvest.

There are actually a number of reasons why God doesn’t always heal the sick. Although we must be careful in giving more weight to the role of faith than does the NT itself, we also must be willing to acknowledge that occasionally healing does not occur because of the absence of that sort of faith that God delights to honor (see Matt. 9:22, 28-29; 15:28; Mark 2:5,11; 5:34; 9:17-24; Mark 10:52; Luke 17:19; Acts 3:16; 14:8-10; James 5:14-16).

Sometimes healing does not occur because of the presence of sin for which there has been no confession or repentance. James 5:15-16 clearly instructs us to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another that we may be healed. Again, please do not conclude from this that each time a person isn't healed it is because he/she has committed some specific sin of which they have refused to repent. But in some cases (not necessarily all) this is undoubtedly true. We have to reckon with the possibility that lingering bitterness, anger, resentment, envy, or unforgiveness in our hearts and our refusal to confess and repent of such sins is the reason why God withholds physical healing from our bodies.

Although it sounds odd to many at first hearing, healing may not happen because the sick don't want it to happen. Jesus asked the paralyzed man in John 5:6, “Do you want to be healed?”

Some people who suffer from a chronic affliction become accustomed to their illness and to the pattern of life it requires. Their identity is to a large extent wrapped up in their physical disability. I realize that sounds strange to those of us who enjoy robust health. But I’ve actually known a handful of folk who in a very real sense enjoy their dependence on others and the special attention it brings them. Then, of course, in some instances people don't want the responsibilities that would come with being healthy. To their way of thinking, it’s easier (and perhaps even more profitable) to remain the object of someone else’s beneficence and good will than it would be to be healthy and thus expected to get a job and show up 9-5 on a daily basis.

We must also consider the principle articulated in James 4:2, where we are told that “you do not have, because you do not ask.” The simple fact is that some are not healed because they do not pray. Perhaps they pray once or twice, and then allow discouragement to paralyze their petitions. Prayer for healing often must be prolonged, sustained, persevering, and combined with fasting.

Some are not healed because the demonic cause of the affliction has not been addressed. I am not suggesting that all physical disease is demonically induced. But we must also consider the case of the woman in Luke 13 “who had a disabling spirit [or, a spirit of infirmity] for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself” (Luke 13:11). According to Jesus, “Satan” had “bound” her (Luke 13:16; see also Acts 10:38).

We must also consider the mystery of divine providence. There are undoubtedly times and seasons in the purposes of God during which his healing power is withdrawn or at least largely diminished. God may have any number of reasons for this to which we are not privy, whether to discipline a wayward and rebellious church or to create a greater desperation for his power or to wean us off excessive dependence on physical comfort and convenience or any number of other possibilities. If this leaves you confused, that's why it's called a mystery!

Often times there are dimensions of spiritual growth and moral development and increase in the knowledge of God in us that he desires more than our physical health, experiences that in his wisdom God has determined can only be attained by means of or in the midst of or in response to less than perfect physical health. In other words, healing the sick is a good thing (and we should never cease to pray for it), but often there is a better thing that can only be attained by means of physical weakness.

Let me personalize this principle. If I believe Romans 8:28, that God sovereignly orchestrates all events in my life for my ultimate spiritual good (and preeminently for his ultimate glory), I can only conclude that, all things being equal, if I'm not healed it is because God values something in me greater than my physical comfort and health that he, in his infinite wisdom and kindness, knows can only be attained by means of my physical affliction and the lessons of submission, dependency, and trust in God that I learn from it.

Matthew tells us that when Jesus saw the great multitude he had compassion for them and healed their sick (14:14). My question is simple. As the exalted Son of God looks down from the right hand of the Majesty on High, does he feel differently toward the sick and infirm? Is he now less compassionate or, dare I say, apathetic toward their pain?

No one denies that healing now is less frequent than it was then. But what shall be our response to this? Personally, I am not content to deal with this problem by minimizing, if not denying, compassion as a preeminent factor in why God heals the sick. I would rather ground my confidence in the immutability of God's character, lay prayerful hands on the sick with the unfailing assurance that whereas the church may have changed, God has not, and live with the mystery of unanswered prayer until Jesus returns.

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about the Jealousy of God https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-jealousy-of-god https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-jealousy-of-god#comments Fri, 07 Oct 2022 02:00:00 -0500 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-jealousy-of-god We don’t typically understand jealousy as a good thing. How, then, can I dare suggest that God is characterized by jealousy? To many, that sounds virtually blasphemous. So let’s take a close look at this oft-neglected attribute of God.

(1) We need to understand from the start that jealousy can be both good and bad. Jealousy can be driven or motivated both by holy and righteous motives as well as unholy and unrighteous ones. Jealousy can be a sign of both sinful weakness and wounded pride, on the one hand, and genuine love, on the other. Jealously is sometimes the expression of an excessively possessive spirit, and at other times the fruit of care and concern for the welfare of the one who is loved. Jealousy is often the result of deep insecurity in a person’s soul, but also a reflection of commitment and devotion to the person that you love. As we will see, the jealousy that burns within the heart of God is good and godly and holy.

(2) God is an emotional being. He experiences within the depths of his being genuine affections. The Bible is replete with references to divine joy, mercy, love, compassion, kindness, hatred, just to mention a few. But what of jealousy? The fact that we balk at the suggestion that God might be truly jealous indicates that we have a weak, insipid view of the divine nature. At the very core of his being, in the center of his personality is an inextinguishable blaze of immeasurable love called jealousy. Several texts confirm this. For example:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exod. 20:4-6).

“For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (Exod. 34:14).

“Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy” (Num. 25:11).

“For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God” (Deut. 4:24).

“You shall not go after other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who are around you – for the Lord your God in your midst is a jealous God – lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth” (Deut. 6:14-15; cf. 29:20)

“They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger” (Deut. 32:16; cf. 32:21).

"But Joshua said to the people, 'You are not able to serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God . . . " (Joshua 24:19).

"For they provoked him to anger with their high places; they moved him to jealousy with their idols"(Ps. 78:58).

"Therefore thus says the Lord God, 'Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel, and I will be jealous for my holy name" (Ezek. 39:25).

(3) An especially instructive text is the following passage from Ezekiel.

“He put out the form of a hand and took me by a lock of my head, and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the gateway of the inner court that faces north, where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provokes to jealousy” (Ezekiel 8:3).

The Israelites had placed an idol of some sort at the entrance to the north gate of the temple. Literally, it reads “the jealousy that provokes jealousy”, a reference to the passion that this object ignites in God's heart. “Look,” says the Lord, “look at that abominable statue which draws away the hearts of my people. They are loving it, not me. They are bowing down to it, not me. I am red hot with jealousy, for I will not stand for anything or anyone to come between me and the devotion of my bride!”

(4) Is it a serious matter to attend both a pagan feast devoted to idolatry and the Lord’s Supper? Paul comes straight to the point: “Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor. 10:22).

For people to sit both at the table of demons and the table of the Lord, i.e., for people to walk in idolatry, whatever form it might take, and then to partake of the Lord's Supper, will only serve to stoke the fires of jealousy in God's already burning heart (see also 1 Kings 14:22; Ezek. 16:38,42; 23:25; 36:5ff; 38:19; Joel 2:18; Nahum 1:2; Zeph. 1:18; 3:8; Zech. 1:14; 8:2; Ps. 79:5).

(5) To say that God is jealous certainly does not mean that he is suspicious because of some insecurity in his heart. This kind of jealousy is the result of ignorance and mistrust. Such is surely not true of God.

(6) To say that God is jealous does not mean he is wrongfully envious of the success of others. Jealousy that is sinful is most often the product of anxiety and bitterness and fear. But surely none of this could be true of God. Sinful jealousy is the sort that longs to possess and control what does not properly belong to oneself; it is demanding and cares little for the supposed object of its love.

But as J. I. Packer explains, “God's jealousy is not a compound of frustration, envy, and spite, as human jealousy so often is, but appears instead as a . . . praiseworthy zeal to preserve something supremely precious” (Knowing God, 153). Divine jealousy is thus a zeal to protect a love relationship or to avenge it when it is broken.

(7) Jealousy in God is that passionate energy by which he is provoked and stirred and moved to take action against whatever or whoever stands in the way of his enjoyment of what he loves and desires. The intensity of God's anger at threats to this relationship is directly proportionate to the depths of his love.

This is no momentary or sporadic or infrequent or occasional burst of anger or minor irritation in the heart of God. This is no passing twinge in God's mind. This is the incessant, intensely persistent burning in the heart of the infinitely powerful, uncreated God. In the ancient near east, the word for “jealousy” literally meant to become intensely red, a reference to the effects of anger on one's facial complexion. Jealousy in God is not a “green-eyed monster” but a “red-faced lover” who will brook no rivals in his relationship with his people.

(8) For what, then, is God jealous? God is most jealous for his own glory, fame, and honor! God desires above all else that his name be preserved and promoted and he will act quickly and powerfully to vindicate his glory. “The jealousy of Yahweh,” writes Ray Ortlund, “is his profoundly intense drive within to protect the interests of his own glory (Ex. 20:4-6; Ezek. 39:25), for he 'will admit no derogation from his majesty’” (Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology, 29, n. 15).

God is jealous for the supremacy of his name in this world, in this land, in your home, in your life, and in our church. It isn't your name that he is jealous to protect, but his own. Your reputation is not first on God's agenda. His is.

Consider the incredible events that unfolded in the life of Nebuchadnezzar as told in Daniel 4. To put it bluntly, he was reduced to live as a cow for seven years. Why, for heaven’s sake? Because he provoked God to jealousy. He claimed glory and responsibility for what God alone had done. His judgment would last until he came to recognize “that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (4:32; cf. 4:37).

Worse still was the judgment that came upon King Herod, although the reason for it was the same as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar. We read in Acts 12:21-23: “Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.” God's jealousy for the glory of his name is so intense that he may well send worms to gnaw and consume the flesh of anyone who dares try to keep a little for himself!

(9) God is also jealous for the devotion, wholeheartedness, loyalty, and love of his bride, his people. Just as a husband cannot be indulgent of adultery in his wife, so also God cannot and will not endure infidelity in us. What would we think of a man or woman who does not experience jealous feelings when another person approaches his/her spouse and threatens to win their affection? We would regard such a person as deficient in moral character and lacking in true love.

If I were to receive a phone call or letter with news that a man had been seen delivering flowers to my wife, expensive gifts, or serenading her outside our bedroom window, and I did nothing and felt nothing, would this not be a reflection on my lack of character, lack of love, and lack of zeal for the welfare of my wife and my relationship with her?

(10) But does not predicating jealousy of God expose him to the charge of selfishness? It seems so self-centered of him to destroy anything that might hinder our love for him and devotion to him. Yes, I know it seems that way, but you must remember that God is the only Being for whom jealous passion for his own glory is a supreme act of love (I owe this observation to John Piper).

If God is going to love you he must give you the best, most beautiful, and most satisfying thing in all the universe. He must freely give you the greatest treasure, the most exquisite prize, the most enduring and enjoyable thing in all the universe. And what might that be? Himself, of course! But that is only half the story. God must then work in your heart so that you experience him as the preeminent treasure that he is. He must awaken in your soul satisfaction in himself. He must open your eyes to his beauty and lead you to taste and savor the sweetness of knowing him and loving him and enjoying him.

Does that sound like God is pursuing his own glory and his own praise? Yes. But it also sounds like God is loving you passionately and powerfully. It could not be otherwise unless there is something other than God that is better than God with which he can satisfy your soul. It could not be otherwise unless there is something other than God with which he might captivate your heart and fascinate your mind and with which he might bring you into unending joy and delight and peace and happiness. But there is no such thing!

That is why it is true of God alone that for him to pursue his own glory and praise is for him to love and bless you. God’s jealous pursuit of his own glory and fame is the most loving thing he could ever do for you. God’s jealous passion for the undivided loyalty and praise of your heart is the preeminent expression of his love for sinful men and women like you and me. For you to deny that, is to say that there is something or someone or an experience of some sort that can satisfy and enthrall your soul more than God can. And that is blasphemy!

]]>
We don’t typically understand jealousy as a good thing. How, then, can I dare suggest that God is characterized by jealousy? To many, that sounds virtually blasphemous. So let’s take a close look at this oft-neglected attribute of God.

(1) We need to understand from the start that jealousy can be both good and bad. Jealousy can be driven or motivated both by holy and righteous motives as well as unholy and unrighteous ones. Jealousy can be a sign of both sinful weakness and wounded pride, on the one hand, and genuine love, on the other. Jealously is sometimes the expression of an excessively possessive spirit, and at other times the fruit of care and concern for the welfare of the one who is loved. Jealousy is often the result of deep insecurity in a person’s soul, but also a reflection of commitment and devotion to the person that you love. As we will see, the jealousy that burns within the heart of God is good and godly and holy.

(2) God is an emotional being. He experiences within the depths of his being genuine affections. The Bible is replete with references to divine joy, mercy, love, compassion, kindness, hatred, just to mention a few. But what of jealousy? The fact that we balk at the suggestion that God might be truly jealous indicates that we have a weak, insipid view of the divine nature. At the very core of his being, in the center of his personality is an inextinguishable blaze of immeasurable love called jealousy. Several texts confirm this. For example:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exod. 20:4-6).

“For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (Exod. 34:14).

“Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy” (Num. 25:11).

“For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God” (Deut. 4:24).

“You shall not go after other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who are around you – for the Lord your God in your midst is a jealous God – lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth” (Deut. 6:14-15; cf. 29:20)

“They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger” (Deut. 32:16; cf. 32:21).

"But Joshua said to the people, 'You are not able to serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God . . . " (Joshua 24:19).

"For they provoked him to anger with their high places; they moved him to jealousy with their idols"(Ps. 78:58).

"Therefore thus says the Lord God, 'Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel, and I will be jealous for my holy name" (Ezek. 39:25).

(3) An especially instructive text is the following passage from Ezekiel.

“He put out the form of a hand and took me by a lock of my head, and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the gateway of the inner court that faces north, where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provokes to jealousy” (Ezekiel 8:3).

The Israelites had placed an idol of some sort at the entrance to the north gate of the temple. Literally, it reads “the jealousy that provokes jealousy”, a reference to the passion that this object ignites in God's heart. “Look,” says the Lord, “look at that abominable statue which draws away the hearts of my people. They are loving it, not me. They are bowing down to it, not me. I am red hot with jealousy, for I will not stand for anything or anyone to come between me and the devotion of my bride!”

(4) Is it a serious matter to attend both a pagan feast devoted to idolatry and the Lord’s Supper? Paul comes straight to the point: “Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor. 10:22).

For people to sit both at the table of demons and the table of the Lord, i.e., for people to walk in idolatry, whatever form it might take, and then to partake of the Lord's Supper, will only serve to stoke the fires of jealousy in God's already burning heart (see also 1 Kings 14:22; Ezek. 16:38,42; 23:25; 36:5ff; 38:19; Joel 2:18; Nahum 1:2; Zeph. 1:18; 3:8; Zech. 1:14; 8:2; Ps. 79:5).

(5) To say that God is jealous certainly does not mean that he is suspicious because of some insecurity in his heart. This kind of jealousy is the result of ignorance and mistrust. Such is surely not true of God.

