Tag Archives: bible

Who Killed Jesus? I Did

Provocative, yes? Whatever Mel Gibson has done wrong in his life since his movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” he did something right in its production. He chose, for symbolic reasons, to have his own hands filmed nailing Jesus to the Cross. His recognition of culpability is compelling.

I remember the charges of “anti-Semitism” for their role, but biblically, the Romans killed Jesus at the behest of the Jewish leadership who had “stirred up the crowd” (Mark 15:11; cf. Acts 2:22-23). Besides, that indictment should have been mitigated by Gibson’s metaphorically taking blame in his role with the hammer and nail. “Who killed Jesus?” many instigators asked. “I did,” answer all who truly understand the cross.

Charged with a predilection for bad company, Jesus answers, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick” (Luke 5:31b). The irony is wasted on those, then and now, who believe they “are well” (see Romans 3:23). We all have the same sickness – sin – and there’s only one cure (see John 6:44; 14:6). As few would choose chemotherapy without exigencies, no one seeks the cross without understanding their need and its provision.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). It is the biblical Christian’s acceptance of our common diagnosis, and its corollary prognosis, that opens our eyes to the substitutionary efficacy of Christ’s death, and to the Scriptures that proclaim this truth (Isaiah 53; 1 Peter 2:24; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

The “why?” of the cross has been subjected to all manner of lathing and sanding to get rid of sharp corners and rough edges – every humanly objectionable, but heavenly requisite, morsel of truth. Not only is the “danger: harmful to self-esteem” placard pasted on our self-blaming above, the God who would substitute his own Son to take the penalty due us becomes guilty of “divine child abuse.” Rubbish.

The biblical Christian must contend with the truth that Christ’s greatest suffering came not from the scourging, thorny crown, and nail-pierced hands and feet, nor even his abandonment by his disciples. Jesus’ physical/emotional abuse was not insignificant, but not the zenith of his pain.

Instead, it is in drinking “the cup” of the wrath of God he previously sought to avoid before bowing to his Father’s will (Matthew 26:39). We cannot fathom the expense, nor imagine what transpired between the Father and the Son, but we do know that in some sense Jesus was “forsaken” (Matthew 27:46) by the Father he had been in eternal communion with. Thus, Jesus’ greatest suffering was at the hands of his Father.

Further, humanity didn’t paint God into a “Plan B” corner. His holiness demanded payment, so “Jesus (was) delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23; cf. Isaiah 53:10). And, Jesus was willing, declaring that no one would take his life, but that he would “lay it down of (his) own accord” (John 10:17-18).

These facts are not exculpatory for you and me or for those more directly blameworthy in that day. It was our sin Jesus carried to the cross, drinking that cup meant for us…at a cost we can’t comprehend.

Planned as it was, the Father is not on the lengthy list of those to “blame,” for in costly grace, His self-sacrifice compares with that of the Son. Their cooperative, atoning work is more than sufficient to bear the sin of those who are responsible, but embrace the Savior who is “mighty to save.”

A Word to Live By

More than a few folks bristle at the idea that people of faith get their warp and woof from a book. There are numerous examples of people, past and present, who use(d) their “holy” book to excuse wreaking havoc on the world. Others who believe all people are “basically good” are forced to conclude that these books and their brandishers must necessarily brainwash adherents – those who believe their specific book is given by God – and are therefore dangerous to the continued progress of man.

Religious books aren’t all of the same stripe. The ethereal natures of some Eastern and “New Age” religions don’t require verifiability or historical accuracy of their texts because their “truths” transcend those categories. Others, whose books would seem to be historical (including some Judaism and Christianity), use various four-fold interpretive methods that include the literal meaning of the text, but go to a more allegorical, subjective sense to derive ultimate meaning. Biblical Christians, and I suppose Qur’anic Muslims, and maybe Mormons and other quasi-Christian sects, must needs be “people of the book,” and those books must be in accord with actual natural and supernatural events to be coherent.

