This past Saturday, Professor Elliot Greene from Redeemer Presbyterian Seminary taught on “Christ, the Kingdom and History.” One of the quotes that I have been thinking on since then is:

“God has placed us where His love is most potent, in His Son.”

Paul often uses the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ (in Christ) or ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (in Christ Jesus) to refer to this reality of union with Christ. Though the phrase is used dozens of times, consider just a few of the more widely known passages that express this essential truth.

• Romans 8:1–2 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. ² For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
• 1 Corinthians 1:30–31 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, ³¹ so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
• 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
• Galatians 3:25–29 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, ²⁶ for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. ²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
• Ephesians 1:3–6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ⁴ even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love ⁵ he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
• Ephesians 2:1–10 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins ² in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— ³ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. ⁴ But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, ⁵ even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— ⁶ and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, ⁷ so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. ⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not a result of works, so that no one may boast. ¹⁰ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Righteousness, holiness, justification, and sanctification, God’s love, grace, and mercy, all pardon and hope and promise and boast wrapped up in Christ Jesus. In order to attain them, we must be in Him. Those who are in Him, that is who are united to Him through faith, and only those who are in Him, are beneficiaries of these attributes and aspects of redemption.

Union with Christ is the fountainhead from which flows the Christian’s every spiritual blessing—repentance and faith, pardon, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification. Chosen in Christ before the creation of the world, and in the divine mind united with Christ in his death and resurrection, the elect, in response to God’s effectual call, are through God’s gift of faith actually united to Christ. Their union with Christ is in no sense the effect of human causation. “The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband” (Larger Catechism, Question 66). By virtue of his actual union with Christ the Husband in his death and resurrection, the Christian, as Christ’s “bride,” is forgiven of his sin and liberated from the law—his previous “husband”—and made capable of doing that which he could never do before, namely, “bear holy fruit to God” (Rom. 7:4–5). To the degree that the Christian “reckons himself dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:11), that is to say, to the degree that the Christian takes seriously the reality of his Spirit–wrought union with Christ, to that degree he will find his definitive sanctification coming to actual expression in his experiential or progressive sanctification. The holiness of the Christian’s daily walk directly depends upon his union with the Savior.^[1]

Are you in Christ? Are you taking seriously the singular privilege of union with Him and deriving joy and peace from knowing that you are loved by God in Christ Jesus the Lord?

---

Reymond, R. L. (1998). A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (739). Nashville: T. Nelson.

Christ, Sanctification

Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?’

Mark 15:34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which is translated, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?’ [1]

There has been much confusion and debate as to the meaning of Christ’s so-called “cry of dereliction” from the cross. The two most popular interpretations are:

1. He was experiencing and therefore expressing rejection from His Father.
2. He was merely quoting an Old Testament messianic psalm.

This blog post will attempt to wrestle through the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various position and craft some helpful boundaries in attempting to answer the question, “Did the Father reject the Son?”

Rejection of the Son
This position is often stated as the Father “turning His face away” or “turning His back to the Son” which both convey the same image of rejection. Though this imagery is not explicitly used in the Scriptures, theological reflection upon the transaction that actually took place upon the cross has led many to this conclusion.

A foundational truth that has been held consistently throughout the church age is that of the Trinity. The God of the Old and New Testaments has always existed as triune, but has now in these last days fully revealed Himself to be such. This is a precious doctrine that has been a litmus test for distinctly Christian thought for nearly 2000 years. According to the orthodox understanding of the nature of the godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally existed in absolute harmony and joy, united in nature and yet distinct in person and role.

