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

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended to hell, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty, thence He will come to judge the living and the dead; I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

-The Apostles’ Creed

What is the Apostles’ Creed and why should we care?

The Apostles’ Creed was originally developed as a fundamental statement of faith by the early church in regards to the basics of orthodox belief.[1] It initially functioned as a baptismal formula and is therefore somewhat parallel in purpose to the “Statement of Basic Beliefs” which we use here at The Village Church for baptism and membership. Similar to a universal commentary on the essence of the Christian faith, the creed gives modern believers an early glimpse into how our spiritual forefathers interpreted the Scriptures and what they viewed as being of utmost importance for an orthodox confession.

Many liturgical traditions faithfully recite the creed as part of their regular worship services and very few even less-liturgical local churches would have any concerns whatsoever in professing the vast majority of the clauses included in the creed. A clear biblical case can certainly be made for the Fatherhood of God, His creation of heaven and earth, the Sonship of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection from the dead, the coming judgment, and many of the other phrases.

Unlike these more clear expressions, the statement “He descended to hell” causes a great many today to pause as they reflect upon the creed. Did Jesus Christ actually descend to hell?[2] What does that even mean? Is it faithful to the biblical text?

Authenticity, originality and context

Many scholars believe that the phrase in question was actually not authentic to the original text and was only added later in a commentary on Christ’s burial. This suspicion as to originality and controversy over meaning has therefore led the editors of many versions to annotate or omit the clause altogether. If the clause actually functioned as a commentary on burial, then “the intention of the…alteration of the creed was not to add a new doctrine, but to explain an old one.”[3]

Modern readers of the creed unfortunately possess a rather monolithic interpretation of the word “hell.” We immediately think of the eternal place of torment. We picture Satan frolicking forth with a pitchfork as flames leap about suffering souls. While taking some extreme liberties in its depiction of Satan, this reality of eternal suffering is certainly faithful to relevant portions of the Biblical text (Matthew 25, Mark 9, Revelation 14 and 20). At the same time, we must understand that there were much broader ranges in the concept of afterlife in Hebrew and Greek thought.

Both Jewish and Greek worldviews expressed a vague concept of what is to be expected after experiencing death. In Hebrew, the dead go to Sheol. In Greek, the dead go to Hades. These places were unlike our modern use of the term “hell” in that they were not necessarily places of judgment, but rather functioned almost as personifications or synonyms for death itself. To go to Sheol was to die. To die was to go to Sheol.

Understanding the proper context of Hebrew and Greek thought on death would certainly illuminate for us what is possibly meant by the phrase. Therefore, if someone were to ask if Christ descended to hell, we must first clarify what is meant by hell. If it is merely meant that He truly died, then we should have no problem with the concept being expressed. Unfortunately, the context of the creed does not clarify for us what the original authors or editors meant by the clause so we must move beyond the creed and into the larger realm of the apostolic Scriptures which served as the basis for the Apostles’ Creed.

Looking at the Scriptures

Unlike most of the other phrases in the statement, the “descent clause” does not use explicit language from the Scriptures. In other words, there is no Scripture that says, “Jesus descended to hell.” Rather, two of the most often cited texts used to support the phrase are:[4]

• 1 Peter 3:18-20 Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
• 1 Peter 4:4-6 They are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.[5]

Here is what the ESV Study Bible has to say about the 1 Peter 3 passage:

1 Pet. 3:19 spirits in prison. There is much debate about the identity of these spirits. The Greek term pneuma (“spirit”), in either singular or plural, can mean either human spirits or angels, depending on the context (cf. Num. 16:22; 27:16; Acts 7:59; Heb. 12:23; etc.). Among the three most common interpretations, the first two fit best with the rest of Scripture and with historic orthodox Christian doctrine. These are:

1. 1. The first interpretation understands “spirits” (Gk. pneumasin, plural) as referring to the unsaved (human spirits) of Noah’s day. Christ, “in the spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18), proclaimed the gospel “in the days of Noah” (v. 20) through Noah. The unbelievers who heard Christ’s preaching “did not obey . . . in the days of Noah” (v. 20) and are now suffering judgment (they are “spirits in prison,” v. 19). Several reasons support this view: (a) Peter calls Noah a “herald of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5), where “herald” represents Greek kēryx, “preacher,” which corresponds to the noun kēryssō, “proclaim,” in 1 Pet. 3:19. (b) Peter says the “Spirit of Christ” was speaking through the OT prophets (1:11); thus Christ could have been speaking through Noah as an OT prophet. (c) The context indicates that Christ was preaching through Noah, who was in a persecuted minority, and God saved Noah, which is similar to the situation in Peter’s time: Christ is now preaching the gospel through Peter and his readers (v. 15) to a persecuted minority, and God will save them.
2. 2. In the second interpretation, the spirits are the fallen angels who were cast into hell to await the final judgment. Reasons supporting this view include: (a) Some interpreters say that the “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2–4 are angels (see note on Gen. 6:1–2) who sinned by cohabiting with human women “when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3:20). (b) Almost without exception in the NT, “spirits” (plural) refers to supernatural beings rather than people (e.g., Matt. 8:16; 10:1; Mark 1:27; 5:13; 6:7; Luke 4:36; 6:18; 7:21; 8:2; 10:20; 11:26; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 19:12, 13; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 16:13–14; cf. Heb. 1:7). (c) The word “prison” is not used elsewhere in Scripture as a place of punishment after death for human beings, while it is used for Satan (Rev. 20:7) and other fallen angels (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). In this case the message that Christ proclaimed is almost certainly one of triumph, after having been “put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18).
3. 3. In a third view, some have advocated the idea that Christ offered a second chance of salvation to those in hell. This interpretation, however, is in direct contradiction with other Scripture (cf. Luke 16:26; Heb. 9:27) and with the rest of 1 Peter and therefore must be rejected on biblical and theological grounds, leaving either of the first two views as the most likely interpretation.

I believe it is essential to begin by affirming what the ESV Study Bible has noted about the third option: it simply is not an evangelical option. There is no evidence within the Scriptures that anyone is given a second chance after death. IF we affirm the language of Christ descending into hell, we must do so in a way that does not convey a second opportunity for repentance and faith. If Christ descended into hell, He most certainly did not do so in order to offer a second chance at salvation. If Christ descended into hell, He did not do so because His death itself was insufficient or His suffering incomplete.

Having rejected the third view on the basis of the testimony of the entirety of Scripture, the starting distinction between views one and two is the interpretation of the term “spirits.” If “spirits” refers to humans, then it would commend the first view, but if “spirits” refers to angelic beings, then the second view is to be preferred.

Looking first at view one, I would commend John Piper’s thoughts. His interpretation of 1 Peter is that recipients of the preaching were alive at the time of the proclamation, but had since died. If this view is correct, then this text would not support the idea of Christ’s descent into hell. I encourage interested readers to see Piper’s response as I will not further develop his position here.

The second view can be initially confusing and thus we would do well to consider it carefully. This is the one for which my seminary professor on the “General Epistles” argued. It interprets the “spirits in prison” of 1 Peter 3:19 as a reference to the fallen angels “kept in judgment” in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. The idea behind this interpretation is that Christ went to a particular sphere or area of hell[6] and preached victory over those angels who sinned in Genesis 6.

Why mention the events of Genesis 6 in particular?  First, because the context of 1 Peter 3 speaks of the days of Noah and the sixth chapter of Genesis is the one in which the narrative on Noah begins. Second, a common interpretation of the first few verses of Genesis 6 is that demons attempted to seduce humans in order to pollute the human race. If humanity was no longer fully human (because of the mingling of humanity with demonic seed), then a fully human savior could never be born. Perhaps the demons were shrewdly attempting to nullify the hope of redemption as promised in the proto-evangel (Genesis 3:15). Therefore, Jesus’ descent into hell was a proclamation of His victory over those demons who had attempted to thwart His coming.  That makes sense, but certainly is not explicit in the text.