For the last 150-200 years, liberal scholars have taken to “demythologizing” the Bible. Enlightenment rationalism has forced many who would “save Christianity” to skew the Bible almost as ethereal, mystical and mythical, so that events like the virgin birth and the resurrection are not taken literally, but super-spiritually – “Jesus has risen in my heart” even if his body still lays dead somewhere. For Paul (and us), Christ’s actual, bodily resurrection is an imperative (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

The Bible depends ultimately on the objective truth of God as he has revealed himself, and what his Word says he has actually said and done in history (revelation). There are copious tests for historicity, continuity, coherency and authority, and biblical Christians welcome honest scrutiny as should any said “people of the book.”

That said, there is indeed a spiritual component to understanding the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 2:14), so if you approach it to disprove it, you might indeed do so to your and others’ satisfaction. Blaise Pascal stated, “In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.” (Note: authors Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell are two of many exceptions – scoffers whose investigations led to faith.)

So, I may take a later column to dispel some popular misconceptions (or skeptics’ holstered challenges – locked and loaded for rapid fire avoidance of actually considering answers) about the Bible and how it’s to be read and interpreted as the author(s) intended. For now, let me speak to (myself and) my brothers and sisters.

The reformers stated regarding the sufficiency of Scripture that “the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice.” Given that Christian Scriptures are central to understanding the God who made us – the Christ who saved us (Luke 24:27) – you might agree that knowing it should be somewhat paramount in our practice of the faith. Knowing it…is knowing Him. Reading, learning, memorizing and meditating on “the Word of God” would seem to be essential to leading a life pleasing to the God who made himself known. Yet, Christians are in too large measure illiterate of the book they claim to love. It is meant to be consumed for our guidance and delight (Psalm 119:11; 1:1-2).

A Rose by Any Other Name?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Shakespeare’s Juliet declares her indifference to the rival family name of her lover, Romeo. Her love for him transcends this label regardless of its social significance. Still, peoples’ names have historically carried associative weight socially, aesthetically and intrinsically.

In many cultures, descendants who carried the bloodline were due some title, honor or notoriety simply for being born into that family – this, long before the attachment of surnames. This is still at least partially true as you consider, say, the British Royal family, or what one might assume meeting a Kennedy from Massachusetts. Whether proved by scrutiny for a famous name or accolades for success from humble beginnings, knowing “whence we come” matters.

We are all born individuals, but we also carry something forward by blood/genetics of our parents and by the sort of nurture and experience with (and of) those who raised us, and those with whom we were raised. Our biological/experiential history affects who we are and our names become the descriptor of that person. “Make a name for yourself” and “identity theft” are contrasting idioms confirming the significance of the name/identity relationship.

If history and heredity matter, then there is one such historical person whose pedigree is unmatched. His name is Jesus. Matthew and Luke trace his genealogy back to Abraham and Adam respectively. This has everything to do with prophecies about Him and the covenants God had made in history with each, directly affecting the meaning of the gospel as a solution to the “problem” caused by Adam and the promises made to Abraham.

Similarly, the biblical Jesus conveyed his eternal relationship with God as a Son to a Father; in the minds of his hearers making him “equal with God” (John 5:18; He was/is subordinate in role only, equal in essence). His supernatural conception (“born of a virgin”) was the first of many miracles that confirmed his heavenly family tree. His own miracles, like those of God in the Old Testament, were “evidence” (John 14:11) and were done “so that you will know” (Exodus 8:22) the authority of the one performing the sign or wonder.

“…At the name of Jesus every knee should bow…and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” (Philippians 2:10-11) Just as God had gone to great lengths in the Hebrew Scriptures to make clear how his name carried the weight of his character, now this Jesus is exalted by the Father as “the name that is above every name.” (2:9)

Many religionists insist in their “many roads to God” ideology that “we all worship the same God.” All “Christians” don’t even worship the same Jesus! That’s why “Christian” might be a good sociological category, but it’s useless in terms of understanding who is really believing on and trusting in the person and work of the historical, biblical Jesus Christ.

If I told you I knew Oprah Winfrey, you might be impressed until I said, “he’s a skinny white guy.” He may be AN Oprah, but not THE Oprah. Similarly, LDS (Mormon), Jehovah’s Witnesses, many cults, and even many established churches have so dismantled, added to or cherry-picked God’s Word that their “Jesus” bears only slight resemblance to the Christ of the Bible.

By necessity, if the Bible is true, these “based on a true story” doppelgängers are fictional characters unworthy of devotion. What a shame that the moniker Christian is almost meaningless, and when someone says “I believe in Jesus,” you have to ask, “Which one?”