According to some thinking on Matthew and Mark’s texts, this eternal delight and harmony between Father and Son was temporarily yet truly broken in light of Christ’s offering as a propitiatory sacrifice.[2] This interpretation understands His words to be a reflection of the deep and previously unknown discord experienced by the Son as He hung upon the cross. Also used in support of this view are passages such as:

• Habakkuk 1:13 [God’s] eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You cannot look on wickedness with favor…
• 2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
• Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us – for it is written – ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’

Since Christ became a curse and sin on our behalf, this view holds that the Father could no longer look upon Him. It rightly feels the theological tension of a holy and perfect God encountering that that is, by definition, contrary to His very nature. However, isn’t Christ just as holy and perfect as the Father? To say that the Father could not look upon sin and thus had to turn His face away merely deflects the tension from the Father to the Son that is hardly helpful. In addition, how does this view interpret the obvious parallel which exists between the Lord’s cry from the cross and David’s recorded anguish in Psalm 22?

Allusion to a Psalm
Psalm 22 is one of the most descriptive passages found within the Old Testament depicting the shadow of the eventual crucifixion of the messiah.[3] Its specific messianic tone and rightful application to Jesus is clearly expounded in Hebrews 2:13 leaving no doubt that as to a relationship between the prophecy within this particular psalm and the events which transpired upon Calvary. The psalm clearly and biblically points to the Christ Who eventually suffered and died in fulfillment of the text.

The passage in Psalm 22 begins “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” Was Jesus doing nothing more than pointing to the psalm to once again manifest Himself as prophesied messiah to the crowds that were gathered around Him? [4] Was He, by quoting the first line of the psalm,[5] pointing to the triumphant expectation of the proceeding context?[6] Was He merely quoting the psalm, as He quoted Deuteronomy at His desert temptation, in order to steady Himself upon the Scripture?[7] Was He simply identifying with the struggle of David in feeling deserted from His Father?

While noticing the obvious parallel between Matthew and Mark’s accounts and the Psalm, this view does not attempt to clarify the actual experience of sin-bearing upon the cross. Was the Son merely quoting the Psalm or was He actually experiencing and thus fulfilling that to which the Psalm pointed?

Reflections upon the Text
Given the obvious and exact correspondence to the language of the psalmist, I find it hard to discount that Jesus had in mind an allusion to the Scripture. In addition, as He proved countless times, it is not to be forgotten that He would have known that the lament that begins in agony ends in triumphant glory. No doubt He knew even as He cried, “why have You forsaken Me?” that this same God “has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from him; but when he cried to Him for help, He heard.”[8]

I certainly do not wish to underestimate the intense physical and emotional agony of the cross or the depth of mystery in the death of the divine. Jesus Christ truly did become a curse and sin on our behalf and it would be sloppy interpretation in not pointing out the logical difficulty which exists when God, even the God-man Jesus, bears sin contrary to His very nature and absorbs the wrath of His loving Father. Then again, any language which speaks of the Father rejecting the Son risks going too far in describing a separation within the eternal godhead, and I’m not comfortable doing so without more explicit evidence.

In my estimation, Scripture is not sufficiently clear[9] for us to make absolutely precise statements as to the exact nature and intention of Christ’s cries from Calvary. We do know that His language was unique in that it represents the only record of personal address in which the Son calls His Father “God” and not “Father,” but this hardly prefers one position over the other.[10] In addition, we should assert that in some way Jesus was alluding back to the messianic overtones of the 22^nd psalm. We should also be careful to not distance ourselves from the peculiar and distinct suffering and anguish which was experienced by the Son as He bore in His body the weight of wrath poured out against sin. In so recognizing, we are left to confess the ultimate and profound mystery of how it is that any sin could be tolerated, looked upon or borne in even the slightest degree by any member of the godhead.  The ultimate depths are surely a secret restricted to the divine; a mystery which should not terminate in confusion so much as awe and wonder that God has worked such a glorious salvation for sinful man.

Conclusion
Regardless of the degree to which we incorporate aspects of the two extreme positions, we must confidently assert that Christ’s final words contained not the slightest hint of separation or alienation between the Son and His Father. As both Matthew and Mark attest, after crying out the words corresponding to Psalm 22, he again uttered at least one other loud cry before yielding up His spirit.[11] While neither of the first two gospels give us an indication of the content of this final cry, both Luke and John make mention. John’s report ends on the triumphant note of victory as Jesus proclaims that His work has been accomplished[12] while Luke shows once again the familiarity of the eternal harmony of the godhead as Christ cries out “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.”[13] While most precisely reflecting the language of Psalm 31:5, it is certainly interesting to note the similarity to Psalm 22:8 “Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him; let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.”