While I do find the simplicity of the first view appealing, I am more compelled toward the second view. Regardless, this would certainly not be an interpretation concerning which I would choose to be terribly dogmatic. I am much more passionate about protecting against view three than I am in attempting to exegetically defend views one or two. I can easily identify with Luther’s words on the passage, “This is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the New Testament. I still do not know for sure what the apostle meant.”^[7]

Did Jesus descend to hell? He surely descended into the metaphorical “heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). He certainly triumphed over the powers of darkness and proclaimed victory over them (Colossians 2:14-15). I also trust that He was with the thief that very day in paradise (Luke 23:43), that there is no evidence for a second chance at salvation (Luke 16:26; Hebrews 9:27), and that His sacrifice was absolutely sufficient (John 19:30; Hebrews 10:12-14). In light of all of these elements, I cannot merely confess that “He descended into hell” without a great deal of clarification. The clause is simply too ambiguous and controversial for me to comfortably declare without a great deal of explanation.

Also of interest: John Calvin’s thoughts on the inclusion of the phrase.

---

[1] Precise dating of the creed is debated.

[2] It is important to note at the outset that we are talking about the non-corporeal (spiritual) aspect of Christ. His body did not move from the time of His burial until His resurrection. If one says that Christ descended into hell, they should mean that He did so spiritually.

[3] Cited by W. G. T Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889; repr. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1979) 2B.604 (his emphasis).

[4] Ephesians 4:9 is also sometimes used, though the text itself is speaking not about a descent from earth to hell after death, but rather His descent from heaven to earth in the incarnation. Matthew 12:40 could also be thrown into the mix in line with the aforementioned thoughts on the concepts of Sheol and Hades.

[5] See the referenced Piper article below for specific commentary on the passage from chapter 4. We will be limiting our discussion to chapter 3 in this particular post.

[6] By the way, most people are uncomfortable or just uninformed regarding the idea of distinct areas in hell. They think it sounds like Dante’s purgatory. Without accepting Dante’s picture, it is important to note that the Bible does use the terms Hades and Gehenna in ways which might lead us to conclude that there is some validity to distinct areas or spheres of hell. For example, Hades is called hell, and yet it is specifically tossed into the lake of fire which is also thought of as hell (Revelation 20:14).  If Hades is hell and yet is tossed into hell then there could be some sort of distinct spheres referenced. Once again, this too can be confusing so I would not want to be terribly dogmatic, but it does bear mentioning. It is possible that demons are kept in one area and unbelieving humans in another, both awaiting judgment when both spheres are thrown into the lake of fire (hell) at the end.

^[7] Jobes, K. H. (2005). 1 Peter. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (236). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Bible Texts, Miscellaneous

You sum up the whole of New Testament teaching in a single phrase, if you speak of it as a revelation of the Fatherhood of the holy Creator. In the same way, you sum up the whole of New Testament religion if you describe it as the knowledge of God as one’s holy Father. If you want to judge how well a person understands Christianity, find out how much he makes of the thought of being God’s child, and having God as his Father. If this is not the thought that prompts and controls his worship and prayers and his whole outlook on life, it means that he does not understand Christianity very well at all. For everything that Christ taught, everything that makes the New Testament new, and better than the Old, everything that is distinctively Christian as opposed to merely Jewish, is summed up in the knowledge of the Fatherhood of God.[1]

The eternal and sovereign God of the universe is my Father.

This reality is not always comfortable for me. It has often been easier for me to think about God as Creator, Sovereign, and King rather than as my Father. God is the Father of Jesus – that I can get…but my Father? My mind tends to gravitate toward His lordship rather than His love…His power over me rather than His pleasure in me…His rule rather than our relationship. I am a functional reductionist, reducing God to those aspects to which I can better relate.