(6) To say that God is jealous does not mean he is wrongfully envious of the success of others. Jealousy that is sinful is most often the product of anxiety and bitterness and fear. But surely none of this could be true of God. Sinful jealousy is the sort that longs to possess and control what does not properly belong to oneself; it is demanding and cares little for the supposed object of its love.

But as J. I. Packer explains, “God's jealousy is not a compound of frustration, envy, and spite, as human jealousy so often is, but appears instead as a . . . praiseworthy zeal to preserve something supremely precious” (Knowing God, 153). Divine jealousy is thus a zeal to protect a love relationship or to avenge it when it is broken.

(7) Jealousy in God is that passionate energy by which he is provoked and stirred and moved to take action against whatever or whoever stands in the way of his enjoyment of what he loves and desires. The intensity of God's anger at threats to this relationship is directly proportionate to the depths of his love.

This is no momentary or sporadic or infrequent or occasional burst of anger or minor irritation in the heart of God. This is no passing twinge in God's mind. This is the incessant, intensely persistent burning in the heart of the infinitely powerful, uncreated God. In the ancient near east, the word for “jealousy” literally meant to become intensely red, a reference to the effects of anger on one's facial complexion. Jealousy in God is not a “green-eyed monster” but a “red-faced lover” who will brook no rivals in his relationship with his people.

(8) For what, then, is God jealous? God is most jealous for his own glory, fame, and honor! God desires above all else that his name be preserved and promoted and he will act quickly and powerfully to vindicate his glory. “The jealousy of Yahweh,” writes Ray Ortlund, “is his profoundly intense drive within to protect the interests of his own glory (Ex. 20:4-6; Ezek. 39:25), for he 'will admit no derogation from his majesty’” (Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology, 29, n. 15).

God is jealous for the supremacy of his name in this world, in this land, in your home, in your life, and in our church. It isn't your name that he is jealous to protect, but his own. Your reputation is not first on God's agenda. His is.

Consider the incredible events that unfolded in the life of Nebuchadnezzar as told in Daniel 4. To put it bluntly, he was reduced to live as a cow for seven years. Why, for heaven’s sake? Because he provoked God to jealousy. He claimed glory and responsibility for what God alone had done. His judgment would last until he came to recognize “that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (4:32; cf. 4:37).

Worse still was the judgment that came upon King Herod, although the reason for it was the same as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar. We read in Acts 12:21-23: “Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.” God's jealousy for the glory of his name is so intense that he may well send worms to gnaw and consume the flesh of anyone who dares try to keep a little for himself!

(9) God is also jealous for the devotion, wholeheartedness, loyalty, and love of his bride, his people. Just as a husband cannot be indulgent of adultery in his wife, so also God cannot and will not endure infidelity in us. What would we think of a man or woman who does not experience jealous feelings when another person approaches his/her spouse and threatens to win their affection? We would regard such a person as deficient in moral character and lacking in true love.

If I were to receive a phone call or letter with news that a man had been seen delivering flowers to my wife, expensive gifts, or serenading her outside our bedroom window, and I did nothing and felt nothing, would this not be a reflection on my lack of character, lack of love, and lack of zeal for the welfare of my wife and my relationship with her?

(10) But does not predicating jealousy of God expose him to the charge of selfishness? It seems so self-centered of him to destroy anything that might hinder our love for him and devotion to him. Yes, I know it seems that way, but you must remember that God is the only Being for whom jealous passion for his own glory is a supreme act of love (I owe this observation to John Piper).

If God is going to love you he must give you the best, most beautiful, and most satisfying thing in all the universe. He must freely give you the greatest treasure, the most exquisite prize, the most enduring and enjoyable thing in all the universe. And what might that be? Himself, of course! But that is only half the story. God must then work in your heart so that you experience him as the preeminent treasure that he is. He must awaken in your soul satisfaction in himself. He must open your eyes to his beauty and lead you to taste and savor the sweetness of knowing him and loving him and enjoying him.

Does that sound like God is pursuing his own glory and his own praise? Yes. But it also sounds like God is loving you passionately and powerfully. It could not be otherwise unless there is something other than God that is better than God with which he can satisfy your soul. It could not be otherwise unless there is something other than God with which he might captivate your heart and fascinate your mind and with which he might bring you into unending joy and delight and peace and happiness. But there is no such thing!

That is why it is true of God alone that for him to pursue his own glory and praise is for him to love and bless you. God’s jealous pursuit of his own glory and fame is the most loving thing he could ever do for you. God’s jealous passion for the undivided loyalty and praise of your heart is the preeminent expression of his love for sinful men and women like you and me. For you to deny that, is to say that there is something or someone or an experience of some sort that can satisfy and enthrall your soul more than God can. And that is blasphemy!

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about the Nicolaitans https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-nicolaitans https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-nicolaitans#comments Fri, 07 Oct 2022 02:00:00 -0500 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-nicolaitans Last week I wrote about the Montanists and probably caused many of you to scratch your heads wondering, “Who in the world are the Montanists?” Today we turn our attention to another odd group known as the Nicolaitans. There is at least one profound difference between the two: the Montanists were most likely genuine believers in Jesus; the Nicolaitans were most assuredly not.

(1) The Nicolaitans are mentioned by name twice in the NT, both in the book of Revelation. According to Revelation 2:6, Jesus commends the Christians at Ephesus for “hating” the “works of the Nicolaitans.” Yes, Jesus does “hate” certain things, and so should we. They are mentioned again in Revelation 2:15 in the letter to the church in Pergamum.

(2) Early tradition among the church fathers (most notably Irenaeus) identifies them with Nicolas, the proselyte of Antioch who was appointed one of the first seven deacons (servants) in Acts 6:5. This, however, is highly unlikely.

(3) The name itself may be derived from two words which mean “victory” (nikos) and “people” (laos), thus the idea of their consumption or overpowering of the people. They were evidently licentious and antinomian and advocated an unhealthy compromise with pagan society and the idolatrous culture of Ephesus.

(4) The “teaching” of the Nicolaitans should probably be identified with the “teaching” of Balaam (2:14-15). The similarity of language also suggests that Jezebel and her followers (2:20-24) constituted a group of Nicolaitans in Thyatira. They are all said to be guilty of enticing God’s people “to eat things sacrificed to idols” and “to commit acts of immorality” (2:14-15,20). In Revelation, to “fornicate” (porneuo) and its cognates usually are metaphorical for spiritual apostasy and idol worship (14:8; 17:1,2,4,5,15,16; 18:3,9; 19:2). When these words are used literally, they are part of vice lists (9:21; 21:8; 22:15).

(5) The Ephesian believers, however, were not duped. Nor were they so naïve as to believe that Christian charity can tolerate such false teaching. Note also the contrast: they “bear” trials and tribulations for Christ’s sake (v. 3) but they cannot “bear” the company of these evil men (vv. 2,6). They endure persecution, but not perversion.

(6) There are many lessons here, but one in particular stands out: Jesus hates moral and theological compromise. Any appeal to grace to justify sin is repugnant to our Lord. Any attempt to rationalize immorality by citing the “liberty” we have in Christ is abhorrent to him and must be to us. True Christian love is never expressed by the tolerance of wickedness, whether it be a matter of what one believes or how one behaves.

(7) The presence and influence of the Nicolaitans in Pergamum should be noted in detail. Here is what Jesus said to them:

“But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth” (Rev. 2:14-16).

There was a difference in the response to the Nicolaitans in these two congregations. The Ephesians “hated” the work of the Nicolaitans and refused to tolerate their pernicious behavior (Rev. 2:6). The church in Pergamum, on the other hand, had welcomed them into the fellowship of the church and given them freedom to propagate their destructive ways.

(8) There’s no indication these false teachers had openly denied the “name” to which the others at Pergamum held fast (v. 13). In other words, I doubt if the error of the Nicolaitans was a denial of the Incarnation of Christ, his propitiatory work on the cross, or his bodily resurrection. Rather, as noted above, they were guilty of turning the grace of God into licentiousness.

How serious was their presence in the church at Pergamum? Serious enough to provoke Jesus to say: “I have a few things against you” (Rev. 2:14a)! That ought to alert us to the depths of this problem. He describes them as holding to “the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:14-15).

We read of Balaam in Numbers 22-24. What he was to the children of Israel in the OT, the Nicolaitans were to the church of Jesus Christ in the New. Balaam is a prototype of those who promote compromise with the world in idolatry and immorality (see also Jude 11 and 2 Peter 2:15). The Nicolaitans had dared to insinuate that freedom in Christ granted them a blank check to sin. The fault of believers in Pergamum was not so much that they had followed this pernicious teaching but that they had allowed it to be vocalized in the congregation. This matter of indifference to the licentiousness of the Nicolaitans was of grave concern to the risen Lord.

(9) What is the precise nature of their sin? They put a stumbling block in the way of God’s people “so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality” (v. 14). The former probably refers to eating food sacrificed to idols in the context of idolatrous worship. Perhaps, then, the Nicolaitans were advocating, in the name of Christian freedom, participation in the worship service both of the local church and the local pagan temple (a similar problem existed at Corinth; see 1 Corinthians 10:14-22). They evidently weren’t in the least bothered by such compromise.

As noted above, often in the OT spiritual idolatry was described metaphorically in terms of prostitution and sexual immorality (see Jeremiah 3:2; 13:27; Ezekiel 16:15-58; 23:1-49; 43:7; Hosea 5:4; 6:10). In Revelation, to “fornicate” (porneuo) and its cognates usually are metaphorical for spiritual apostasy and idol worship (14:8; 17:1,2,4,5,15,16; 18:3,9; 19:2).

However, we can’t dismiss the possibility that the Nicolaitans were teaching that forgiveness of sin and their new-found freedom in Christ have now released them from what they regarded as “slavish obedience” to rules and regulations concerning sexual conduct. How tragic that today we still hear such arguments in the defense of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality.

(10) Here is how serious Jesus regards the sin of the Nicolaitans and anyone’s tolerance of their presence in the church: “Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth” (Rev. 2:16).

“Recognize and confess,” says Jesus, “that you are doing no one a favor by overlooking and allowing such sin in your midst! Confronting the Nicolaitans may be uncomfortable for you, even painful, but not nearly as painful as the judgment they will suffer if they remain in their sin!” This call to repentance may also include the ultimate expulsion from the church of the Nicolaitans should they choose not to respond favorably.

Notice also that Jesus says, “I will come to you” soon, but will “war against them”. The faithful at Pergamum aren’t off the hook. If they don’t repent Jesus will bring discipline against them (in precisely what form, we aren’t told). But the Nicolaitans will be the focus of judgment. It is against “them” that Jesus will make “war”. Such language suggests that their lack of repentance would be evidence of a lack of saving faith. Their persistent licentiousness and morally compromising behavior undermine their claim to know Jesus in a saving way.

The Christians in Pergamum had sacrificed the ethical purity of their congregation on the altar of “love” and for the sake of some nebulous “peace” they feared to lose. Purity often comes at an extremely high price. But we must be prepared to pay it. Confrontation is never pleasant, but it often reaps a bountiful harvest. By all means, pursue love, but not at the expense of truth or in such a way that overt sin is left to fester and spread in the body of Christ.

]]>
Last week I wrote about the Montanists and probably caused many of you to scratch your heads wondering, “Who in the world are the Montanists?” Today we turn our attention to another odd group known as the Nicolaitans. There is at least one profound difference between the two: the Montanists were most likely genuine believers in Jesus; the Nicolaitans were most assuredly not.

(1) The Nicolaitans are mentioned by name twice in the NT, both in the book of Revelation. According to Revelation 2:6, Jesus commends the Christians at Ephesus for “hating” the “works of the Nicolaitans.” Yes, Jesus does “hate” certain things, and so should we. They are mentioned again in Revelation 2:15 in the letter to the church in Pergamum.

(2) Early tradition among the church fathers (most notably Irenaeus) identifies them with Nicolas, the proselyte of Antioch who was appointed one of the first seven deacons (servants) in Acts 6:5. This, however, is highly unlikely.

(3) The name itself may be derived from two words which mean “victory” (nikos) and “people” (laos), thus the idea of their consumption or overpowering of the people. They were evidently licentious and antinomian and advocated an unhealthy compromise with pagan society and the idolatrous culture of Ephesus.

(4) The “teaching” of the Nicolaitans should probably be identified with the “teaching” of Balaam (2:14-15). The similarity of language also suggests that Jezebel and her followers (2:20-24) constituted a group of Nicolaitans in Thyatira. They are all said to be guilty of enticing God’s people “to eat things sacrificed to idols” and “to commit acts of immorality” (2:14-15,20). In Revelation, to “fornicate” (porneuo) and its cognates usually are metaphorical for spiritual apostasy and idol worship (14:8; 17:1,2,4,5,15,16; 18:3,9; 19:2). When these words are used literally, they are part of vice lists (9:21; 21:8; 22:15).

(5) The Ephesian believers, however, were not duped. Nor were they so naïve as to believe that Christian charity can tolerate such false teaching. Note also the contrast: they “bear” trials and tribulations for Christ’s sake (v. 3) but they cannot “bear” the company of these evil men (vv. 2,6). They endure persecution, but not perversion.

(6) There are many lessons here, but one in particular stands out: Jesus hates moral and theological compromise. Any appeal to grace to justify sin is repugnant to our Lord. Any attempt to rationalize immorality by citing the “liberty” we have in Christ is abhorrent to him and must be to us. True Christian love is never expressed by the tolerance of wickedness, whether it be a matter of what one believes or how one behaves.

(7) The presence and influence of the Nicolaitans in Pergamum should be noted in detail. Here is what Jesus said to them:

“But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth” (Rev. 2:14-16).

There was a difference in the response to the Nicolaitans in these two congregations. The Ephesians “hated” the work of the Nicolaitans and refused to tolerate their pernicious behavior (Rev. 2:6). The church in Pergamum, on the other hand, had welcomed them into the fellowship of the church and given them freedom to propagate their destructive ways.

(8) There’s no indication these false teachers had openly denied the “name” to which the others at Pergamum held fast (v. 13). In other words, I doubt if the error of the Nicolaitans was a denial of the Incarnation of Christ, his propitiatory work on the cross, or his bodily resurrection. Rather, as noted above, they were guilty of turning the grace of God into licentiousness.

How serious was their presence in the church at Pergamum? Serious enough to provoke Jesus to say: “I have a few things against you” (Rev. 2:14a)! That ought to alert us to the depths of this problem. He describes them as holding to “the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:14-15).

We read of Balaam in Numbers 22-24. What he was to the children of Israel in the OT, the Nicolaitans were to the church of Jesus Christ in the New. Balaam is a prototype of those who promote compromise with the world in idolatry and immorality (see also Jude 11 and 2 Peter 2:15). The Nicolaitans had dared to insinuate that freedom in Christ granted them a blank check to sin. The fault of believers in Pergamum was not so much that they had followed this pernicious teaching but that they had allowed it to be vocalized in the congregation. This matter of indifference to the licentiousness of the Nicolaitans was of grave concern to the risen Lord.