Surely the Father delights in the Son and rescued and delivered the One Who committed Himself fully to Him. Whether Jesus experienced a sense or the reality of alienation or not, we must boldly confess that Father and Son are now and forevermore experiencing the fullness of delight in each other and the infinite perfections of the godhead.

For Additional Explanation or Assistance:

Allen, Clifton J., General Articles: Matthew-Mark, The Broadman Bible Commentary, Nashville, 1969.

Cole, R. Alan, Mark, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1997.

France, R.T., Matthew, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1985.

Garland, David, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary, Grand Rapids, 1996.

Lane, William L., The Gospel of Mark, NICNT, Grand Rapids, 1974.

MacArthur, John, Matthew: 24-28, The MacArthur NT Commentary, Chicago, 1989.

Mounce, Robert H., Matthew, New International Biblical Commentary, Peabody, MA 1991.

Oden, Thomas C. and Christopher A. Hall, Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on

Scripture, Downers Grove, 1998.

---

[1] [1] The distinction between “Eli” and “Eloi” as recorded in the two gospels is owing to Matthew’s use of the Hebrew “Eli” and Mark’s use of the Aramaic “Eloi”.  Though the wording is different, the same concept of a personal address to God is indicated.

[2] [2] Propitiation is the theological term for the satisfaction of God’s wrath. The term is used in the New Testament in Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2, 4:10.

[3] [3]Note that the servant was mocked (vss. 7-8), stretched (14), thirsty (15), pierced on hands and feet (16), without broken bones (17), looked upon (17), had his garments divided (18), etc. See also Isaiah 53 for a passage similarly loaded with such prophetic richness.

[4] [4]Note the frequency of Jesus’ use of Old Testament scripture to evidence His messianic ministry in such passages as Matthew 11:4-5, 13:14-15, 21:42, 22:42-45; Mark 14:49; Luke 4:17-21, 24:25-27; John 5:39, 7:38, 13:18, 17:12, et al.

[5] [5]The practice of quoting the first line to bring to mind the entire psalm was consistent with ancient Jewish custom.

[6] [6]While the psalm begins with a lament of anguish, the context becomes increasingly positive eventually resulting in praise from the psalmist (pointing to the messiah) in verses 22 and 25 and, ultimately in God’s praise throughout the world in verses 27-31.

[7] [7]R. Alan Cole, Mark, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1997, pg. 320.

[8] [8]Psalm 22:24

[9] [9]This is neither a denial of the doctrines of sufficiency nor perspicuity, as neither affirms that Scripture is utterly and exhaustively clear in all areas, but rather that it is sufficiently clear in leading us to salvation and godly living.

[10] [10]R.T. France, Matthew, Tyndale NT Commentaries, Grand Rapids, 1985, pg. 398.  J. MacArthur, Matthew: 24-28, The MacArthur NT Commentary, Chicago, 1989, pg. 270.  This fact in and of itself does not prove anything.  While the second interpretation would point out that this anomaly tends to favor that Jesus was merely quoting Scripture by not using His personal term of familiarity, the former position would state that such an exception indicates the very real alienation which forms their understanding.

[11] Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37.

[12] John 19:30

[13] Luke 23:46

Bible Texts, Christ, Miscellaneous

While the faithful remnant of the Old Testament worshiped YHWH[1], a great number of Israelites were compelled to serve Baal and other Ancient Near Eastern gods. As seen throughout the narrative of the Old Testament, idolatry (i.e. substitute worship) was the fundamental problem from the beginning of not only Israel, but of mankind in general.[2]

The reality of idolatry even within ancient Israel should lead us to conclude that not every member of the nation worshipped YHWH.[3] Not all Jews feared and revered the God of Abraham. This recognition becomes critical in a conversation on modern Judaism.