I suspect I am not alone in this struggle.

There are a variety of possible reasons for believers to struggle with approaching God on such intimate terms. Just a few of the more commons reasons include:

1. Some have “daddy-issues.” We were abused or neglected by our earthly fathers and thus project these hurts upon God.
2. Some are simply too scared to relate deeply to Him…maybe to anyone. Whether consciously or not, we attempt to keep Him at a distance; limiting Him to a portrait which is easier for us to see and embrace.
3. Some see perversions of God’s Fatherhood which ignore His authority and swing the pendulum too far in reacting to those caricatures.

Regardless of the reason, He refuses to remain restricted to our safe and distant theologies. He insists that He be known by His children. He desires that He be known as Father. He is good, generous, loving, and kind. He is for His children. He disciplines us for our good. He is near.

One author even says of the Fatherhood of God that “there is no one concept of God which dominates the theology of Paul more than this.”^[2] The fatherhood of God is certainly central to the New Testament. Consider just a few passages:

• Matthew 7:7-11 Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. ⁸For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. ⁹Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? ¹⁰Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? ¹¹If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
• Romans 8:14-For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. ¹⁵For 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!” ¹⁶ The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, ¹⁷and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
• Galatians 4:4-7 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, ⁵ to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. ⁶And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” ⁷So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
• Ephesians 1:3-14 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. ⁷ In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ⁸which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight ⁹ making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ ¹⁰as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Our confidence in prayer, our assurance of His love, our future inheritance, our redemption and sanctification, our understanding of God’s character, our perception of who we are…all are founded upon our sonship and His Fatherhood. We simply cannot miss, ignore, or suppress this as an abstract or peripheral concept. It is at the very heart of the Christian faith.

If this is true, I want to spend more time dwelling upon and seeking after a greater thirst for this reality and its many implications. I want to know my fears and frustrations which force me to the perceived peripherals of His love. I want to confess my self-protective measures and pray for greater grace to know the King, my Father.

Romans 8:15 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!”

---

[1] J.I. Packer, Knowing God

^[2]Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 357.

Miscellaneous

Why would a demon care what we eat?

I would think that the rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers over this present darkness (Ephesians 6:12) would have much larger tactics than tainting our tastes. Yet the Scriptures would lead us to conclude that the demonic realm indeed has intentions for our consumption as Paul writes to Timothy that the restriction of marriage and foods is related to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

1 Timothy 4:1-5

We see this same relationship expressed elsewhere by Paul in the book of Colossians:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.  For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.  And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.  He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.  These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.  Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,  and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Colossians 2:8-23

Here again, Paul writes of the rulers and authorities who were disarmed, shamed, and triumphed over by Christ and then moves immediately into talk of food and drink and asceticism.

This prompts the question, what do food and drink and demons have in common? How are they related? Why would the worldly authorities care about our appetites?

I think the answer is two-fold: a denial of doctrine and a denial of delight.

Doctrine:

A primary implication of these texts is the sufficiency of the gospel and justification by faith. By insisting on asceticism, demons rob the cross of power and deny the declaration of righteousness by faith alone.

The sinful flesh naturally seeks to supplement or even substitute for the cross of Christ. It wants to work for salvation. It lusts for legalism and laws and earnings and wages. It desires to be indebted to no one.

The demonic realm aggravates and promotes this tendency in us. By turning our affections away from Christ’s suffering and to our own, the demonic realm tries to transfer our hope from what Christ has accomplished to what we can accomplish. It thus relocates our boast from Christ crucified to our self-denial and restraint. My acceptance becomes about my abstinence.

This is a first strategy.