(9) What is the precise nature of their sin? They put a stumbling block in the way of God’s people “so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality” (v. 14). The former probably refers to eating food sacrificed to idols in the context of idolatrous worship. Perhaps, then, the Nicolaitans were advocating, in the name of Christian freedom, participation in the worship service both of the local church and the local pagan temple (a similar problem existed at Corinth; see 1 Corinthians 10:14-22). They evidently weren’t in the least bothered by such compromise.

As noted above, often in the OT spiritual idolatry was described metaphorically in terms of prostitution and sexual immorality (see Jeremiah 3:2; 13:27; Ezekiel 16:15-58; 23:1-49; 43:7; Hosea 5:4; 6:10). In Revelation, to “fornicate” (porneuo) and its cognates usually are metaphorical for spiritual apostasy and idol worship (14:8; 17:1,2,4,5,15,16; 18:3,9; 19:2).

However, we can’t dismiss the possibility that the Nicolaitans were teaching that forgiveness of sin and their new-found freedom in Christ have now released them from what they regarded as “slavish obedience” to rules and regulations concerning sexual conduct. How tragic that today we still hear such arguments in the defense of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality.

(10) Here is how serious Jesus regards the sin of the Nicolaitans and anyone’s tolerance of their presence in the church: “Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth” (Rev. 2:16).

“Recognize and confess,” says Jesus, “that you are doing no one a favor by overlooking and allowing such sin in your midst! Confronting the Nicolaitans may be uncomfortable for you, even painful, but not nearly as painful as the judgment they will suffer if they remain in their sin!” This call to repentance may also include the ultimate expulsion from the church of the Nicolaitans should they choose not to respond favorably.

Notice also that Jesus says, “I will come to you” soon, but will “war against them”. The faithful at Pergamum aren’t off the hook. If they don’t repent Jesus will bring discipline against them (in precisely what form, we aren’t told). But the Nicolaitans will be the focus of judgment. It is against “them” that Jesus will make “war”. Such language suggests that their lack of repentance would be evidence of a lack of saving faith. Their persistent licentiousness and morally compromising behavior undermine their claim to know Jesus in a saving way.

The Christians in Pergamum had sacrificed the ethical purity of their congregation on the altar of “love” and for the sake of some nebulous “peace” they feared to lose. Purity often comes at an extremely high price. But we must be prepared to pay it. Confrontation is never pleasant, but it often reaps a bountiful harvest. By all means, pursue love, but not at the expense of truth or in such a way that overt sin is left to fester and spread in the body of Christ.

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about the First Great Awakening / Second Phase (1740-42) https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-first-great-awakening---second-phase--1740-42- https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-first-great-awakening---second-phase--1740-42-#comments Fri, 07 Oct 2022 02:00:00 -0500 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-first-great-awakening---second-phase--1740-42- In a previous article I spoke of the first wave of the First Great Awakening, a revival that fell upon New England in 1734-36. Today we turn our attention to the second wave of the Spirit’s work and the events that can generally be dated 1740-42.

(1) Historians have typically traced the revival’s beginning to the visit to America of George Whitefield (1714-71), known as “The Grand Itinerant.” Whitefield arrived in the fall of 1740 and “set all New England aflame with a revival compared to which the Valley awakening of 1734-35 was but a brush fire” (C. C. Goen, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Jonathan Edwards, The Great Awakening [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 48).

After preaching to thousands all along the Atlantic coast, Whitefield arrived in Edwards' Northampton in mid-October. After one Sunday morning sermon in Edwards' church, Whitefield wrote in his diary that “Good Mr. Edwards wept during the whole time of exercise. The people were equally affected; and, in the afternoon, the power increased yet more” (Ibid., 49). Sarah Edwards was equally impressed. In a letter to her brother, the Rev. James Pierrepont of New Haven, she said:

“It is wonderful to see what a spell he casts over an audience by proclaiming the simplest truths of the Bible. I have seen upward of a thousand people hang on his words with breathless silence, broken only by an occasional half-suppressed sob. He impresses the ignorant, and not less the educated and refined . . . our mechanics shut up their shops, and the day-labourers throw down their tools to go and hear him preach, and few return unaffected. . . . Many, very many persons in Northampton date the beginning of new thoughts, new desires, new purposes and a new life, from the day they heard him preach of Christ” (Cited in Arnold A. Dallimore, George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century [Westchester: Crossway Books, 1990], 89-90).

Benjamin Franklin, although an unbeliever, regarded Whitefield to be his friend, and said this of his oratorical gift:

“He had a loud and clear voice, and articulated his words so perfectly that he might be heard and understood at a great distance, especially as his auditories observed the most perfect silence. . . . By hearing him often, I came to distinguish easily between sermons newly composed and those which he had often preached in the course of his travels. His delivery of the latter was so improved by frequent repetition, that every accent, every emphasis, every modulation of the voice, was so perfectly well turned and well placed, that, without being interested in the subject, one could not help being pleased with the discourse” (Gaustad, 29).

According to Goen, “by the time he passed from Connecticut into New York, his journal showed that he had spent 45 days, visited 40 towns, and delivered 97 sermons and exhortations” (49). Whitefield set sail for England on January 16, 1741, after 14 1/2 months of preaching in America. He returned for a brief visit in the fall of 1744.

(2) Whitefield was far from the only participant in this awakening. One must also mention Gilbert Tennent (1703-64), leader of the Presbyterian revival in the middle Colonies. Goen reports that “after Tennent passed through eastern Connecticut, emotional outbursts in time of worship became common. Preachers sometimes had to stop in mid-sermon, as 'weeping, sighs and sobs' mingled with cries of distress: 'Alas! I'm undone; I'm undone! O, my sins! How they prey upon my vitals! What will become of me? How shall I escape the damnation of hell, who have spent away a golden opportunity under Gospel light, in vanity?’” (51). Visions and trances, evidently, were commonplace. Chief among Tennent's messages was his belief that most ministers of the day were unconverted. Needless to say, this didn't fare well with the established clergy of New England!

(3) Yet another preacher, of a decidedly different disposition, was James Davenport (1716-57). Davenport was labeled an “enthusiast” and was in many ways responsible for those excesses that Edwards believed led to the end of the revival. The word “enthusiasm”, as Goen defines it, “is belief in God's immediate inspiration or possession, leading often to claims of divine authority” (62).

Davenport was at one point banned from speaking in Boston pulpits. In a printed declaration, fourteen Boston pastors censured him for leaning too much on “sudden Impulses,” rashly judging other ministers as unconverted, “going with his Friends singing thro’ the Streets and High-Ways,” and encouraging “private Brethren to pray and exhort.” They pronounced him “deeply tinctur’d with a Spirit of Enthusiasm” (cited by Thomas Kidd, The Great Awakening, 144).

Davenport was temporarily incarcerated by leading opponents of the revival on the assumption that he was mentally unstable. Although Edwards denounced his extremes, they became somewhat friendly following Davenport’s repentance and restoration to ministry. In late summer of 1744 Davenport issued his Confession and Retractions in which he acknowledged the fanaticism that had brought reproach on the revival. “On the whole,” notes Kidd, “it was a sincere but limited confession” (165).

(4) Opposition to the awakening was fierce and persistent. It was led by Charles Chauncy (1705-87), pastor of Boston's most influential church. Chauncy was the acknowledged leader of the "Old Lights", those who “vilified the whole revival as 'the effect of enthusiastic heat’” (63). Chauncy and his supporters typically preferred the time-honored traditions of the established order of religion in New England and opposed the new measures introduced by the revivalists. For them, conversion was principally a transformation in one’s intellectual convictions. The Christian life, therefore, together with any alleged encounter with the Spirit, must be reasonable, courteous, and not given to visible or vocal displays of emotion.

(5) Chauncy’s principal objections to the revival were published in September, 1743, in a work entitled, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England (Boston, 1743). Among other concerns, he cited the ill effects of itinerant ministry, especially among those not ordained to the task of preaching: “Besides creating jealousies and threatening prerogatives,” said Chauncy, “itineracy flaunted the Congregational theory of the ministerial office” (Gaustad, 70).

Chauncy was especially offended by what he perceived to be fanatical excess in the behavior of those who participated in the revival. True religion, said Chauncy, was primarily a matter of the mind, not the affections, and was characterized by self-control, cultural sophistication, and strict moral propriety. “The plain truth is [that] an enlightened mind, and not raised affections, ought always to be the guide of those who call themselves men; and this, in the affairs of religion, as well as other things” (cited by George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003], 281). One should not conclude from this that Edwards denigrated the mind, as is evident from a close analysis of Religious Affections. Marsden is also quick to point out that “as any perusal of Edwards’ sermons will confirm, Edwards’ exaltation of the affections was never at the expense of reason” (282).

(6) By the end of 1743, observes Gaustad, “all the principles, even most of the details, of criticism of the revival had been established. The Great Awakening was dead, although many were trying to force air into its lungs while others were still hacking at the corpse whenever possible” (79).

Numerous explanations for the diminishing influence of the revival have been suggested and Edwards had his own opinion. But Gaustad looks at what happened with the common sense of an historian:

“From our vantage point, no special perspicacity is required to conclude that the religious intensity of 1741 could not long be maintained. The dreadful concerns, the traumatic awakenings, the accelerated devotion -- these by their nature are of limited duration. The fever pitch must soon pass, else the patient dies . . . The ebb of this flood of revivalism would seem then to require no elaborate explanation: it declined simply because it had to, because society could not maintain itself in so great a disequilibrium” (61-62).

In his book, The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (Yale, 2007), Thomas Kidd points out that

“the controversy generated by the revivals was not just a disagreement over tactics and emotions, but over social order. To understand the deep anxieties generated by revivalism, it is important to remember how profoundly stratified eighteenth-century American society was. Land-owning white men ruled over their families, social inferiors, servants, and slaves. The elites integrated all these people into a vast system of dependencies. Authorities tried to suppress irregularities that might challenge their hegemony.

One can appreciate, then, why many might have viewed radical evangelicals as a threat to a well-ordered society. Radical evangelicals ordained untutored, and occasionally nonwhite, men as pastors. They sometimes allowed women and nonwhites to serve as deacons or even as elders. They led crowds of the poor, children, and nonwhites singing through the streets. They permitted Native Americans, African Americans, and women to exhort in mixed congregations, and they commended their words as worthy of white male attention. They endorsed the visionary, ecstatic experiences of the disenfranchised. They believed that individuals could have immediate assurance of salvation by the indwelling witness of the Spirit. They affirmed laypeople’s right to critique their pastors and founded new churches fully committed to radical revival. While to modern eyes, the radicals’ innovations may seem modest, they were for their time well-nigh revolutionary. In the revivals, the world seemed to turn upside down as those with the very least agency in eighteenth-century American felt the power of God surge in their bodies” (xv).

(7) Throughout the revivals and well into their aftermath Edwards consistently defended the work as being, in general, of divine origin. He disapproved of “enthusiasm”, subjectivism, and those excesses which Davenport insisted were sure signs of the Spirit’s work, but did not believe these peripheral problems invalidated the legitimacy of what God was doing.

In hopes of putting an end to what they deemed extravagant and “enthusiastic” behavior on the part of a number of students, the administration at Yale invited Edwards to deliver the commencement speech on September 10, 1741. What they heard was, instead, a spirited defense, in general, of the spiritual authenticity of the revival. Edwards later expanded on the work and published it that same year with a preface by the Rev. William Cooper of Boston. The abbreviated title of the work is: The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.

Edwards' design was “to show what are the true, certain, and distinguishing evidences of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may safely proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see in others” (87).

His approach was two-fold. He began with what we might call “Negative Signs,” or events, experiences, and religious phenomena from which we may conclude nothing. One is not free to deduce from the presence of these occurrences either that the Holy Spirit produced them or that he did not. They may well be the fruit of the Spirit’s activity, but then again may just as easily be the result of human weakness or emotional instability or the product of a manipulative evangelist. Scripture simply doesn’t provide explicit guidelines by which we may know.

Edwards then turned to those signs which are sure and certain evidence of the Spirit's work. He proceeds “to show positively what are the sure, distinguishing Scripture evidences and marks of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see among a people without danger of being misled” (109). Here Edwards bases his argument on principles gleaned from 1 John 4:1-6.

(8) Some, such as Davenport and his followers, claimed that they were recipients of the Spirit’s grace because they experienced a wide range of physical phenomena, whether shaking or shouting, laughing or weeping, or other overt displays of what they considered genuine religious zeal. Edwards himself was witness to folk who “lost their bodily strength” (i.e., fell to the ground), included among whom was his own wife, Sarah. Others testified to seeing visions, hearing voices, or otherwise feeling “impressions” on the “imagination”. At times, some would fall into a trance-like state and would remain therein for twenty-four hours or longer.

Were such physical manifestations and convulsions a sure sign of the Spirit’s work? Or were they in every instance the product of manipulative ministers who excelled in unleashing the emotions of unsuspecting sheep? Neither, said Edwards. Such physical phenomena may be the result of the Spirit’s encounter with the frailty of human nature. But maybe not. In any case they are insufficient grounds on which to base one’s assurance of salvation and by no means constitute the essence of the religious life.

(9) In his treatise, Religious Affections, Edwards argues, against Chauncy, that true religion consists not merely of a “notional” understanding and cognitive acquiescence to truth, but of a “sense of the heart” in which lively and vigorous affections of love and delight and joy and peace and yearning are in evidence. Such affections, said Edwards, may be accompanied by physiological phenomena, but the presence of the latter was no sure proof of the reality of the former. We must also remember that Edwards will argue, against Davenport, that physiological phenomena, in and of themselves, prove nothing about the reality of spiritual experience. We should not be surprised, said Edwards, if the body reacts in strange and manifest ways to what the mind perceives, but bodily actions can as easily be the result of any number of purely natural (not to mention demonic), physiological, and psychological factors that have nothing to do with the special saving grace of the Holy Spirit.

Yet, in spite of the undeniable excesses and emotional extremes to which Davenport and others took the revival, Edward saw in the midst of it a genuine work of God. He was not in the least inclined to throw out what he regarded as a live baby simply because some had dirtied the water with the soil of their religious delusions.

(10) With hindsight Edwards’ acknowledged that he had been somewhat naïve in his belief that as many had been saved as claimed to be. In the aftermath of revival, he had witnessed and worked with far too many people who quickly fell away from their initial zeal and profession of faith. Without dismissing the revival altogether, he became ever more convinced that the subjective experiences and physical manifestations on which many based their assurance of salvation were a poor and misleading foundation on which to build.

As Michael Haykin has pointed out, “much of the problem lay in the fact that many of the congregation had wrong notions about the way of ascertaining a genuine conversion. Too much weight was placed upon ‘impressions on the imagination’ and specific experiences, and not enough consideration given to what Edwards calls ‘the abiding sense and temper of their hearts’ and ‘fruits of grace’” (Michael A. G. Haykin, Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival [Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2005], 48).

 

]]>
In a previous article I spoke of the first wave of the First Great Awakening, a revival that fell upon New England in 1734-36. Today we turn our attention to the second wave of the Spirit’s work and the events that can generally be dated 1740-42.

(1) Historians have typically traced the revival’s beginning to the visit to America of George Whitefield (1714-71), known as “The Grand Itinerant.” Whitefield arrived in the fall of 1740 and “set all New England aflame with a revival compared to which the Valley awakening of 1734-35 was but a brush fire” (C. C. Goen, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Jonathan Edwards, The Great Awakening [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 48).