The New Testament unambiguously states that those who truly worshiped YHWH would have seen and responded to the gospel of Christ. This is why Jesus does not condemn His fellow Jews for believing in the God of Abraham and Moses, but rather for rejecting the very One to Whom Abraham and Moses pointed.

A couple of references make this point clear:

John 5:37-47 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

John 8:39-59 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

48The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

According to these texts, true belief in the God of Abraham and Moses responds to the Christ of Whom they spoke and in Whom they hoped. The fundamental problem with Judaism then and now is not the reverence of the God of the Old Testament, but instead the failure to faithfully fear the God revealed in the Old Testament.

YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David, has eternally existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The God of the Scriptures, Old and New, is triune. Whereas in the Old Testament, the trinity was implied in shadowed form, the New Testament revelation of Christ shines forth with greater brilliance and clarity. Simply put, one who worships a non-triune god is not worshipping the one God Who is triune. This is the point developed further in the blog, What if I Believe in ‘God,’ but not in Jesus?. To deny the Son is to deny the Father Who sent Him, which is to deny the God of the Scriptures, Old and New.

Christianity considers modern Judaism to be errant not because they worship the God of the Old Testament, but precisely because they do not do so. This realization is no justification for the evil of historic anti-Semitism, but rather is a compelling call for mission. Like Christ and His apostles, we should have a heart to see Jews reconciled – not to a new God, but to the God of their fathers.

Romans 10:1-3 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

_____________

[1] The theme of a faithful remnant is common throughout the Old Testament narrative (1 Kings 19:18; Jeremiah 23:3-4; Joel 2:32; Micah 2:12; Zephaniah 3:11-13; et al) and relates to the concept of the elect as used in the New (Mark 13:20, 27; Luke 18:7; Romans 8:33; 1 Peter 1:1, 2:9; et al).

[2] This is not to imply that mankind was created to be idolaters, but rather that idolatry entered into our nature in the very first generation through Adam and Eve’s disobedience. How long after their creation this occurred is not revealed in the Scriptures.

[3] The combination of these 4 letters (typically pronounced Yahweh) is referred to as the tetragrammaton (four letters) by scholars and is the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses particularly in Exodus 3:15. It appears in English texts as “the LORD” where LORD is in all capital letters to distinguish it from adonai (Hebrew for “lord”) and kyrios (Greek for “lord”).

Christ, Culture

Born of a virgin
Hailed as God and man
Surrounded by 12 Disciples
Performed miraculous deeds
Baptized
Sacrificed
Resurrected

Internet sites abound with alleged similarities between the events of the New Testament narrative,[1] in particular the person and work of Jesus Christ, and ancient mythological accounts of gods. Horus, Osiris, Dionysius, Mithra: all allegedly share in characteristics which Christians uniquely attribute to Christ. What are we to make of these parallels?

Superficial Claims
First and foremost, it is necessary to recognize the superficiality of such comparisons. Alleged similarities are typically a mile wide and an inch deep, intended to confuse and mislead in an area in which very few are personally informed. Internet claims are simply recited without actually being researched. Here are a couple of examples of such distortions of the actual evidence:

Virgin birth
It is certainly true that a few myths and religions spoke of something which has been described as a “virgin birth,” but examination of the source texts reveal that such terminology is misleading and irresponsible. Those accounts are decidedly sexual in nature with a male deity procreating with a female (virgin or not in some cases) in order to produce a son. In other words, a male god is engaging in physical sex with a female woman. If a man (deity or not) has sex with a female, then it is not a virgin birth because she is no longer a virgin. To call this a “virgin birth” is simply irresponsible and misunderstands the nature of Christ’s virgin birth.

For the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth, read in particular Luke 1:34-35. God did not sexually interact with Mary. The pagan pictures of “virgin birth” are extremely dissimilar to the biblical account of the conception of Christ in which the power of the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary.

The parallel is very weak and unconvincing at best.