Delight:

In addition to the goal of robbing the cross of the power of salvation, I think that there is a relationship between the ideas expressed in the above texts and that of 1 Corinthians 10:31 “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

As Paul wrote to Timothy, God created food to be received with thanksgiving. He created food to be enjoyed by us. While eating good food, our affections are intended to move through and from the food to the giver of the food, that is God. In this way, He is glorified.

By denying the role and responsibility of delight in the life of the believer, demons can thus attempt to rob God of glory. Think through the progression again with me. Food was created by God for those who love Him to turn our affections toward Him. It is intended to be eaten for His glory. As we enjoy the gift, we are called to enjoy the Giver. This is the heart of what is called Christian hedonism, the idea that “God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him” (John Piper, Desiring God).

By requiring abstinence from good foods, demons thus dilute the demand to glorify God in the delights of our appetites.  By robbing us of pleasure, demons rob God of glory.

Danger:

As I write this, my thoughts turn toward C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters which are a fictional account of correspondence between a seasoned demon and his novice nephew regarding how to tempt and mislead the peoples of the earth. Throughout the work Screwtape writes to Wormwood regarding the two-sided approach to temptation. If a man resists a certain demonic plan, demons will use his very resistance against him.

We must be discerning with the doctrine of Christian hedonism at exactly this point. As we consider the fact that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him, we are in great peril of leaning too far in our enjoyment and exalting the gift over the Giver. We can fool ourselves into thinking that we are doing our Christian duty when we are really just making gods of our bellies (Philippians 3:19).

If demons cannot tempt us with abstinence, then perhaps gluttony will work. If they cannot tempt us with the pride of restraint, then perhaps they can use the pride of indulgence. The powers and authorities over this present darkness are intentional and crafty in their plans to pervert man.

Demons are prowling around looking for creatures to consume (1 Peter 5:8). They seek to steal and kill and destroy (John 10:10). Whether through legalism or license they crave the corruption of our worship. They desire to deny us our delights or magnify them until they become lusts.

We must be discerning in all things. Only a fool refuses to consider his or her ways. Are my eating and enjoyments and drinking and delights for the glory of God or do the pleasures simply terminate upon myself? Are my disciplines and abstinence for the mortification of the flesh or for its exaltation and justification?

The question is not “can I glorify God by this behavior?” but rather, “am I actually glorifying God in this behavior?” Am I trusting in Christ in my doctrine and delights?

Bible Texts, Miscellaneous

Meanwhile, being placed in this most beautiful theatre, let us not decline to take a pious delight in the clear and manifest works of God.¹

Therefore, while it becomes man seriously to employ his eyes in considering the works of God, since a place has been assigned him in this most glorious theatre that he may be a spectator of them, his special duty is to give ear to the Word, that he may the better profit.²

But as the greater part of mankind, enslaved by error, walk blindfold in this glorious theatre, he exclaims that it is a rare and singular wisdom to meditate carefully on these works of God, which many, who seem most sharp-sighted in other respects, behold without profit. It is indeed true, that the brightest manifestation of divine glory finds not one genuine spectator among a hundred. Still, neither his power nor his wisdom is shrouded in darkness.³

I was blessed with the opportunity to attend the latest Desiring God National Conference in Minneapolis the weekend of September 25th – 27th and wanted to capture a few of my thoughts and provide some resources for those who are interested.

Though the theme of the conference was John Calvin, he was not the main topic of conversation. Rather, he was constantly used as a platform from which the speakers allowed us to jump into discussions of the nature, character and works of our sovereign God, the God whom Calvin deeply loved and served.

Below are the sessions, speakers, and some quotes and thoughts.

All sessions can be viewed at the conference Web site.

Session 1: Julius Kim – At Work and Worship in the Theater of God: Calvin the Man, and Why I Care

Kim spoke about Calvin as a “faith-possessed pilgrim with a singular passion to know God and make Him known” using the text of John 17:3 and a really moving illustration woven throughout the talk. He spoke of Calvin’s view of providence using the terms powerful, personal, and purposeful and related that to creation, care, and consummation.