After preaching to thousands all along the Atlantic coast, Whitefield arrived in Edwards' Northampton in mid-October. After one Sunday morning sermon in Edwards' church, Whitefield wrote in his diary that “Good Mr. Edwards wept during the whole time of exercise. The people were equally affected; and, in the afternoon, the power increased yet more” (Ibid., 49). Sarah Edwards was equally impressed. In a letter to her brother, the Rev. James Pierrepont of New Haven, she said:

“It is wonderful to see what a spell he casts over an audience by proclaiming the simplest truths of the Bible. I have seen upward of a thousand people hang on his words with breathless silence, broken only by an occasional half-suppressed sob. He impresses the ignorant, and not less the educated and refined . . . our mechanics shut up their shops, and the day-labourers throw down their tools to go and hear him preach, and few return unaffected. . . . Many, very many persons in Northampton date the beginning of new thoughts, new desires, new purposes and a new life, from the day they heard him preach of Christ” (Cited in Arnold A. Dallimore, George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century [Westchester: Crossway Books, 1990], 89-90).

Benjamin Franklin, although an unbeliever, regarded Whitefield to be his friend, and said this of his oratorical gift:

“He had a loud and clear voice, and articulated his words so perfectly that he might be heard and understood at a great distance, especially as his auditories observed the most perfect silence. . . . By hearing him often, I came to distinguish easily between sermons newly composed and those which he had often preached in the course of his travels. His delivery of the latter was so improved by frequent repetition, that every accent, every emphasis, every modulation of the voice, was so perfectly well turned and well placed, that, without being interested in the subject, one could not help being pleased with the discourse” (Gaustad, 29).

According to Goen, “by the time he passed from Connecticut into New York, his journal showed that he had spent 45 days, visited 40 towns, and delivered 97 sermons and exhortations” (49). Whitefield set sail for England on January 16, 1741, after 14 1/2 months of preaching in America. He returned for a brief visit in the fall of 1744.

(2) Whitefield was far from the only participant in this awakening. One must also mention Gilbert Tennent (1703-64), leader of the Presbyterian revival in the middle Colonies. Goen reports that “after Tennent passed through eastern Connecticut, emotional outbursts in time of worship became common. Preachers sometimes had to stop in mid-sermon, as 'weeping, sighs and sobs' mingled with cries of distress: 'Alas! I'm undone; I'm undone! O, my sins! How they prey upon my vitals! What will become of me? How shall I escape the damnation of hell, who have spent away a golden opportunity under Gospel light, in vanity?’” (51). Visions and trances, evidently, were commonplace. Chief among Tennent's messages was his belief that most ministers of the day were unconverted. Needless to say, this didn't fare well with the established clergy of New England!

(3) Yet another preacher, of a decidedly different disposition, was James Davenport (1716-57). Davenport was labeled an “enthusiast” and was in many ways responsible for those excesses that Edwards believed led to the end of the revival. The word “enthusiasm”, as Goen defines it, “is belief in God's immediate inspiration or possession, leading often to claims of divine authority” (62).

Davenport was at one point banned from speaking in Boston pulpits. In a printed declaration, fourteen Boston pastors censured him for leaning too much on “sudden Impulses,” rashly judging other ministers as unconverted, “going with his Friends singing thro’ the Streets and High-Ways,” and encouraging “private Brethren to pray and exhort.” They pronounced him “deeply tinctur’d with a Spirit of Enthusiasm” (cited by Thomas Kidd, The Great Awakening, 144).

Davenport was temporarily incarcerated by leading opponents of the revival on the assumption that he was mentally unstable. Although Edwards denounced his extremes, they became somewhat friendly following Davenport’s repentance and restoration to ministry. In late summer of 1744 Davenport issued his Confession and Retractions in which he acknowledged the fanaticism that had brought reproach on the revival. “On the whole,” notes Kidd, “it was a sincere but limited confession” (165).

(4) Opposition to the awakening was fierce and persistent. It was led by Charles Chauncy (1705-87), pastor of Boston's most influential church. Chauncy was the acknowledged leader of the "Old Lights", those who “vilified the whole revival as 'the effect of enthusiastic heat’” (63). Chauncy and his supporters typically preferred the time-honored traditions of the established order of religion in New England and opposed the new measures introduced by the revivalists. For them, conversion was principally a transformation in one’s intellectual convictions. The Christian life, therefore, together with any alleged encounter with the Spirit, must be reasonable, courteous, and not given to visible or vocal displays of emotion.

(5) Chauncy’s principal objections to the revival were published in September, 1743, in a work entitled, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England (Boston, 1743). Among other concerns, he cited the ill effects of itinerant ministry, especially among those not ordained to the task of preaching: “Besides creating jealousies and threatening prerogatives,” said Chauncy, “itineracy flaunted the Congregational theory of the ministerial office” (Gaustad, 70).

Chauncy was especially offended by what he perceived to be fanatical excess in the behavior of those who participated in the revival. True religion, said Chauncy, was primarily a matter of the mind, not the affections, and was characterized by self-control, cultural sophistication, and strict moral propriety. “The plain truth is [that] an enlightened mind, and not raised affections, ought always to be the guide of those who call themselves men; and this, in the affairs of religion, as well as other things” (cited by George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003], 281). One should not conclude from this that Edwards denigrated the mind, as is evident from a close analysis of Religious Affections. Marsden is also quick to point out that “as any perusal of Edwards’ sermons will confirm, Edwards’ exaltation of the affections was never at the expense of reason” (282).

(6) By the end of 1743, observes Gaustad, “all the principles, even most of the details, of criticism of the revival had been established. The Great Awakening was dead, although many were trying to force air into its lungs while others were still hacking at the corpse whenever possible” (79).

Numerous explanations for the diminishing influence of the revival have been suggested and Edwards had his own opinion. But Gaustad looks at what happened with the common sense of an historian:

“From our vantage point, no special perspicacity is required to conclude that the religious intensity of 1741 could not long be maintained. The dreadful concerns, the traumatic awakenings, the accelerated devotion -- these by their nature are of limited duration. The fever pitch must soon pass, else the patient dies . . . The ebb of this flood of revivalism would seem then to require no elaborate explanation: it declined simply because it had to, because society could not maintain itself in so great a disequilibrium” (61-62).

In his book, The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (Yale, 2007), Thomas Kidd points out that

“the controversy generated by the revivals was not just a disagreement over tactics and emotions, but over social order. To understand the deep anxieties generated by revivalism, it is important to remember how profoundly stratified eighteenth-century American society was. Land-owning white men ruled over their families, social inferiors, servants, and slaves. The elites integrated all these people into a vast system of dependencies. Authorities tried to suppress irregularities that might challenge their hegemony.

One can appreciate, then, why many might have viewed radical evangelicals as a threat to a well-ordered society. Radical evangelicals ordained untutored, and occasionally nonwhite, men as pastors. They sometimes allowed women and nonwhites to serve as deacons or even as elders. They led crowds of the poor, children, and nonwhites singing through the streets. They permitted Native Americans, African Americans, and women to exhort in mixed congregations, and they commended their words as worthy of white male attention. They endorsed the visionary, ecstatic experiences of the disenfranchised. They believed that individuals could have immediate assurance of salvation by the indwelling witness of the Spirit. They affirmed laypeople’s right to critique their pastors and founded new churches fully committed to radical revival. While to modern eyes, the radicals’ innovations may seem modest, they were for their time well-nigh revolutionary. In the revivals, the world seemed to turn upside down as those with the very least agency in eighteenth-century American felt the power of God surge in their bodies” (xv).

(7) Throughout the revivals and well into their aftermath Edwards consistently defended the work as being, in general, of divine origin. He disapproved of “enthusiasm”, subjectivism, and those excesses which Davenport insisted were sure signs of the Spirit’s work, but did not believe these peripheral problems invalidated the legitimacy of what God was doing.

In hopes of putting an end to what they deemed extravagant and “enthusiastic” behavior on the part of a number of students, the administration at Yale invited Edwards to deliver the commencement speech on September 10, 1741. What they heard was, instead, a spirited defense, in general, of the spiritual authenticity of the revival. Edwards later expanded on the work and published it that same year with a preface by the Rev. William Cooper of Boston. The abbreviated title of the work is: The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.

Edwards' design was “to show what are the true, certain, and distinguishing evidences of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may safely proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see in others” (87).

His approach was two-fold. He began with what we might call “Negative Signs,” or events, experiences, and religious phenomena from which we may conclude nothing. One is not free to deduce from the presence of these occurrences either that the Holy Spirit produced them or that he did not. They may well be the fruit of the Spirit’s activity, but then again may just as easily be the result of human weakness or emotional instability or the product of a manipulative evangelist. Scripture simply doesn’t provide explicit guidelines by which we may know.

Edwards then turned to those signs which are sure and certain evidence of the Spirit's work. He proceeds “to show positively what are the sure, distinguishing Scripture evidences and marks of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see among a people without danger of being misled” (109). Here Edwards bases his argument on principles gleaned from 1 John 4:1-6.

(8) Some, such as Davenport and his followers, claimed that they were recipients of the Spirit’s grace because they experienced a wide range of physical phenomena, whether shaking or shouting, laughing or weeping, or other overt displays of what they considered genuine religious zeal. Edwards himself was witness to folk who “lost their bodily strength” (i.e., fell to the ground), included among whom was his own wife, Sarah. Others testified to seeing visions, hearing voices, or otherwise feeling “impressions” on the “imagination”. At times, some would fall into a trance-like state and would remain therein for twenty-four hours or longer.

Were such physical manifestations and convulsions a sure sign of the Spirit’s work? Or were they in every instance the product of manipulative ministers who excelled in unleashing the emotions of unsuspecting sheep? Neither, said Edwards. Such physical phenomena may be the result of the Spirit’s encounter with the frailty of human nature. But maybe not. In any case they are insufficient grounds on which to base one’s assurance of salvation and by no means constitute the essence of the religious life.

(9) In his treatise, Religious Affections, Edwards argues, against Chauncy, that true religion consists not merely of a “notional” understanding and cognitive acquiescence to truth, but of a “sense of the heart” in which lively and vigorous affections of love and delight and joy and peace and yearning are in evidence. Such affections, said Edwards, may be accompanied by physiological phenomena, but the presence of the latter was no sure proof of the reality of the former. We must also remember that Edwards will argue, against Davenport, that physiological phenomena, in and of themselves, prove nothing about the reality of spiritual experience. We should not be surprised, said Edwards, if the body reacts in strange and manifest ways to what the mind perceives, but bodily actions can as easily be the result of any number of purely natural (not to mention demonic), physiological, and psychological factors that have nothing to do with the special saving grace of the Holy Spirit.

Yet, in spite of the undeniable excesses and emotional extremes to which Davenport and others took the revival, Edward saw in the midst of it a genuine work of God. He was not in the least inclined to throw out what he regarded as a live baby simply because some had dirtied the water with the soil of their religious delusions.

(10) With hindsight Edwards’ acknowledged that he had been somewhat naïve in his belief that as many had been saved as claimed to be. In the aftermath of revival, he had witnessed and worked with far too many people who quickly fell away from their initial zeal and profession of faith. Without dismissing the revival altogether, he became ever more convinced that the subjective experiences and physical manifestations on which many based their assurance of salvation were a poor and misleading foundation on which to build.

As Michael Haykin has pointed out, “much of the problem lay in the fact that many of the congregation had wrong notions about the way of ascertaining a genuine conversion. Too much weight was placed upon ‘impressions on the imagination’ and specific experiences, and not enough consideration given to what Edwards calls ‘the abiding sense and temper of their hearts’ and ‘fruits of grace’” (Michael A. G. Haykin, Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival [Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2005], 48).

 

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about Jesus Christ https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-jesus-christ https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-jesus-christ#comments Thu, 06 Oct 2022 02:00:00 -0500 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-jesus-christ It actually sounds a bit silly, even irreverent, to speak of only ten things we should know about Jesus. There are thousands of things to know about him, perhaps millions. Indeed, when we arrive in the new heaven and new earth we will discover that there is an infinity of truths about our Savior that it will be our joy to see, know, and savor. But for now, today, let’s consider the ten things said about him in Colossians 1:15-20. There Paul writes:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:15-20).

Ask a Mormon, “Who is Jesus?” and he will tell you that he was the first-born child of Elohim. He was the product of the physical union between the Father-God and the virgin Mary. For a time, God and Mary were actually husband and wife and they had sexual relations, as any married couple would, and conceived Jesus!

Ask a Muslim and he will answer by saying that Jesus is just like Abraham and Moses and Isaiah. He was a prophet of God. But he was not himself God. In fact, he wasn't even the most important of the prophets. Mohammed, who lived 500 years after Jesus, was God's greatest prophet. Besides, Jesus didn't really die on the cross as Christians believe. He was rescued by God and carried to a safe place in the heavens. Since there was no death there was no atonement for sin. Since there was no death there was no resurrection either.

The Jehovah's Witness would insist that prior to his coming to this earth Jesus was Michael, the archangel! He's only a creature, the first product of Jehovah God's creative work. When he was born of the Virgin Mary, he was divested of his spiritual, angelic nature and became wholly and exclusively a man. Jesus isn't God.

Then there is the theological liberal who believes that because of his exceptional virtue and humility and spiritual sensitivity, God adopted Jesus to be his Son. He endowed him with miraculous powers and through him proclaimed the wonderful message of the Universal Fatherhood of God and the Universal Brotherhood of Men!

So, who is Jesus Christ? The answer to that question, more than anything else, is what sets apart Christianity from every other religion or philosophy or movement. Christianity is distinctively known for what we believe about Jesus Christ. The answer to this question also provides us with a comprehensive view of the origin, meaning, and ultimate purpose of the entire universe.

Here in Colossians 1:18 the Apostle Paul insists that Jesus Christ must be given preeminence in all things. Let me say that again: all things! When I say “all things” I literally mean all. The word “all” or “every” or “each” occurs 8 times in this short paragraph. The simple fact is that Paul’s letter to the Colossians is fundamentally and essentially about the centrality, supremacy, and preeminence of Jesus Christ in all things.

Perhaps this phrase captivates and energizes me because of the pervasive indifference toward Jesus Christ that I see in our society. In fact, the word “indifference” is probably too charitable. The name of Jesus is all too often a cussword, a casual throwaway, an exclamation of frustration or anger, or at times something far worse. It is stunning to think that the most powerful, most beautiful, most loving, most truthful person in the universe, indeed, the very creator of this universe, could be treated with such ugly contempt.

Here in vv. 15-20 Paul provides us with 10 reasons why Jesus is and must be acknowledged as preeminent in all things.

(1) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is the image of the invisible God (v. 15a).

Several biblical texts make it clear that God is, by nature, invisible. It isn't just that he has not been seen: he cannot be seen (cf. John 1:18; Romans 1:20; 1 Timothy 6:16; Hebrews 11:27). Even here in Colossians 1:15 he is described as "the invisible God."

So what hope is there for knowing and believing in God? The answer is Jesus! Philip certainly felt the urgency to “see” God. “Lord, show us the Father and it is enough for us” (John 14:8). To which Jesus replied: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

The word translated “image” refers to a likeness or visible representation. How exact or precise the resemblance is between the original and the copy must be determined by the context. To say someone is “like” another person often conveys the idea of moderate similarity, but not necessarily exact representation. On the other hand, you've undoubtedly heard someone described as “the spitting image” of another. If one may be reverent in saying so, God the Son (Jesus) is the spitting image of God the Father!