Resurrection
What of the many other mythical accounts of dying and rising gods? Analysis reveals that this too is hardly analogous to the Christian doctrine of resurrection. Those “gods” rose again each year as part of the agricultural cycle not as a watershed moment in history. It is the historical account of resurrection that sets the Christian claim apart and it is the central question which must be answered. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15) and should be discarded as such. But if He did rise, this reality has profound implications for us and our lives.

The reality of the resurrection best accounts for the objective data that we have. We know for a fact that the early church professed the resurrection (i.e. it was not invented some years later). We know for a fact that the disciples were willing to lay down their lives for that message (i.e. this makes it extremely unlikely that they stole the body). No body of Christ ever surfaced. Why not? Did the Romans or Jews steal it? That is extremely illogical since it would have only intensified the claims of Christianity. Was it a random grave robber? We have absolutely no evidence for that. Though it might grate against man’s rational desire for natural explanations, the resurrection simply best explains what we know to be historically true. Denial of the resurrection demands great faith in speculative answers to the questions which are raised by the data of the 1st century.

[For an in-depth analysis of the absolute uniqueness of the biblical account of resurrection, set aside a large portion of time to begin to work through N.T. Wright’s mammoth “The Resurrection of the Son of God.” Wright looks at pagan accounts in particular and analyzes the claim that Christianity merely borrowed the concept of resurrection from surrounding cultures. Wright evidences that the Christian conception of resurrection was totally dissimilar to the expectations of the Ancient Near Eastern culture of that time or previous. There is a marked contrast between the hope of Christian resurrection and the pagan desire for life after death.]

The following summarizes the resurrection “parallels” quite nicely, “It is superficial and unfounded to say that the study of the history of religions has shown the dependence of the resurrection of Jesus on mythology. On the contrary, it is precisely the comparison with the history of religion that gives rise to the strongest objections to any kind of mythifying of the resurrection of Jesus.”[2]

When one examines the claims of pagan parallels, one finds the such comparisons are incredibly shallow. Ultimately, it is not the similarities that are incredible, it is the depth of dissimilarity. The uniqueness of the biblical portrait of Jesus is astounding.

The Existence of Parallels
Though many parallels are weak, the fact that there are some similarities still needs to be considered. We will limit our consideration to similarities pointed out within the text of the Old Testament for the sake of time as I have posted a few resources which deal more specifically with claims of parallels in the New.

First, I think it is important to consider that many parallels are intentional devices on the part of the authors of Scripture to show YHWH’s superiority over, not similarity to, pagan gods. Biblical studies have shown indeed that the language of the Scriptures often alludes to surrounding myths in taking a polemical posture against those religions and their idols. The Scriptures were not given from within a vacuum devoid of context. In speaking against Baalism in early Israel, it is only fitting that the authors of the Scriptures use language that parallels and supersedes that which was used by proponents of Canaanite paganism. The Bible is full of such intentional engagement with false teachings. For example, many believe that Psalm 29 is intentionally aimed at displaying the superiority of YHWH to Baal. YHWH’s voice is highlighted (7 times in the 11 verses) and is described as a thunderstorm to evidence His great power. This is particularly enlightening when one considers that Baal was considered the “storm-god” whose “voice” was heard in storms. In using the same language and imagery of the pagan god, David is here elevating the voice (7 being a number of completion or perfection in Hebrew culture) and power of YHWH over that of Baal. Rather than simply borrowing from ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) myths, the Scriptures are using similarities as inroads to consider the superiority of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the “gods” of the culture.

Second, I think that in many cases parallels actually strengthen the case for the biblical account. For instance, the vast distribution of pagan flood accounts in the ANE should not lead us to conclude that there was no flood, but rather that something actually happened. If one were investigating a murder and witness A claimed to hear an explosion late at night, witness B testified to fireworks sometime after 11:30, witness C argued for a backfiring car about 12:05, and witness D described a gunshot at 11:58, you would not conclude that they were all colluding or lying. Only a foolish detective would consider the contrasting accounts to be necessarily contradictory. They instead carry the common theme of a loud bang sometime around midnight. Even more foolish would be to assume that nothing actually happened. Further investigation of the evidence would highlight whether indeed there was a gunshot wound and approximate time of death.