Session 2: Collision Movie Screening and post movie discussion between Doug Wilson and John Piper

The movie centers around various debates between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, co-authors of Is Christianity Good for the World. The soundtrack was really surprising and though I certainly disagreed with Hitchens’ worldview and conclusions, I found him to be a really agreeable character. Wilson’s wit and humor were endearing.

Session 3: Doug Wilson – The Sacred Script in the Theater of God: Calvin, the Bible, and the Western World

About 35 minutes into his session, Wilson gives a really strong analogy of the dangers of grading the Scriptures by the standard of the Enlightenment. He closed the session with very convicting words on the primacy of the Scriptures and our job of proclamation first and explanation second.

Session 4: Marvin Olasky – The Secular Script in the Theater of God: Calvin on the Christian Meaning of the Public Life

I need to go back and listen to this again. It was one of the favorite sessions of those around me, but I found it difficult to engage as I was extremely tired from lack of sleep the night before. My favorite quote was, “if God does nothing random, there is always something to learn.”

Session 5: Mark Talbot – The Broken Stage in the Theater of God: Sin and Suffering in Calvin’s World

“This perfect heavenly father always hears the pleas of his children, and he always responds in what we shall finally know to be a gloriously merciful way, even if, and perhaps especially when it seems the Lord is not hearing or responding to our pleas.”

Session 6: Panel Discussion with Conference Speakers – Moderated by David Mathis

They had a really good discussion of the “Servetus affair.” If Calvin’s role in the execution of Servetus for heresy hinders you from considering his theological convictions, first consider your own sins and blindspots and then listen to this session for some helpful reminders. They do not excuse him, but also are slow to lob accusations from the context of 21st century non-theocratic America.

Session 7: Sam Storms – The Final Act in the Theater of God: Calvin on the Joy of the Last Resurrection

Using 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 as an introductory text, Sam spoke of the call to “live with one foot raised” and the importance of contemplating the glories of heaven and, especially, the presence of Jesus Christ.

Note: if you have not listened to his session from the 2003 conference on Edwards, please do so immediately. It is simply excellent.

Session 8: John Piper – Jesus Christ as Denouement in the Theater of God: Calvin and the Supremacy of Christ in All Things

Piper spoke of the majesty of the word and the supremacy and worth of the value of God’s glory and how it extends beyond time and creation. He declares the way in which historical events, and especially the person and work of Jesus Christ, achieve the purpose for which the world exists?

“An Evening of Eschatology”

Although not an official part of the conference, DG also hosted a Piper-moderated discussion between Sam, Doug, and Jim Hamilton on millennial theories. It was intense and interesting. Be looking for the video on the DG website.

¹ Jean Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translation of: Institutio Christianae Religionis.; Reprint, With New Introd. Originally Published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), I, xiv, 20.
² Calvin, I, vi, 2.
³ Calvin, I, v, 8.

Miscellaneous

There is not one particular commentary set which I would universally recommend. Most sets have individual books which are stronger than others depending on the individual commentator. In general, I have found the following commentators to be helpful to my study:

Wayne Grudem
D.A. Carson
Thomas Schreiner
Douglas Moo
Peter O’Brien
John Calvin

Here are a couple of sites that might help you to choose a commentary on a particular book:

Desiring God Recommendations
Best Commentaries Recommendations

You might also consider getting a copy of John Glynn’s Commentary and Reference Survey.

Miscellaneous, Resources

Last night I awoke late in the night to booming thunder and lightning which occasionally lit my typically dark bedroom.  As I write this blog it is still raining outside and the forecast is for scattered storms to continue for the next couple of days.

I love the rain (except when I was in seminary and would have to run across campus and sit through a lecture while soaking wet).  I love the smell and the reminder of God’s covenant in the rainbow.  I like to think about the fact that rain cleanses the air of pollutants and allergens.  I love to find a good book and read as distant thunder rolls.  I like to remember how utterly dependent all life is upon God granting us rain. That is humbling.