We could just as easily answer the question: What is God like? by saying: God is like Jesus. Of course, Paul's point isn't that Jesus “looks like” the Father, as if to suggest the Father has a physical frame and face which the Son reflects. The Son “images” the Father in terms of moral character, will, and the attributes of deity. They, together with the Holy Spirit, share a common divine nature, glory, and purpose.

(2) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is the firstborn of all creation (v. 15b).

But if being the “image” of the Father seems to confirm the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the second phrase in v. 15 appears to destroy it, for there we are told that he is also “the firstborn of all creation” (v. 15).

Does this phrase suggest that Jesus was the first created being in a series of other created beings? Does this mean the Jehovah's Witnesses were right all along? No. Part of the problem is related to translation. We have to determine the best way to render this phrase. Is it, “the first born of all creation,” or “the first born over all creation”? Either is grammatically possible but there is a world of difference between them. Is Jesus “of” creation in the sense that he belongs to it as its initial or original member? Or is Jesus “over” creation in the sense that he is its source and sovereign Lord and maker? I believe it is the latter, and for several reasons.

First, observe how v. 16 begins: “For by him all things were created.” The word “for” indicates that what follows in v. 16 supports or explains what has preceded in v. 15. In other words, Paul is saying, “Here is 'how' Jesus is the firstborn of/over all creation: it is by virtue of his having created all things.” If Jesus were merely one of the many and varied parts of creation, belonging to them as if he were himself a creature, Paul would not have said that Jesus created all things.

Second, to say that Jesus is himself a creature is inconsistent with Colossians 1:17. There Paul declares that the Son of God is “before” all things, similar to our Lord's claim in John 8:58 that “before Abraham was, I am.”

Third, to say that Jesus is a creature would be inconsistent with what Paul clearly said about him elsewhere, primarily in Philippians 2:6-11 (esp. v. 6).

Fourth, to say that Jesus is a creature would be inconsistent with what John clearly said of him in John 1:3 – “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”

Finally, the word “firstborn” itself does not necessarily mean first in a sequence or first in time. It can also mean first in “rank” or “supreme in dignity.” The point is that the Son, by virtue of being the image of God, has a pre-eminence and exercises a sovereignty over everything else that exists. The word is used this way of King David in the Old Testament. In Psalm 89:27, God says of David: “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”

The point, then, is that Jesus Christ is utterly unique, distinguished from all of creation because he is both eternally prior to it and supreme over it in the sense, as v. 16 makes clear, that he is its creator.

(3) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he created all things (v. 16).

Paul is remarkably specific about the extent of Christ’s creative input. It encompasses literally everything: “all things” (v. 16a), by which he means everything “in heaven and on earth,” be they massive galaxies billions of light years away or the dust particles beneath your feet. The “all things” includes what you can see and can’t see, whether visible but intangible, like a mirage or beam of light; whether invisible but tangible, like a summer breeze or the heat of the sun; whether visible and tangible, like an oak tree or a book or a baseball; even things invisible and intangible like a proton or gravity or a feeling or a dream. He conceived and created them all!

But it doesn’t stop there. He is the architect of every spiritual being, here described as “thrones” and “dominions” and “rulers” and “authorities,” typical Pauline language for every conceivable variety of angel, both good and evil, both hellish and holy. They were all Christ’s idea!

(4) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because everything he created exists for him (v. 16b).

Yes, he is both architect and artisan, as well as the aim for which they were created. As Paul put it, “all things were created . . . for him” (v. 16c; oh, blessed preposition!). Whatever is, is, in order that he might be glorified and praised and enjoyed forever. He’s the reason, the goal, the aim, the intent, the point, the purpose, the end, the terminus, the consummation and culmination of every molecule that moves.

Does that please you? Do you find unparalleled joy in knowing that it's about him and not you? Do you find delight in knowing that God didn't create the world so he could have you, but so that you could have him?

(5) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he existed before all things (v. 17a).

Put simply, he is eternal. He never wasn’t (is that grammatically correct)! He always has been, always is, always will be!

(6) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because in him all things hold together (v. 17b).

Ancient Colossae was located in the Lycus Valley, about 115 miles inland from Ephesus. This was an area that was the center of repeated earthquakes (it was not unlike living in California). We know that a major, devastating earthquake hit this area sometime in a.d. 60 or 61. Much of the city was destroyed and numerous lives were lost.

Most scholars believe Paul wrote this letter during his Roman imprisonment in around 60 a.d. Therefore, either just before or very soon after they received this letter, the entire city of Colossae and its inhabitants were seriously shaken!

Knowing this makes Paul's statement in v. 17 all the more significant. Of Jesus Christ he writes, “And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (v. 17). Some translations render this, “in him all things cohere” or “in him all things subsist.” The point being, whatever coherence or unity the universe displays, it is due to the continual exertion of divine power from the Son of God. The risen Christ sustains and upholds all things.

Jesus Christ is the sustaining and supportive power by which all that he has conceived and constructed should stay in being. He didn’t create, only to skip town. From the moment of its inception until now and for so long as he so wills Jesus sustains all things, guides all things, and is in process of providentially bringing all things to their proper consummation in and for him.

Jesus is the cohesive power that keeps all things intact. If I may say it reverently, he’s the “divine glue” that holds it all in place. This world is a cosmos rather than a chaos because of the continuous exertion of divine power from the risen Christ!

The things that are don’t exist by virtue of some power intrinsic to themselves. Cars and chairs and baseballs and butter and quarks and quasars and, yes, everything, exists and is sustained in their present form by virtue of the incessant energy emanating from Jesus! If at any moment, for any reason, he should loosen his providential and preserving grip on anything, it would disintegrate. It would vaporize and vanish into a vacuum of nothingness.

Every heartbeat, every flutter of an eyelid, every rustle of every blade of grass, every breath you breathe is sustained by the Son of God. As Paul said in Acts 17:28, “in him we move and live and have our being.”

If that earthquake hit Colossae soon after their reception of Paul's letter, I suspect they would have encouraged one another with the reminder that in Jesus, their Lord and Savior, all things still cohere, all things are upheld. If there is a shaking, it is because the Lord has willed it. No matter how widespread the destruction, no matter how disconcerting the loss, Jesus has not lost his grip on this world or their lives.

The “shaking” may also be spiritual or political or economic in nature, but “in him all things (still) hold together.” The world may appear to be swept up and away in moral chaos, but in him all things still hold together. One crisis may crash in upon another, like the incessant waves of the ocean pummeling the shoreline, but in him all things still hold together.

The universe and everything in it coheres and is held together not by an idea or by a virtue or by some property present in the sub-atomic world of particle physics. Everything in it coheres because of a Person!

(7) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is the head of the Church (v. 18a).

It would be easy to get discouraged if it weren't for the fact that Jesus is the Head of the Church. The “church” here is probably a reference to the universal body of Christ, that spiritual organism comprised of all believers in all of history. But if Jesus is the head of the universal church in general, he is also the head of every local church in particular. These many and varied local expressions of his body belong to him. If a local church dissolves or strays off course, the Church, the universal body perseveres. When Jesus first promised to “build” his Church (Matt. 16:18) he assured us that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I have to keep reminding myself of this, as I suspect you do as well.

When Paul says that Jesus Christ is the “head of the body, the church,” he means to tell us that Christ is the sovereign, ruling authority over his people, as well as the source from which we, his body, derive all spiritual sustenance and power. As such, we can rest assured that our Lord will neither permit his body to drift into utter moral and theological chaos nor to die of spiritual starvation and thirst.

He exerts a functional authority over his body. He can be trusted to govern and direct and provide instruction and power for the life of his church if we will but look to him and draw from the resources he so generously supplies. The relationship between Jesus as Head and the church as Body is organic and living and vital. He exercises sovereign control over us and we are ever and always dependent on his abiding influence and presence.

(8) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is the firstborn from the dead (v. 18b).

That is to say, he was the beginning and founder of a new humanity, a new people, by virtue of his having been the first to rise, never to die again. When God the Father raised him from the dead and glorified and exalted him to the right hand of the majesty on high, he became the first-fruits of that resurrection guaranteed for all who are united to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20-23; Rev. 1:12-18).

There is a reason for this. There was a goal in view. It was so that Jesus might be seen and known and glorified as preeminent in everything! God raised Jesus from the dead and placed him in authority over the church so that he, and only he, might be seen and savored, recognized and relished, exalted and enjoyed as the sovereign Lord, the one for whom all things were made and to whom all praise should be given.

(9) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is God (v. 19a).

Don’t be misled by the word “dwell”. Paul is not suggesting that there was a man named Jesus in whom deity or divinity resided. In other words, the fullness of deity didn't dwell in Jesus the way the Holy Spirit dwells in you and me. When God the Son became a human, the fullness of the divine nature “became flesh” (John 1:14), yet without ceasing to be divine. The divine and the human united in the one person of Jesus Christ.

Paul literally says that “all the fullness” was “pleased” to dwell in Christ. But “fullness” is not a person and only a person has conscious and willful intent; only a person can be “pleased” to do something. So both the NASV and the NIV translate the verse to indicate that God the Father is the subject of the verb: it was his good pleasure that the fullness of the divine nature dwell in Christ.

Not only is deity found extensively in Jesus, it is found exclusively in Jesus. He alone is God, which means that no one else is. Not Buddha, nor Mohammed, nor any other religious leader or philosopher or sage.

(10) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is our Savior (v. 20).

We first need to understand the need for reconciliation. As we noted in v. 16, all things were created in, by, and for Christ. What Paul does not mention here is what happened to this creation after it came into existence. Because of the fall of Adam, the unity, harmony, and consonance of the original creation have suffered a devastating rupture. That pristine beauty of Eden has been horribly marred. Disharmony was brought to bear on God's handiwork. Alienation (between God and man, between man and man, and between man and nature) now characterizes the cosmos. In a word, the totality of creation is mired in disruption and suffers from what one can only describe as moral, spiritual, and physical discombobulation.

In a word, we and all of creation are at enmity with God. We are at war with him. Our sin has put us in an adversarial position with respect to our Creator. And the only power that can bring peace, the only means by which we can be reconciled and redeemed and forgiven and relate to God as Father and Friend is “by the blood of his [Christ’s] cross” (v. 20b).

Does this verse teach universalism? No. In Colossians 2:15 we are told that God through Christ has vanquished or conquered demonic forces. He did not save them. The point is that “through the work of Christ on the cross, God has brought his entire rebellious creation back under the rule of his sovereign power” (Moo, 136-37). He has restored order from the chaos. This order comes about not only through the salvation of his people but also through the subjugation of his enemies.

What I’m saying is that the “reconciliation” Paul has in mind includes the notion of subjugation and the bringing to naught of God's enemies. God’s reconciliation of all things includes not only the salvation of his people but also the triumph and victory over those who are and forever will be his enemies.

Thus the demonic hosts and unbelieving humanity may be spoken of as encompassed by and participating in the “reconciliation”, not in the sense that they are ultimately saved, but insofar as they will be subjugated, pacified, and rendered incapable of any longer disrupting the harmony and beauty of God's creative handiwork. According to Scripture, all evil will be excluded from heaven, all wickedness banished from its boundaries, all unbelief confined in hell (see Revelation 21:8,27; 22:15).

The point is that “peace” can be achieved in one of two ways: either by the removal of hostility through grace or by the subjugation of enemies through power and judgment. Although all creation will ultimately bow the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10-11), the elect will do it voluntarily, by grace, whereas the non-elect will do it by compulsion, as an expression of their judgment.

To what extent does your life reflect the preeminence of the risen and living Christ? Are the affairs of your daily existence so ordered that Jesus is seen to be preeminent? Is there any doubt in the way you use your time, your money, and your talents that Jesus is the source and center of it all? Is he your treasure, or is it found in the documents and deeds lying in a bank vault? Does he govern your life in such a way that all may know he is Lord? How visible is the supremacy of Christ in the way you talk and relate to others and fulfill your responsibilities at work and in the home?

Resist the temptation to restrict the preeminence of Christ to one day a week, as if he were Lord and worthy of praise for only one hour on a Sunday morning. He is to be honored as preeminent not only over all things but at all times, in every context, in every circumstance.

Resist the temptation to isolate the preeminence of Christ or to confine it to religious matters. He has been given preeminence “in all things”! Everything in all of life, both inside and outside the church, exists to make him look good. Not to make him good, for he is eternally and self-sufficiently good, but to reveal and disclose and enable all to see that he is, in fact, good and glorious and worthy of our whole-hearted and exclusive devotion.

 

]]>
It actually sounds a bit silly, even irreverent, to speak of only ten things we should know about Jesus. There are thousands of things to know about him, perhaps millions. Indeed, when we arrive in the new heaven and new earth we will discover that there is an infinity of truths about our Savior that it will be our joy to see, know, and savor. But for now, today, let’s consider the ten things said about him in Colossians 1:15-20. There Paul writes:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:15-20).

Ask a Mormon, “Who is Jesus?” and he will tell you that he was the first-born child of Elohim. He was the product of the physical union between the Father-God and the virgin Mary. For a time, God and Mary were actually husband and wife and they had sexual relations, as any married couple would, and conceived Jesus!

Ask a Muslim and he will answer by saying that Jesus is just like Abraham and Moses and Isaiah. He was a prophet of God. But he was not himself God. In fact, he wasn't even the most important of the prophets. Mohammed, who lived 500 years after Jesus, was God's greatest prophet. Besides, Jesus didn't really die on the cross as Christians believe. He was rescued by God and carried to a safe place in the heavens. Since there was no death there was no atonement for sin. Since there was no death there was no resurrection either.

The Jehovah's Witness would insist that prior to his coming to this earth Jesus was Michael, the archangel! He's only a creature, the first product of Jehovah God's creative work. When he was born of the Virgin Mary, he was divested of his spiritual, angelic nature and became wholly and exclusively a man. Jesus isn't God.

Then there is the theological liberal who believes that because of his exceptional virtue and humility and spiritual sensitivity, God adopted Jesus to be his Son. He endowed him with miraculous powers and through him proclaimed the wonderful message of the Universal Fatherhood of God and the Universal Brotherhood of Men!

So, who is Jesus Christ? The answer to that question, more than anything else, is what sets apart Christianity from every other religion or philosophy or movement. Christianity is distinctively known for what we believe about Jesus Christ. The answer to this question also provides us with a comprehensive view of the origin, meaning, and ultimate purpose of the entire universe.

Here in Colossians 1:18 the Apostle Paul insists that Jesus Christ must be given preeminence in all things. Let me say that again: all things! When I say “all things” I literally mean all. The word “all” or “every” or “each” occurs 8 times in this short paragraph. The simple fact is that Paul’s letter to the Colossians is fundamentally and essentially about the centrality, supremacy, and preeminence of Jesus Christ in all things.

Perhaps this phrase captivates and energizes me because of the pervasive indifference toward Jesus Christ that I see in our society. In fact, the word “indifference” is probably too charitable. The name of Jesus is all too often a cussword, a casual throwaway, an exclamation of frustration or anger, or at times something far worse. It is stunning to think that the most powerful, most beautiful, most loving, most truthful person in the universe, indeed, the very creator of this universe, could be treated with such ugly contempt.