What are we ultimately to make of the existence of some parallels? If the biblical account is true, then man and demons are rebellious resisters of the revelation of God. If so, is it not extremely likely that both would seek to corrupt the account by reinterpreting actual events? Pagan parallels do not disprove Christianity any more than a witness who swears that he heard a car backfire disproves a murder.

Recommended Resources for Further Study
Reinventing Jesus – Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace (in particular, read chapters 16-18 which deal with issues of alleged parallels)

Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology – Niehaus

Dethroning Jesus – Bock and Wallace

---

[1] In particular, I have received a number of e-mails about a video called Zeitgeist. For a brief overview of the many problems in this particular video, consider this interview.

[2] Walter Kunneth, as quoted in “Reinventing Jesus.”

Christ, Culture, History

How often do you consider Christ?

How often do you truly contemplate Him, think on Him, reflect upon and mull over who He is and what He has done?

This weekend Beau Hughes, an elder and the Denton campus pastor here at The Village, commends us to do just this in accordance with commands of the book of Hebrews:

Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession…

3:1

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, (2)looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (3)Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.

12:1-3

Consider Jesus. Consider Him. Reflect, meditate, contemplate, ponder, deliberate, muse…consider. How easy it is to fail to do this: to grow distracted with work, family, ministry, chores, media, sports, serving, etc. Failing to consider Christ is simple…just let your mind drift. Drifting is easy…but it’s also dangerous.

The audience to whom the book of Hebrews was written faced the daily pressures of the reality of persecution and the ongoing struggle with sin. In light of such difficulties, there existed a persuasive temptation to apostatize, to turn from Christ back to the Judaism of their fathers.

As an encouragement to hold fast and persevere in the faith in the midst of these struggles, the author structures the letter as an apologetic (or defense) for the superiority of Christ and what He has accomplished. The command to consider Christ fits nicely within this context. If we know and believe who Christ is and what He has done, we will be more apt to turn toward rather than away from Him.

Why return to Judaism when Christ represents the fulfillment of Judaism and is thus superior to each of its distinct elements? Reading through the book, we find that:

1. Christ is superior to the angels who mediated the first covenant
2. the Sabbath rest offered in Christ is superior to the rest offered in the promised land
3. the priesthood of Christ is superior to the levitical priesthood
4. the revelation of Christ is superior to the revelation given to Moses
5. the new covenant in Christ is superior to the old covenant and the Law
6. the body of Christ is superior to the tabernacle and temple
7. the sacrifice of Christ is superior to the Old Testament sacrificial system.

Torah, land, priesthood, Moses, covenant, temple, sacrifices…all pictures pointing to a greater reality. To depart from Christ is to choose a silhouette instead of the true form, it is to choose the inherently inferior and incomplete. It is to substitute shadow for substance.

Thus the call to consider Christ. It is a reminder to remember – to remember that He is superior. To recall that He is the greater prophet who announces and fulfills the greater covenant. That He is the greater priest who has offered the greater sacrifice. Christ is simply better.

What does the author of Hebrews want us to know about Christ? What attributes does he find to be particularly helpful in the struggle against sin and persecution? Though certainly not exhaustive, the below passages represent some of the more richly dense texts on the person and work of our Lord. May we be diligent and dutiful to delight in these contemplations of Christ. May the Spirit use these truths to sharpen and sanctify us for this day and the days ahead.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

1:3

But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

2:9-10

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

2:14-18

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

4:14-16

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

5:7-10

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. 23The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. 26For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

7:22-27

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

9:24-28

And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified…

10:11-14

Bible Texts, Christ

Why must Christians insist that Jesus Christ is the only way to God? What about the man or woman who trusts, loves, and worships God, but not Jesus? Would God really not accept someone just because they do not accept Christ?