Sometimes when it rains I am reminded of an article that I read years back by John Piper on the complexity of rain and how it displays the glory of God.  The article is based off of Job 5:8-10 which says, “As for me, I would seek God, and to God would I commit my cause, who does great things and unsearchable, marvelous things without number: he gives rain on the earth and sends waters on the fields…”

Piper asks the question, “How is rain an example of the great, unsearchable, and marvelous things which God does?”

The Psalmist writes, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”  I hope that we are listening.

Miscellaneous

I love irony and the Scriptures are full of it:

God chooses the foolish of the world to shame the weak.
He who would save His life must lose it.
The first shall be last.

There is a scene in 90’s cult classic “Reality Bites” when Winona Ryder is asked to define irony and she stammers and stumbles through an attempted answer until she finally blurts out, “I know it when I see it.”  Later she is relating the story to her friend, played by Ethan Hawke and asks him to define it and he immediately gives an exact definition, “it is when the actual meaning is the complete opposite from the literal meaning.”  Such a definition works in the use of irony in literature, but what about experiences which are ironic?  A working definition of this type of irony is “an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.”

Nowhere is this irony more evident than in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Think about it:

An utterly innocent man is condemned by utterly guilty men.
The Author and Sustainer of life experiences death.
Man kills God so that God may save man.
The gospel is ironic.

I have been reading through Colossians lately and was struck by the irony of the imagery that Paul uses to speak about the humiliation, crucifixion, and exaltation of Christ.

Colossians 2:13-15 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Here we see that Paul uses such explicit imagery of the seeming defeat of Christ to portray His victory.  Christ was nailed to the cross, but it was the record of debt that is now nailed there.  Christ was disrobed and humiliated before the onlookers, but it was ultimately the rulers and authorities who were disrobed and subsequently put to shame (the Greek word translated “disarmed” in the ESV pictures a ruler who has been unclothed and is only elsewhere used in the New Testament in Colossians 3:9).  In Christ’s death, it seemed that sin and Satan had triumphed over Him, and yet in His resurrection He has evidenced that He has triumphed over them.  In the greatest of ironies, those who were already dead killed the One Who is Life so that in His death He might grant them life.

My hope for myself and for all who may happen upon this post is that the reality of theological irony would inspire faith in us as we consider that even darkness is used by the Lord to shine His light, even evil is used by the Lord to accomplish His good, even sorrow is used by the Lord to bring about joy.

When you really think about it, all faith is an embrace of irony.  It is living life in such a way that the world’s expected outcome is death and futility and yet fully trusting that the actual outcome will be life and joy.  May we embrace the irony of the cross and wait for the day when the actual outcome is actualized, when faith and irony will be no more.

Bible Texts, Miscellaneous

The Scriptures are clear that those who desire to be pastors must be “able to teach” (see the requirements of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). This does not necessarily mean that those called to vocational ministry must attend seminary, but it does mean that there needs to be an ability to properly interpret the Scriptures, a thirst for knowledge and wisdom, an awareness of historical heresies and an ability to discern current variants, a consistent theological framework, etc. For the vast majority of us, the best way to be academically equipped today is through seminary. Here are a couple of related posts on the necessity of education and the relationship of seminary to that requirement:

Piper article on the necessity of education

Matt’s posted thoughts on seminary

The Village often gets questions from members, attendees, and podcasters who are curious which seminaries we would recommend so I thought I would post my typical response for those who are wrestling with this question.

First, recognize that every place has its own strengths and weaknesses.  Just like churches, no seminary is perfect.

I would highly recommend that one pursue a proper balance of complementing one’s own foundational beliefs with being stretched spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually. If you choose a place where you are completely comfortable, you probably are not learning. At the same time, there are certain theological beliefs that are simply so foundational as to necessitate agreement. For example, I am reformed or “Calvinistic” in my soteriology (the study of salvation) and find it foundational to my overarching theology and thus I would not be comfortable at a school which believed and taught according to an Arminian framework. That doctrine is simply too important.