Here in vv. 15-20 Paul provides us with 10 reasons why Jesus is and must be acknowledged as preeminent in all things.

(1) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is the image of the invisible God (v. 15a).

Several biblical texts make it clear that God is, by nature, invisible. It isn't just that he has not been seen: he cannot be seen (cf. John 1:18; Romans 1:20; 1 Timothy 6:16; Hebrews 11:27). Even here in Colossians 1:15 he is described as "the invisible God."

So what hope is there for knowing and believing in God? The answer is Jesus! Philip certainly felt the urgency to “see” God. “Lord, show us the Father and it is enough for us” (John 14:8). To which Jesus replied: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

The word translated “image” refers to a likeness or visible representation. How exact or precise the resemblance is between the original and the copy must be determined by the context. To say someone is “like” another person often conveys the idea of moderate similarity, but not necessarily exact representation. On the other hand, you've undoubtedly heard someone described as “the spitting image” of another. If one may be reverent in saying so, God the Son (Jesus) is the spitting image of God the Father!

We could just as easily answer the question: What is God like? by saying: God is like Jesus. Of course, Paul's point isn't that Jesus “looks like” the Father, as if to suggest the Father has a physical frame and face which the Son reflects. The Son “images” the Father in terms of moral character, will, and the attributes of deity. They, together with the Holy Spirit, share a common divine nature, glory, and purpose.

(2) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is the firstborn of all creation (v. 15b).

But if being the “image” of the Father seems to confirm the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the second phrase in v. 15 appears to destroy it, for there we are told that he is also “the firstborn of all creation” (v. 15).

Does this phrase suggest that Jesus was the first created being in a series of other created beings? Does this mean the Jehovah's Witnesses were right all along? No. Part of the problem is related to translation. We have to determine the best way to render this phrase. Is it, “the first born of all creation,” or “the first born over all creation”? Either is grammatically possible but there is a world of difference between them. Is Jesus “of” creation in the sense that he belongs to it as its initial or original member? Or is Jesus “over” creation in the sense that he is its source and sovereign Lord and maker? I believe it is the latter, and for several reasons.

First, observe how v. 16 begins: “For by him all things were created.” The word “for” indicates that what follows in v. 16 supports or explains what has preceded in v. 15. In other words, Paul is saying, “Here is 'how' Jesus is the firstborn of/over all creation: it is by virtue of his having created all things.” If Jesus were merely one of the many and varied parts of creation, belonging to them as if he were himself a creature, Paul would not have said that Jesus created all things.

Second, to say that Jesus is himself a creature is inconsistent with Colossians 1:17. There Paul declares that the Son of God is “before” all things, similar to our Lord's claim in John 8:58 that “before Abraham was, I am.”

Third, to say that Jesus is a creature would be inconsistent with what Paul clearly said about him elsewhere, primarily in Philippians 2:6-11 (esp. v. 6).

Fourth, to say that Jesus is a creature would be inconsistent with what John clearly said of him in John 1:3 – “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”

Finally, the word “firstborn” itself does not necessarily mean first in a sequence or first in time. It can also mean first in “rank” or “supreme in dignity.” The point is that the Son, by virtue of being the image of God, has a pre-eminence and exercises a sovereignty over everything else that exists. The word is used this way of King David in the Old Testament. In Psalm 89:27, God says of David: “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”

The point, then, is that Jesus Christ is utterly unique, distinguished from all of creation because he is both eternally prior to it and supreme over it in the sense, as v. 16 makes clear, that he is its creator.

(3) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he created all things (v. 16).

Paul is remarkably specific about the extent of Christ’s creative input. It encompasses literally everything: “all things” (v. 16a), by which he means everything “in heaven and on earth,” be they massive galaxies billions of light years away or the dust particles beneath your feet. The “all things” includes what you can see and can’t see, whether visible but intangible, like a mirage or beam of light; whether invisible but tangible, like a summer breeze or the heat of the sun; whether visible and tangible, like an oak tree or a book or a baseball; even things invisible and intangible like a proton or gravity or a feeling or a dream. He conceived and created them all!

But it doesn’t stop there. He is the architect of every spiritual being, here described as “thrones” and “dominions” and “rulers” and “authorities,” typical Pauline language for every conceivable variety of angel, both good and evil, both hellish and holy. They were all Christ’s idea!

(4) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because everything he created exists for him (v. 16b).

Yes, he is both architect and artisan, as well as the aim for which they were created. As Paul put it, “all things were created . . . for him” (v. 16c; oh, blessed preposition!). Whatever is, is, in order that he might be glorified and praised and enjoyed forever. He’s the reason, the goal, the aim, the intent, the point, the purpose, the end, the terminus, the consummation and culmination of every molecule that moves.

Does that please you? Do you find unparalleled joy in knowing that it's about him and not you? Do you find delight in knowing that God didn't create the world so he could have you, but so that you could have him?

(5) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he existed before all things (v. 17a).

Put simply, he is eternal. He never wasn’t (is that grammatically correct)! He always has been, always is, always will be!

(6) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because in him all things hold together (v. 17b).

Ancient Colossae was located in the Lycus Valley, about 115 miles inland from Ephesus. This was an area that was the center of repeated earthquakes (it was not unlike living in California). We know that a major, devastating earthquake hit this area sometime in a.d. 60 or 61. Much of the city was destroyed and numerous lives were lost.

Most scholars believe Paul wrote this letter during his Roman imprisonment in around 60 a.d. Therefore, either just before or very soon after they received this letter, the entire city of Colossae and its inhabitants were seriously shaken!

Knowing this makes Paul's statement in v. 17 all the more significant. Of Jesus Christ he writes, “And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (v. 17). Some translations render this, “in him all things cohere” or “in him all things subsist.” The point being, whatever coherence or unity the universe displays, it is due to the continual exertion of divine power from the Son of God. The risen Christ sustains and upholds all things.

Jesus Christ is the sustaining and supportive power by which all that he has conceived and constructed should stay in being. He didn’t create, only to skip town. From the moment of its inception until now and for so long as he so wills Jesus sustains all things, guides all things, and is in process of providentially bringing all things to their proper consummation in and for him.

Jesus is the cohesive power that keeps all things intact. If I may say it reverently, he’s the “divine glue” that holds it all in place. This world is a cosmos rather than a chaos because of the continuous exertion of divine power from the risen Christ!

The things that are don’t exist by virtue of some power intrinsic to themselves. Cars and chairs and baseballs and butter and quarks and quasars and, yes, everything, exists and is sustained in their present form by virtue of the incessant energy emanating from Jesus! If at any moment, for any reason, he should loosen his providential and preserving grip on anything, it would disintegrate. It would vaporize and vanish into a vacuum of nothingness.

Every heartbeat, every flutter of an eyelid, every rustle of every blade of grass, every breath you breathe is sustained by the Son of God. As Paul said in Acts 17:28, “in him we move and live and have our being.”

If that earthquake hit Colossae soon after their reception of Paul's letter, I suspect they would have encouraged one another with the reminder that in Jesus, their Lord and Savior, all things still cohere, all things are upheld. If there is a shaking, it is because the Lord has willed it. No matter how widespread the destruction, no matter how disconcerting the loss, Jesus has not lost his grip on this world or their lives.

The “shaking” may also be spiritual or political or economic in nature, but “in him all things (still) hold together.” The world may appear to be swept up and away in moral chaos, but in him all things still hold together. One crisis may crash in upon another, like the incessant waves of the ocean pummeling the shoreline, but in him all things still hold together.

The universe and everything in it coheres and is held together not by an idea or by a virtue or by some property present in the sub-atomic world of particle physics. Everything in it coheres because of a Person!

(7) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is the head of the Church (v. 18a).

It would be easy to get discouraged if it weren't for the fact that Jesus is the Head of the Church. The “church” here is probably a reference to the universal body of Christ, that spiritual organism comprised of all believers in all of history. But if Jesus is the head of the universal church in general, he is also the head of every local church in particular. These many and varied local expressions of his body belong to him. If a local church dissolves or strays off course, the Church, the universal body perseveres. When Jesus first promised to “build” his Church (Matt. 16:18) he assured us that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I have to keep reminding myself of this, as I suspect you do as well.

When Paul says that Jesus Christ is the “head of the body, the church,” he means to tell us that Christ is the sovereign, ruling authority over his people, as well as the source from which we, his body, derive all spiritual sustenance and power. As such, we can rest assured that our Lord will neither permit his body to drift into utter moral and theological chaos nor to die of spiritual starvation and thirst.

He exerts a functional authority over his body. He can be trusted to govern and direct and provide instruction and power for the life of his church if we will but look to him and draw from the resources he so generously supplies. The relationship between Jesus as Head and the church as Body is organic and living and vital. He exercises sovereign control over us and we are ever and always dependent on his abiding influence and presence.

(8) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is the firstborn from the dead (v. 18b).

That is to say, he was the beginning and founder of a new humanity, a new people, by virtue of his having been the first to rise, never to die again. When God the Father raised him from the dead and glorified and exalted him to the right hand of the majesty on high, he became the first-fruits of that resurrection guaranteed for all who are united to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20-23; Rev. 1:12-18).

There is a reason for this. There was a goal in view. It was so that Jesus might be seen and known and glorified as preeminent in everything! God raised Jesus from the dead and placed him in authority over the church so that he, and only he, might be seen and savored, recognized and relished, exalted and enjoyed as the sovereign Lord, the one for whom all things were made and to whom all praise should be given.

(9) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is God (v. 19a).

Don’t be misled by the word “dwell”. Paul is not suggesting that there was a man named Jesus in whom deity or divinity resided. In other words, the fullness of deity didn't dwell in Jesus the way the Holy Spirit dwells in you and me. When God the Son became a human, the fullness of the divine nature “became flesh” (John 1:14), yet without ceasing to be divine. The divine and the human united in the one person of Jesus Christ.

Paul literally says that “all the fullness” was “pleased” to dwell in Christ. But “fullness” is not a person and only a person has conscious and willful intent; only a person can be “pleased” to do something. So both the NASV and the NIV translate the verse to indicate that God the Father is the subject of the verb: it was his good pleasure that the fullness of the divine nature dwell in Christ.

Not only is deity found extensively in Jesus, it is found exclusively in Jesus. He alone is God, which means that no one else is. Not Buddha, nor Mohammed, nor any other religious leader or philosopher or sage.

(10) Jesus must be preeminent in all things because he is our Savior (v. 20).

We first need to understand the need for reconciliation. As we noted in v. 16, all things were created in, by, and for Christ. What Paul does not mention here is what happened to this creation after it came into existence. Because of the fall of Adam, the unity, harmony, and consonance of the original creation have suffered a devastating rupture. That pristine beauty of Eden has been horribly marred. Disharmony was brought to bear on God's handiwork. Alienation (between God and man, between man and man, and between man and nature) now characterizes the cosmos. In a word, the totality of creation is mired in disruption and suffers from what one can only describe as moral, spiritual, and physical discombobulation.

In a word, we and all of creation are at enmity with God. We are at war with him. Our sin has put us in an adversarial position with respect to our Creator. And the only power that can bring peace, the only means by which we can be reconciled and redeemed and forgiven and relate to God as Father and Friend is “by the blood of his [Christ’s] cross” (v. 20b).

Does this verse teach universalism? No. In Colossians 2:15 we are told that God through Christ has vanquished or conquered demonic forces. He did not save them. The point is that “through the work of Christ on the cross, God has brought his entire rebellious creation back under the rule of his sovereign power” (Moo, 136-37). He has restored order from the chaos. This order comes about not only through the salvation of his people but also through the subjugation of his enemies.

What I’m saying is that the “reconciliation” Paul has in mind includes the notion of subjugation and the bringing to naught of God's enemies. God’s reconciliation of all things includes not only the salvation of his people but also the triumph and victory over those who are and forever will be his enemies.

Thus the demonic hosts and unbelieving humanity may be spoken of as encompassed by and participating in the “reconciliation”, not in the sense that they are ultimately saved, but insofar as they will be subjugated, pacified, and rendered incapable of any longer disrupting the harmony and beauty of God's creative handiwork. According to Scripture, all evil will be excluded from heaven, all wickedness banished from its boundaries, all unbelief confined in hell (see Revelation 21:8,27; 22:15).

The point is that “peace” can be achieved in one of two ways: either by the removal of hostility through grace or by the subjugation of enemies through power and judgment. Although all creation will ultimately bow the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10-11), the elect will do it voluntarily, by grace, whereas the non-elect will do it by compulsion, as an expression of their judgment.

To what extent does your life reflect the preeminence of the risen and living Christ? Are the affairs of your daily existence so ordered that Jesus is seen to be preeminent? Is there any doubt in the way you use your time, your money, and your talents that Jesus is the source and center of it all? Is he your treasure, or is it found in the documents and deeds lying in a bank vault? Does he govern your life in such a way that all may know he is Lord? How visible is the supremacy of Christ in the way you talk and relate to others and fulfill your responsibilities at work and in the home?

Resist the temptation to restrict the preeminence of Christ to one day a week, as if he were Lord and worthy of praise for only one hour on a Sunday morning. He is to be honored as preeminent not only over all things but at all times, in every context, in every circumstance.

Resist the temptation to isolate the preeminence of Christ or to confine it to religious matters. He has been given preeminence “in all things”! Everything in all of life, both inside and outside the church, exists to make him look good. Not to make him good, for he is eternally and self-sufficiently good, but to reveal and disclose and enable all to see that he is, in fact, good and glorious and worthy of our whole-hearted and exclusive devotion.

 

]]>
Today is Jonathan Edwards’s 315th Birthday. Where is He Now? https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/today-is-jonathan-edwards-s-315th-birthday-where-is-he-now https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/today-is-jonathan-edwards-s-315th-birthday-where-is-he-now#comments Thu, 06 Oct 2022 02:00:00 -0500 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/today-is-jonathan-edwards-s-315th-birthday-where-is-he-now Jonathan Edwards was born on October 5, 1703. His influence on the global body of Christ, and on me personally, is incalculable. So where is he now? That may sound like a strange question, but I mean it seriously. His body lies in a cemetery near Princeton University. But his soul is by no means asleep or unconscious. So, where is he? What is he thinking, seeing, feeling, enjoying?

The question was raised in my mind as I read his funeral sermon for David Brainerd. Brainerd died in Edwards’s home on October 9, 1747. The sermon was preached three days later. Its title will provide you with the answer to my question: “True Saints, When Absent from the Body, are Present with the Lord.” Edwards’s text was 2 Corinthians 5:8 – “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” If you want to read it in its entirety, and I strongly urge you to do so, it may be found in volume 25 of the Yale series of Edwards’s works (pp. 225-256).

I wish I could reproduce for you everything Edwards says, but the following will have to suffice. Here, then, is where Edwards is, right now. Here is what he’s thinking, feeling, and enjoying. If you know Jesus, this awaits you as well!