One of the cultural obstacles to Christianity is the exclusive nature of its claims. Consider the following passages:[1]

• There is salvation in no one else… Acts 4:12
• I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.  John 14:6

Such statements are certainly bold if not outright offensive in light of our culture’s insistence on the relativity of truth and the variety of appropriate ways to God. Because Christianity has affirmed that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, the charge of exclusivity is stamped upon our faith and it is subsequently blacklisted as intolerant and thus unacceptable within the marketplace of ideas. Is this charge warranted? Is Christianity truly exclusive?

The rejection of Christianity on the basis of its exclusive claims is a denial that God, if He exists, would be so restrictive in allowing access to Himself. Would He really condemn someone who believed in, loved, and worshipped Him, but not necessarily Jesus?

At the root of this question is a major theological assumption which must be addressed. The assumption is that Jesus is not God. The question necessarily divides the very nature of God. If God is triune as Christians claim,[2] then it is impossible to worship “God” and not worship Jesus, because Jesus truly is God. If God is not triune, then Jesus is not fully divine and the Christian faith is nothing more than another religion vying for attention.

The exclusivity of Christianity rises or falls on the connection between the Father and Son. One who loves and trusts in one will truly and surely love and trust in the other. Here is a sample of some of the relevant texts which discuss the impossibility of love for and trust in one apart from the other:

No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. – 1 John 2:23

Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life… – 1 John 5:10-12

The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. – John 5.22-23

The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me. – Luke 10:16

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. – 2 John 9

There is an inseparable link between the knowledge of the Son and the knowledge of the Father. To love one is to love the other and to reject one is to reject the other. To speak of God accepting those who have rejected Christ is to misunderstand Who Christ is.

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. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. – Colossians 1:15-23

This not a doctrine that produces arrogance on the part of those who trust Christ, but rather a longing for others to taste and see the glory of the Father as it shines forth perfectly and brilliantly in His beloved Son. May we put to death any sinful and ignorant pride and be a people who tearfully beg every nation, tongue, and tribe to be reconciled to God through the person and work of Jesus Christ.
________________
[1]For a more detailed articulation of the singularity of faith in Christ, see: http://hv.thevillagechurch.net/resource_files/articles/Soteriology/IsJesusTheOnlyWay.pdf.
[2] See Dwell Deep Weeks 10, 11, and 12 for a teaching on the Christian belief in the Trinity – http://hv.thevillagechurch.net/studies-seminars

Christ

If you are very familiar with pop society of the past decade you have probably heard the claim that the deity of Jesus was not a confession or belief of the early church, but was rather an invention of the fourth century in accordance with Emperor Constantine’s desire for imperial unity.

“Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.” (Teabing, The DaVinci Code: Dan Brown)

“Jesus’ establishment as “the Son of God” was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.” (DaVinci),

It is not my intent to provide a defense against Dan Brown’s work (for two reasons: 1. Others have already done a solid job of this – see Dr. Darrell Bock’s Breaking the DaVinci Code 2. The book was released 6 years ago and is no longer that culturally significant though I think Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are teaming up again to make another movie in the series).  Rather I wanted to merely provide some early church quotations to highlight the historical fact that there is a consistent belief in the deity of Jesus Christ throughout the first four centuries of Christian history.

A.D. 66 —“Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)

AD 95—“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14)

AD 110—“There is only one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering, then beyond it—Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ignatius of Antioch)

AD 165—“And because he was God and is God…this is the Man who was sent by the Father to the world because he is God, both Man upon earth and God in heaven, and he is God over all creation.” (Melito of Sardis)

AD 180—“For we speak of His Word as God too and Son, and of the Holy Spirit likewise, united into one by power and divided in order thus: the Father, the Son, the Spirit.” (Athenagoras of Athens)

AD 190—“Inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things…. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man—the Author of all blessings to us.” (Clement of Alexandria)

AD 200—“So from spirit comes spirit, and God from God, as light is kindled from light…. This ray of God…glided down into a virgin, in her womb was fashioned as flesh.” (Tertullian)

AD 245—“We do not fall into the opinion of those [monarchists], who reject that the Son is distinct from the Father… nor do we fall into the other impious doctrine which denies the divinity of Christ.” (Origen)

As you can see, it is simply untrue that the early church did not believe in the doctrine of the deity of Christ.  The church did struggle with articulating the concept of the relationship between Father and Son, but there is a huge difference between wrestling with how to express a truth and not believing that truth.