Here are some questions which I would ask myself in order to try to decipher the proper fit in regards to calling and strengths.

What ministry do you look to go into?

• Is it more shepherding or teaching?
• Local church or academic setting?
• What type of degree program?

How firmly established are you in your basic theological framework?

• How susceptible would you be to possible theological biases?
• Are you already studying in some manner? – don’t wait to seminary to begin learning. Read or re-read through the Scriptures (including that big chunk known as the Old Testament), grab Grudem’s Systematic Theology and systematically attack it, begin cultivating now a passion for study.

Are you willing to move away from your current city and church and would that be financially feasible and wise? – I ask this question specifically because I was already involved at The Village when I began the admission process. Because of my love for the church, I was more willing to sacrifice some degree of theological and philosophical consensus in order to remain in this particular body. Though other schools might have better complemented my beliefs, I did not think it worth it to leave a place that I love.

Here are examples of how I would use these questions to assess a seminary: In regards to the type of ministry – those called to preach and teach might benefit from a more academic school while those called to counseling and care might desire a more pastorally-equipped school. In regards to the current theological framework – those who are already more established might have greater freedom to pursue studies at a school with which they differ theologically.

While once again noting that each place has its own strengths and weaknesses, I would recommend the following in no certain order:

Southern Baptist Theological – Louisville, KY

Trinity Evangelical Divinity – Wakefield, IL

Reformed Theological – Orlando, FL

Westminster Theological – Philadelphia, PA

Redeemer Theological – Dallas, TX

Dallas Theological – Dallas, TX

Also, Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis, MN has a great training program that I would highly recommend called The Bethlehem Institute.

A number of pastors at The Village (myself included) pursued graduate studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and we have a great relationship with the school. That said, there are certainly theological distinctions between my church and my school. This is an example of sharing common essential beliefs (trinity, deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, salvation by grace through faith, etc.) and common foundational beliefs (such as a reformed soteriology) while differing perhaps in more peripheral matters (eschatology – the study of end times).

Take a tour of various campuses if you can, talk to professors, talk to students, sit in on a class (hopefully one which you have at least some familiarity – if you have no knowledge of Hebrew, you probably shouldn’t choose to sit in on a 3rd semester language course which spends the time reading and parsing through Jonah), talk to the faithful laborers who work in the field in which you feel called, check out the costs of hours and housing, visit neighboring churches, and read Statements of Faith. Gather as much information as you can and then offer it and yourself up to the Lord. Spend much time in prayer.

Miscellaneous

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

Hebrews 9:22 …without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins…

John 1:29 …Behold the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world.

Matthew 26:28 …this is the blood of my covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The passover was instituted as a memorial to the work of God in delivering His people, Israel, from the land of Egypt.  It symbolized the “passing over” of the sons of Israel as the final plague of death descended upon the land.  It was to be commemorated annually as a reminder of not only God’s power, but also His faithfulness in redeeming His people.

In 70 A.D. the Herodian (2nd) temple was destroyed by the Roman army and Judaism has not had a place to consistently conduct the passover sacrifice since that time.  However, this month, a group of Jewish priests were able to conduct the ancient ritual (I couldn’t find out why now).

Here is a link to the video (help! the link has disappeared, if anyone tracks it down let me know)  of the sacrifice.  I warn you that it is necessarily graphic.  If you do not wish to see a lamb being slaughtered, please do not access the link.

I think for those of us who are visual, it is a really helpful reminder of the price of sin.  It costs life.  Because you and I sin, because we are sinners, death is called for.

As I watched the video, I could not help but feel compassion for the innocent lamb.  How much more for the innocent Lord of Creation Who humbled Himself and became obedient even to the point of death. 

Gospel, Miscellaneous