“And when the souls of the saints leave their bodies, to go to be with Christ, they behold the marvelous glory of that great work of his, the work of redemption, and of the glorious way of salvation by him; which the angels desire to look into. They have a most clear view of the unfathomable depths of the manifold wisdom and knowledge of God; and the most bright displays of the infinite purity and holiness of God, that do appear in that way and work; and see in [another sort or kind], than the saints do here, what is the breadth and length and depth and height of the grace and love of Christ, appearing in his redemption. And as they see the unspeakable riches and glory of the attribute of God’s grace, so they most clearly behold and understand Christ’s eternal and unmeasurable dying love to them in particular. And in short they see everything in Christ that tends to kindle and enflame love, and everything that tends to gratify love, and everything that tends to satisfy them: and that in the most clear and glorious manner, without any darkness or delusion, without any impediment or interruption. Now the saints, while in the body, see something of Christ’s glory and love; as we, in the dawning of the morning, see something of the reflected light of the sun mingled with darkness: but when separated from the body, they see their glorious and loving Redeemer, as we see the sun when risen, and showing his whole disk above the horizon, by his direct beams, in a clear hemisphere, and with perfect day” (230).

Ah, there is yet more! What happens when believers set their sight on the risen and glorified Christ in heaven? Says Edwards:

“That perfect sight will abolish all remains of deformity, disagreement and sinful unlikeness; as all darkness is abolished before the full blaze of the sun’s meridian light: it is impossible that the least degree of obscurity should remain before such light. So it is impossible the least degree of sin and spiritual deformity should remain, in such a view of the spiritual beauty and glory of Christ, as the saints enjoy in heaven when they see that Sun of righteousness without a cloud” (231).

When the saints go to heaven at death,

“they are exalted and glorified with him; and shall not be kept at a more awful distance from Christ, but shall be admitted nearer, and to a greater intimacy. For they shall be unspeakably more fit for it, and Christ in more fit circumstances to bestow on them this blessedness. Their seeing the great glory of their friend and Redeemer, will not awe them to a distance, and make them afraid of a near approach; but on the contrary, will most powerfully draw them near; and encourage and engage them to holy freedom” (232).

There is so much more that Edwards unpacks for us in this sermon, but I’ll close with one final observation.

“And accordingly the souls of departed saints with Christ in heaven, shall have Christ as it were unbosomed unto them, manifesting those infinite riches of love towards them, that have been there from eternity: and they shall be enabled to express their love to him, in an infinitely better manner than ever they could while in the body. Thus they shall eat and drink abundantly, and swim in the ocean of love, and be eternally swallowed up in the infinitely bright, and infinitely mild and sweet beams of divine love; eternally receiving that light, eternally full of it, and eternally compassed round with it, and everlastingly reflecting it back again to the fountain of it” (233).

No wonder, then, that the Apostle Paul could confidently and sincerely declare: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” for “to be with Christ” is “far better” (Phil. 1:21, 23).

]]>
Jonathan Edwards was born on October 5, 1703. His influence on the global body of Christ, and on me personally, is incalculable. So where is he now? That may sound like a strange question, but I mean it seriously. His body lies in a cemetery near Princeton University. But his soul is by no means asleep or unconscious. So, where is he? What is he thinking, seeing, feeling, enjoying?

The question was raised in my mind as I read his funeral sermon for David Brainerd. Brainerd died in Edwards’s home on October 9, 1747. The sermon was preached three days later. Its title will provide you with the answer to my question: “True Saints, When Absent from the Body, are Present with the Lord.” Edwards’s text was 2 Corinthians 5:8 – “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” If you want to read it in its entirety, and I strongly urge you to do so, it may be found in volume 25 of the Yale series of Edwards’s works (pp. 225-256).

I wish I could reproduce for you everything Edwards says, but the following will have to suffice. Here, then, is where Edwards is, right now. Here is what he’s thinking, feeling, and enjoying. If you know Jesus, this awaits you as well!

“And when the souls of the saints leave their bodies, to go to be with Christ, they behold the marvelous glory of that great work of his, the work of redemption, and of the glorious way of salvation by him; which the angels desire to look into. They have a most clear view of the unfathomable depths of the manifold wisdom and knowledge of God; and the most bright displays of the infinite purity and holiness of God, that do appear in that way and work; and see in [another sort or kind], than the saints do here, what is the breadth and length and depth and height of the grace and love of Christ, appearing in his redemption. And as they see the unspeakable riches and glory of the attribute of God’s grace, so they most clearly behold and understand Christ’s eternal and unmeasurable dying love to them in particular. And in short they see everything in Christ that tends to kindle and enflame love, and everything that tends to gratify love, and everything that tends to satisfy them: and that in the most clear and glorious manner, without any darkness or delusion, without any impediment or interruption. Now the saints, while in the body, see something of Christ’s glory and love; as we, in the dawning of the morning, see something of the reflected light of the sun mingled with darkness: but when separated from the body, they see their glorious and loving Redeemer, as we see the sun when risen, and showing his whole disk above the horizon, by his direct beams, in a clear hemisphere, and with perfect day” (230).

Ah, there is yet more! What happens when believers set their sight on the risen and glorified Christ in heaven? Says Edwards:

“That perfect sight will abolish all remains of deformity, disagreement and sinful unlikeness; as all darkness is abolished before the full blaze of the sun’s meridian light: it is impossible that the least degree of obscurity should remain before such light. So it is impossible the least degree of sin and spiritual deformity should remain, in such a view of the spiritual beauty and glory of Christ, as the saints enjoy in heaven when they see that Sun of righteousness without a cloud” (231).

When the saints go to heaven at death,

“they are exalted and glorified with him; and shall not be kept at a more awful distance from Christ, but shall be admitted nearer, and to a greater intimacy. For they shall be unspeakably more fit for it, and Christ in more fit circumstances to bestow on them this blessedness. Their seeing the great glory of their friend and Redeemer, will not awe them to a distance, and make them afraid of a near approach; but on the contrary, will most powerfully draw them near; and encourage and engage them to holy freedom” (232).

There is so much more that Edwards unpacks for us in this sermon, but I’ll close with one final observation.

“And accordingly the souls of departed saints with Christ in heaven, shall have Christ as it were unbosomed unto them, manifesting those infinite riches of love towards them, that have been there from eternity: and they shall be enabled to express their love to him, in an infinitely better manner than ever they could while in the body. Thus they shall eat and drink abundantly, and swim in the ocean of love, and be eternally swallowed up in the infinitely bright, and infinitely mild and sweet beams of divine love; eternally receiving that light, eternally full of it, and eternally compassed round with it, and everlastingly reflecting it back again to the fountain of it” (233).

No wonder, then, that the Apostle Paul could confidently and sincerely declare: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” for “to be with Christ” is “far better” (Phil. 1:21, 23).

]]>
Asyntactic https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/asyntactic https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/asyntactic#comments Thu, 06 Oct 2022 02:00:00 -0500 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/asyntactic My former colleague at Wheaton College, Alan Jacobs, now a professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, is without question the most widely-read and brilliant man I’ve ever known. There is virtually no intellectual discipline on which he cannot speak with remarkable insight. I’m sure he’d blush (and protest) to hear me say that. In any case, on November 30 of this year he wrote a blog article (http://blog.ayjay.org/) about our President. The title caught my eye: Asyntactic. Here is what he had to say.

Trump is not inarticulate, though people often say that. Rather, he is hyperarticulate in the mode that used to be called “garrulous.” Words constantly emerge from his mouth, and he clearly likes saying them and believes that his eloquence flows; but his words flow in the way that debris floats down a swollen stream, quickly or slowly spinning, drifting, knocking into one another, getting caught on overhanging branches, submerging and then popping again into view.

Trump is not inarticulate, he is asyntactic. “Syntax” means to arrange together, and Trump’s utterances have no discernible arrangement, and possess no unity. Consider the passage — but of course you could choose almost anything he says — this passage:

One of the problems that a lot of people like myself — we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water, and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and when you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia, including — just many other places — the air is incredibly dirty … if you go back and if you look at articles, they talked about global freezing, they talked about at some point the planets could have freeze to death, then it’s going to die of heat exhaustion. There is movement in the atmosphere. There’s no question. As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it.

He doesn’t see it — he doesn’t see the relations among events: cause and effect, ground and consequent, subject and object. To this asyntactic mind the world itself is asyntactic, just one damned thing after another, and the only means he has to distinguish among those things is to ask whether they please or displease him.

 

]]>
My former colleague at Wheaton College, Alan Jacobs, now a professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, is without question the most widely-read and brilliant man I’ve ever known. There is virtually no intellectual discipline on which he cannot speak with remarkable insight. I’m sure he’d blush (and protest) to hear me say that. In any case, on November 30 of this year he wrote a blog article (http://blog.ayjay.org/) about our President. The title caught my eye: Asyntactic. Here is what he had to say.

Trump is not inarticulate, though people often say that. Rather, he is hyperarticulate in the mode that used to be called “garrulous.” Words constantly emerge from his mouth, and he clearly likes saying them and believes that his eloquence flows; but his words flow in the way that debris floats down a swollen stream, quickly or slowly spinning, drifting, knocking into one another, getting caught on overhanging branches, submerging and then popping again into view.

Trump is not inarticulate, he is asyntactic. “Syntax” means to arrange together, and Trump’s utterances have no discernible arrangement, and possess no unity. Consider the passage — but of course you could choose almost anything he says — this passage:

One of the problems that a lot of people like myself — we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water, and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and when you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia, including — just many other places — the air is incredibly dirty … if you go back and if you look at articles, they talked about global freezing, they talked about at some point the planets could have freeze to death, then it’s going to die of heat exhaustion. There is movement in the atmosphere. There’s no question. As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it.

He doesn’t see it — he doesn’t see the relations among events: cause and effect, ground and consequent, subject and object. To this asyntactic mind the world itself is asyntactic, just one damned thing after another, and the only means he has to distinguish among those things is to ask whether they please or displease him.

 

]]>
Disowned for Jesus: What I Lost and Found in Christ https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/disowned-for-jesus-what-i-lost-and-found-in-christ https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/disowned-for-jesus-what-i-lost-and-found-in-christ#comments Thu, 06 Oct 2022 02:00:00 -0500 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/disowned-for-jesus-what-i-lost-and-found-in-christ Afshin Ziafat
Lead Pastor, Providence Church
Frisco, TX

January 7, 2019

[I first met Afshin Ziafat a few years ago at a gathering of the Council of the Gospel Coalition. He has become a good friend. When he shared with me his testimony of coming to faith in Jesus and what it cost him, I was astounded, and grateful to God for his amazing grace. On January 7, Afshin described his story in an article first posted at the Desiring God website. Take some time and read it closely. You will be blessed!]

When I left Islam to follow Jesus, I didn’t know what it would cost me. I hadn’t realized what it would take to deny myself, lay my life down, and take up my cross (Matt. 16:24). I wasn’t aware that even the precious relationships of my family should not come between me and following Christ — that I should even hate my family compared to my love for Jesus (Luke 14:26).

But God taught me that if I do take up my cross and lay down my life, then I’ll find my life. Over time, I have come to experience this truth. My life of following Jesus has not been the life I envisioned for myself, but it has become the life I want: a life used for the glory of God as I grow in the knowledge of Christ and make him known to others. That’s what I discovered when I was forced to choose between Jesus and my father.

From Iran to Texas

I was born in Houston and grew up in a devout Muslim home. My dad was very involved in the Iranian Muslim community. Growing up, I was taught the five pillars of Islam and that if I did them to the best of my ability, then maybe I’d get to heaven. When I was two years old, my family moved to Iran, where my parents are from. But at age six, the Islamic Revolution of the late ’70s hit that country. My father, who was a doctor, had the means to get us out of the country, so our family moved back to Houston.

I spoke Farsi, not English, and so God, in his incredible plan, provided a Christian lady who tutored me, teaching me the English language every day by reading books to me. In the second grade, she said to me, “Afshin, I want to give you the most important book that you’ll ever read in life.” As she handed me a small New Testament, she told me that I would not completely understand it now, but asked me to promise to hold onto it until I was older.

She gave me that Bible during the Iran hostage crisis, a time during which my family and other Iranians in America were ostracized and hated by many. This lady, however, earned the right to be heard by the way that she loved me, showed me the love of Christ, and poured her life into me. Because the Bible came from her, I believed it was important, and held onto that New Testament. She had planted a seed in my life in the second grade that wouldn’t come to fruition until ten years later.

Leaving Islam

As a senior in high school, I used the Lord’s name in vain while playing basketball. A guy on the court walked up to me and said, “Hey, that Jesus whose name you just said — he’s my God.” As a Muslim, I’d been taught that Jesus was a prophet, so I thought the guy was nuts. A few days later, while watching TV, I stumbled onto a historical documentary on the life of Jesus, where I heard, “Some worship Jesus as God, and they’re called Christians.” My mind went back to the words of the guy on the basketball court, and the Lord reminded me of the Bible that I’d received ten years earlier. That afternoon, I found that small New Testament at the bottom of my closet and began to read in Matthew.

Every day, I’d read under the covers in my bed with a flashlight so that my parents wouldn’t walk in and see what I was doing. Meanwhile, at my high school, a Christian student sat across the table from me at lunch and told me about Jesus. I’d debate against him each day, and then at night I’d go home to read more about his Jesus.

One day, I got to the book of Romans, and the third chapter completely changed my life. I read about a righteousness that comes apart from the law, apart from what I do for God. I read that this righteousness comes as a gift to be received by faith. I was struck by (Rom. 3:22), which says that this righteousness comes to all who believe. I thought I was born a Muslim and would always be a Muslim, but that verse said that this righteousness was for anyone who believes, of any ethnicity. A couple weeks later, a guy invited me to an evangelistic crusade (always an interesting word for a Muslim!), where I heard the gospel proclaimed and came to faith in Christ.

As an aside: I’m often asked what form of evangelism I believe to be most effective. God used evangelism in a variety of forms in my life. He used a teacher loving and tutoring a kid, a guy sharing one-on-one in a cafeteria, a guy speaking up for the name of Christ on a basketball court, an invitation to an evangelistic event, and the preaching of the gospel in a corporate setting. I believe in each of these forms of evangelism because God used each one of them in my own life.

Disowned

I made my commitment to Christ public at that evangelistic crusade, but driving home from the event is when it hit me: “What am I going to tell my family? What am I going to tell my father?” My father had always been the most important person in my life, the guy I’d always looked up to. I’m ashamed to say that I decided to hide my newfound faith from him and the rest of my family. I would sneak out to go to church, intercept mail from the church I was attending, and hide my Bible.

Finally, one day my dad found out. He’d seen my Bible, and he’d also seen other evidences in my life. He sat me down and said, “Son, what’s going on? There’s something different about you.” I said, “Dad, I’m a Christian.” He said, “No, you’re not, young man. you’re a Muslim and you’ll always be a Muslim.” I said, “Dad, the Bible says that if I trust in Christ alone for my salvation, then I’m a Christian — and I do.” My dad said, “Afshin, if you’re going to be a Christian, then you can no longer be my son.”

Everything in my flesh wanted to say, “Forget it. I’ll be a Muslim.” I didn’t want to lose the relationship with my dad. So even I was surprised when I opened my mouth and said, “Dad, if I have to choose between you and Jesus, then I choose Jesus. And if I have to choose between my earthly father and my heavenly Father, then I choose my heavenly Father.” My father disowned me on the spot.