In light of a spreading heresy 4th century heresy known as Arianism which taught that Jesus was not divine, but was rather a creature, an ecumenical (meaning universal – churches from all over sent representatives) counsel was held to seek consensus on the Christian confession of the person of Jesus Christ.  Below is what was articulated:

The Nicene Creed (325 AD):
I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son(1);  who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the Prophets. And one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

—————

1. The phrase “and the Son” was not accepted by the entire church and was a later addition which was a catalyst for the split between the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) churches.  Theologians refer to this as the filioque clause from the Latin for “from the Son.”

Christ, History

A couple of Friday nights ago, we hosted a “Culture and Theology” event entitled “One God, One Way.”  Dr. Scott Horrell, Professor of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, was kind enough to come and help us to reflect upon the exclusive and controversial claims of Christian theology as to the uniqueness and necessity of Jesus Christ. For those unable to attend, or merely as a reflection piece for those who did, I hoped to condense one overarching thought from the night.

It should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the gospels that Jesus of Nazareth spoke of Himself as divine and not merely human.  Whether you agree with His assessment of Himself or not, it is simply dishonest to deny that He claimed to be God.  Though professions of His deity are scattered throughout the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), particular emphasis on Christ’s divinity is revealed in John’s gospel.  From the opening words about the eternal Word, to the accepted confession of Thomas, “My Lord and my God!” the book focuses our attention on the glory and majesty of the Savior.  Here are a few of the statements which Jesus makes about Himself according to the gospel of John:

• 5:22-24 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
• 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
• 10:30 I and the Father are one.
• 14:6-9 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”

(It is certainly important to note that not only the gospels, but the whole of the New Testament contains this picture of Jesus’ divinity.  I encourage you to read Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 for a couple of passages which contain what scholars call a “high Christology.”)

It should therefore be somewhat obvious to even the casual reader that Scripture explicitly claims that Jesus is God.  If Scripture is correct in this assessment then we are obligated to worship and obey Him as God.  But how is it that we know that the Scripture is correct in its revelation of His identity?

Someone asked this question Friday night and I thought Dr. Horrell did a wonderful job of bringing the conversation quickly to the resurrection.  He mentioned a statistic that measured the likelihood of Christ’s actual resurrection at approximately 98% based upon historical analysis of what we know to have happened and when we know it to have occurred (growth of the church, martyrdom of various saints, transmission of copies of the Scriptures, etc.).  The resurrection honestly makes the best sense of the historical data available to us today.  If the tomb was not empty then why didn’t the Romans or Jews produce the body to quell the movement?  If the disciples stole the body why would they have been willing to sacrifice themselves for what they would have known to be a lie?  If they didn’t steal it, then who did and why?  Unless we are starting from a position which absolutely denies the possibility of the miraculous, then the resurrection best explains the events of the first century.  If the resurrection occurred, then the claims of Christ are validated and thus His apostles are granted the authority which He claimed to give them.  Therefore the resurrection validates the Scriptures just as much as the Scriptures validate the resurrection.

If Christ did not rise from the dead, then we are still dead in our sins, Christianity is a façade and our hope is futile (1 Corinthians 15).  However, if He did rise, then all that He claimed to be and do must be taken seriously.  Our hope is not therefore in an obscure revelation given to one man in a cave, a subjective experience of enlightenment, or a secret that is conveyed by drinking the Kool-Aid, but rather in an a risen person seen, heard and touched by hundreds of people over a period of about a month.  Our hope is founded upon an objective historical event.

As we reflect back upon this past Friday and look forward to the coming Good Friday, let us remember the beauty of the third day when Christ broke forth from the grave in glory, power, and majesty.  Let us think often and deeply on not only the humility of the cross, but the glory of the resurrection.

1 Peter 1:3-6 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

Christ