Not Peace, but a Sword

I went upstairs to my room, and in the defining moment of my life, said, “God, how could you do this to me? Jesus, if you’re real, how could you take my dad away from me?” The Lord led me to where Jesus says,

“Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father.” (Matt. 10:32-35)

I read this just moments after my dad disowned me, and thought, Whoa! This just happened for me! Jesus goes on to say,

“I have come to set . . . a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matt. 10:35-39)

That’s when I first understood what it means to be a follower of Christ.

Life Lost and Found

I had to lose my father to follow Christ. But I learned firsthand that when you lose your life, you find it. God gave me a roommate in college who was also a former Muslim and was also disowned by his father. After college, God led me to seminary. He provided a businessman in Dallas who paid for my entire seminary degree and a church internship, which eventually led to a position as a college pastor. God gave me a fifteen-year speaking ministry where I traveled all over the United States, preached the gospel, and saw Muslims come to faith in Christ.

I have partnered with a ministry that reaches into Iran with the gospel, and have had the privilege of training and equipping Iranian pastors, helping to spread the gospel in the same nation from which my family came. I now pastor a church in Frisco, Texas, where I get to weekly remind our people to count the cost of following Christ. As a result, we have grown, planted three churches, and sent out several missionaries around the world. Finally, I am thrilled to say that my relationship with my dad has been restored, and I continue to pray for his salvation daily.

What Has Jesus Cost You?

I’m passionate for people to know that there’s a cost to following Jesus. What is it costing you to follow him? It might be that the thing you’re holding onto is the thing that’s keeping you from living for his glory. For me, it was my dad. For you, it might be something else.

There is a huge difference between being a follower of Christ and merely giving mental assent to the truths about Jesus. The call of Christ isn’t simply “Believe the right things about me” but “Follow me.” And following Jesus is defined by losing your life. It is laying down your dreams, your pursuits, your idols to grab ahold of the greatest treasure in life: Jesus. When we lose our lives, God will leverage our lives for his glory and for others to know Jesus. There is no greater joy and fulfillment in life than this.

]]>
Afshin Ziafat
Lead Pastor, Providence Church
Frisco, TX

January 7, 2019

[I first met Afshin Ziafat a few years ago at a gathering of the Council of the Gospel Coalition. He has become a good friend. When he shared with me his testimony of coming to faith in Jesus and what it cost him, I was astounded, and grateful to God for his amazing grace. On January 7, Afshin described his story in an article first posted at the Desiring God website. Take some time and read it closely. You will be blessed!]

When I left Islam to follow Jesus, I didn’t know what it would cost me. I hadn’t realized what it would take to deny myself, lay my life down, and take up my cross (Matt. 16:24). I wasn’t aware that even the precious relationships of my family should not come between me and following Christ — that I should even hate my family compared to my love for Jesus (Luke 14:26).

But God taught me that if I do take up my cross and lay down my life, then I’ll find my life. Over time, I have come to experience this truth. My life of following Jesus has not been the life I envisioned for myself, but it has become the life I want: a life used for the glory of God as I grow in the knowledge of Christ and make him known to others. That’s what I discovered when I was forced to choose between Jesus and my father.

From Iran to Texas

I was born in Houston and grew up in a devout Muslim home. My dad was very involved in the Iranian Muslim community. Growing up, I was taught the five pillars of Islam and that if I did them to the best of my ability, then maybe I’d get to heaven. When I was two years old, my family moved to Iran, where my parents are from. But at age six, the Islamic Revolution of the late ’70s hit that country. My father, who was a doctor, had the means to get us out of the country, so our family moved back to Houston.

I spoke Farsi, not English, and so God, in his incredible plan, provided a Christian lady who tutored me, teaching me the English language every day by reading books to me. In the second grade, she said to me, “Afshin, I want to give you the most important book that you’ll ever read in life.” As she handed me a small New Testament, she told me that I would not completely understand it now, but asked me to promise to hold onto it until I was older.

She gave me that Bible during the Iran hostage crisis, a time during which my family and other Iranians in America were ostracized and hated by many. This lady, however, earned the right to be heard by the way that she loved me, showed me the love of Christ, and poured her life into me. Because the Bible came from her, I believed it was important, and held onto that New Testament. She had planted a seed in my life in the second grade that wouldn’t come to fruition until ten years later.

Leaving Islam

As a senior in high school, I used the Lord’s name in vain while playing basketball. A guy on the court walked up to me and said, “Hey, that Jesus whose name you just said — he’s my God.” As a Muslim, I’d been taught that Jesus was a prophet, so I thought the guy was nuts. A few days later, while watching TV, I stumbled onto a historical documentary on the life of Jesus, where I heard, “Some worship Jesus as God, and they’re called Christians.” My mind went back to the words of the guy on the basketball court, and the Lord reminded me of the Bible that I’d received ten years earlier. That afternoon, I found that small New Testament at the bottom of my closet and began to read in Matthew.

Every day, I’d read under the covers in my bed with a flashlight so that my parents wouldn’t walk in and see what I was doing. Meanwhile, at my high school, a Christian student sat across the table from me at lunch and told me about Jesus. I’d debate against him each day, and then at night I’d go home to read more about his Jesus.

One day, I got to the book of Romans, and the third chapter completely changed my life. I read about a righteousness that comes apart from the law, apart from what I do for God. I read that this righteousness comes as a gift to be received by faith. I was struck by (Rom. 3:22), which says that this righteousness comes to all who believe. I thought I was born a Muslim and would always be a Muslim, but that verse said that this righteousness was for anyone who believes, of any ethnicity. A couple weeks later, a guy invited me to an evangelistic crusade (always an interesting word for a Muslim!), where I heard the gospel proclaimed and came to faith in Christ.

As an aside: I’m often asked what form of evangelism I believe to be most effective. God used evangelism in a variety of forms in my life. He used a teacher loving and tutoring a kid, a guy sharing one-on-one in a cafeteria, a guy speaking up for the name of Christ on a basketball court, an invitation to an evangelistic event, and the preaching of the gospel in a corporate setting. I believe in each of these forms of evangelism because God used each one of them in my own life.

Disowned

I made my commitment to Christ public at that evangelistic crusade, but driving home from the event is when it hit me: “What am I going to tell my family? What am I going to tell my father?” My father had always been the most important person in my life, the guy I’d always looked up to. I’m ashamed to say that I decided to hide my newfound faith from him and the rest of my family. I would sneak out to go to church, intercept mail from the church I was attending, and hide my Bible.

Finally, one day my dad found out. He’d seen my Bible, and he’d also seen other evidences in my life. He sat me down and said, “Son, what’s going on? There’s something different about you.” I said, “Dad, I’m a Christian.” He said, “No, you’re not, young man. you’re a Muslim and you’ll always be a Muslim.” I said, “Dad, the Bible says that if I trust in Christ alone for my salvation, then I’m a Christian — and I do.” My dad said, “Afshin, if you’re going to be a Christian, then you can no longer be my son.”

Everything in my flesh wanted to say, “Forget it. I’ll be a Muslim.” I didn’t want to lose the relationship with my dad. So even I was surprised when I opened my mouth and said, “Dad, if I have to choose between you and Jesus, then I choose Jesus. And if I have to choose between my earthly father and my heavenly Father, then I choose my heavenly Father.” My father disowned me on the spot.

Not Peace, but a Sword

I went upstairs to my room, and in the defining moment of my life, said, “God, how could you do this to me? Jesus, if you’re real, how could you take my dad away from me?” The Lord led me to where Jesus says,

“Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father.” (Matt. 10:32-35)

I read this just moments after my dad disowned me, and thought, Whoa! This just happened for me! Jesus goes on to say,

“I have come to set . . . a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matt. 10:35-39)

That’s when I first understood what it means to be a follower of Christ.

Life Lost and Found

I had to lose my father to follow Christ. But I learned firsthand that when you lose your life, you find it. God gave me a roommate in college who was also a former Muslim and was also disowned by his father. After college, God led me to seminary. He provided a businessman in Dallas who paid for my entire seminary degree and a church internship, which eventually led to a position as a college pastor. God gave me a fifteen-year speaking ministry where I traveled all over the United States, preached the gospel, and saw Muslims come to faith in Christ.

I have partnered with a ministry that reaches into Iran with the gospel, and have had the privilege of training and equipping Iranian pastors, helping to spread the gospel in the same nation from which my family came. I now pastor a church in Frisco, Texas, where I get to weekly remind our people to count the cost of following Christ. As a result, we have grown, planted three churches, and sent out several missionaries around the world. Finally, I am thrilled to say that my relationship with my dad has been restored, and I continue to pray for his salvation daily.

What Has Jesus Cost You?

I’m passionate for people to know that there’s a cost to following Jesus. What is it costing you to follow him? It might be that the thing you’re holding onto is the thing that’s keeping you from living for his glory. For me, it was my dad. For you, it might be something else.

There is a huge difference between being a follower of Christ and merely giving mental assent to the truths about Jesus. The call of Christ isn’t simply “Believe the right things about me” but “Follow me.” And following Jesus is defined by losing your life. It is laying down your dreams, your pursuits, your idols to grab ahold of the greatest treasure in life: Jesus. When we lose our lives, God will leverage our lives for his glory and for others to know Jesus. There is no greater joy and fulfillment in life than this.

]]>
50 Core Truths of the Christian Faith https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/50-core-truths-of-the-christian-faith https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/50-core-truths-of-the-christian-faith#comments Wed, 05 Oct 2022 02:00:00 -0500 https://www.disciple-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/50-core-truths-of-the-christian-faith I don’t often review books on my blog, but I’m so excited about Gregg Allison’s new volume that I can’t resist the temptation!

I read through 50 Core Truths of the Christian Faith: A Guide to Understanding and Teaching Theology (Baker Books) quite a while back and found it to be the best, most informative, clearest, and most accessible short book on theology that I’ve ever come across. I say “short” but may need to retract that one adjective. It is 426 pages! But given the expanse of topics that Gregg covers and the thorough way in which each topic is addressed, I’m amazed he was able to pack it into only 426 pages.

Gregg Allison is a dear friend of mine, but that is not why I’m encouraging you to get and read his book. Gregg teaches Christian Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is also a pastor at Sojourn Community Church and his pastoral sensitivity and concern for the average believer shows up on every page.

I was honored when Gregg asked me to consider writing an endorsement for the book. Here is what you will find on the inside cover:

“This is a much-needed resource for the body of Christ, especially for new believers or those who have not as yet delved into the “whole counsel of God.” Gregg Allison writes with insight on each issue and does a remarkable job of articulating multiple interpretations of each one. His presentation of the evidence and arguments for differing views is even-handed and displays both the Christian charity and clarity that we have come to expect of everything he writes. For those who are put off by massive volumes on systematic theology, this is the book for you. And for those who want more than a surface, superficial treatment of critically important biblical and theological doctrines, this is the book for you. There is no one in whom I have more trust to write a book such as this than Gregg Allison. From this day forward, when I’m asked: “What do Christians believe? How do I sort through the variety of positions? And why should I care?” I will send them to Gregg’s excellent volume.”

The way Gregg has constructed this book is important and will prove to be especially helpful to the new believer. But that doesn’t mean a long-time and well-read Christian can’t benefit from it. I certainly did.

Each chapter begins with a summary of the doctrine under consideration. This is followed by a list of the Main Themes contained in this particular theological truth. Gregg then provides us with the Key Scripture texts that form the basis for the doctrine. In the lengthiest section in each chapter, titled “Understanding the Doctrine,” Gregg begins with what he calls “Major Affirmations” or what must be known in constructing sound doctrine. He focuses on both the biblical support for the doctrine and the major errors to be avoided.

As Gregg notes, “in addition to constructing the doctrine in the ‘Understanding the Doctrine’ section, each chapter contains an ‘Enacting the Doctrine’ section and a ‘Teaching the Doctrine’ section. The application section connects the topic to daily living for both individual believers and churches. The teaching section offers guidance for communicating the doctrine to today’s audiences” (xiv).

He also has in each chapter a part titled, “Perennial Questions and Problematic Issues,” as well as a Teaching Outline for the doctrine and a list of helpful resources.

In sum, if you are looking for a readable, intelligible, and substantive but not overly technical treatment of Christian truth, this is the book for you. I simply cannot recommend it too highly. I can assure you that I plan on making use of this book here at Bridgeway in a variety of different ministry contexts.

Sam

]]>
I don’t often review books on my blog, but I’m so excited about Gregg Allison’s new volume that I can’t resist the temptation!

I read through 50 Core Truths of the Christian Faith: A Guide to Understanding and Teaching Theology (Baker Books) quite a while back and found it to be the best, most informative, clearest, and most accessible short book on theology that I’ve ever come across. I say “short” but may need to retract that one adjective. It is 426 pages! But given the expanse of topics that Gregg covers and the thorough way in which each topic is addressed, I’m amazed he was able to pack it into only 426 pages.

Gregg Allison is a dear friend of mine, but that is not why I’m encouraging you to get and read his book. Gregg teaches Christian Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is also a pastor at Sojourn Community Church and his pastoral sensitivity and concern for the average believer shows up on every page.

I was honored when Gregg asked me to consider writing an endorsement for the book. Here is what you will find on the inside cover:

“This is a much-needed resource for the body of Christ, especially for new believers or those who have not as yet delved into the “whole counsel of God.” Gregg Allison writes with insight on each issue and does a remarkable job of articulating multiple interpretations of each one. His presentation of the evidence and arguments for differing views is even-handed and displays both the Christian charity and clarity that we have come to expect of everything he writes. For those who are put off by massive volumes on systematic theology, this is the book for you. And for those who want more than a surface, superficial treatment of critically important biblical and theological doctrines, this is the book for you. There is no one in whom I have more trust to write a book such as this than Gregg Allison. From this day forward, when I’m asked: “What do Christians believe? How do I sort through the variety of positions? And why should I care?” I will send them to Gregg’s excellent volume.”

The way Gregg has constructed this book is important and will prove to be especially helpful to the new believer. But that doesn’t mean a long-time and well-read Christian can’t benefit from it. I certainly did.

Each chapter begins with a summary of the doctrine under consideration. This is followed by a list of the Main Themes contained in this particular theological truth. Gregg then provides us with the Key Scripture texts that form the basis for the doctrine. In the lengthiest section in each chapter, titled “Understanding the Doctrine,” Gregg begins with what he calls “Major Affirmations” or what must be known in constructing sound doctrine. He focuses on both the biblical support for the doctrine and the major errors to be avoided.

As Gregg notes, “in addition to constructing the doctrine in the ‘Understanding the Doctrine’ section, each chapter contains an ‘Enacting the Doctrine’ section and a ‘Teaching the Doctrine’ section. The application section connects the topic to daily living for both individual believers and churches. The teaching section offers guidance for communicating the doctrine to today’s audiences” (xiv).

He also has in each chapter a part titled, “Perennial Questions and Problematic Issues,” as well as a Teaching Outline for the doctrine and a list of helpful resources.

In sum, if you are looking for a readable, intelligible, and substantive but not overly technical treatment of Christian truth, this is the book for you. I simply cannot recommend it too highly. I can assure you that I plan on making use of this book here at Bridgeway in a variety of different ministry contexts.

Sam

]]>