Christians, Your Sky is Not Falling

Hope and cheer resident in our recent holiday celebrations seemed somewhat tempered by universal instability. There’s terrorism, home and abroad, and bi-polar politics – if the polls are right our choices will be “pick your poison” (the Liar or the Lunatic?). Racial unrest is piqued by some questionable law enforcement actions. We’re in a time of hyper-sensitivity to “offense” (as taken, not intended) and rules change to bridle the tongue and redefine “normal” far afield of the Bible’s standard. Our teeth are set on edge, for indeed, there is very little perceptible “peace on Earth.”

Add to these global problems individual concerns. My own issues seem gargantuan to me, but many of you could compete and win an “Oh, that’s nothing…” contest. Cancer, death of loved ones, unemployment, relational rejection, and familial turmoil are just a few of the burdens we bear – all potentially exacerbated by the holidays.

For the social media savvy, it gets worse. While we’re knee-deep in our own suffering, we look at our friends’ Utopian lives. We see vacations to far-off places and milestones for all their “awesome” family, and photos of the party to which we weren’t invited. Their studio-quality “selfies” make them seem only minutes older than “back then,” where our own make us look like Alfred Hitchcock in bad lighting. Ugh.

Sharing good things isn’t wrong, but the comparison of our real struggles with their faux perfection can lead to despair. Their façade may just belie difficulties far worse than our own, and while no one wants Eeyore for a Facebook friend, consider for all of us – are we presenting a Shangri-La life online, when our reality feels more like nuclear winter?

Even a biblical Christian will admit that life at times seems like a dumpster fire, or like a spin in the back of a cement mixer filled with rocks. We all have scars aplenty, and many have all-too-fresh wounds to our souls.

I’ve painted a pretty pitiful picture, no? Chicken Little, sound the alarm!

Not so fast. “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33b) While no statement in the Bible is said in a contextual vacuum, Jesus’ statement as quoted can be more broadly applied in truth to all believers as is borne out in statements by Peter (1 Peter 4:12-14), James (James 1:2-4) and others. “Don’t be surprised,” “Count it all joy,” are their declaration to believers about the trials of life and faith and the good that will result.

“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28) We can and should pray for desired temporal outcomes – healing of bodies and relationships, employment and finances, etc. That said, given this verse in Romans, our “peace” here is not dependent on the absence of trials…but reflective of our perspective in the midst of them.

Insert here Ted Turner’s “crutch” accusation or Marx’s “opiate” comparison. Indeed, naïve escapism and denial is unhelpful (e.g., Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science). That said, pitiable is the truly broken soul who pretends no need for support and finds no eternal hope past the pain resident in everyday life.

The God of the Bible is not caught off guard by your turmoil or the lunacy that is the world. You can rest in a sovereign God who will somehow bring good from “all things” for those who love Him. I write to myself and to you – peace, believer, the sky is not falling.

Hey Jesus, What Have You Done for Me Lately?

While few Christians would really ask this, many find the scriptural account of God’s work in history insufficient as fuel for faith. They seem to need an experiential immediacy not therein promised. Verses are plucked from context to support teaching an intimacy with God on par with prophets and apostles – even when present day inaudible “listening to God” is far different than the accounts of God’s interaction with people in the Bible. Somehow, our adoption by the Father, the imputation of our sin to Christ and his righteousness to us, and all we can look forward to as co-inheritors with Christ in eternity…isn’t quite enough proof that God loves us.

Today, experience trumps doctrine, and “head knowledge” is maligned and pitted against “heart knowledge.” To be sure, no biblical Christian would deny a frequent emotional response to grace, both in the whole redemptive story and in our own, but perilous is the chase for experience, and “feelings” are notoriously bad arbiters of truth. Our dissatisfaction with copious biblical assurances of endless love and sure and certain promises (for His people) forces new teaching calling for “listening” during prayer and “pray about it” decision making – roughly the heavenward equivalent of the “bat phone.”

As always, I could be wrong, and I know I am certainly in the minority in the Christian circles in which I run. I also know God can do anything he wants, and that your personal, anecdotal experience belying my thoughts here are unassailable. I also believe strongly that the Bible doesn’t teach these practices as they are commonly taught today, and that studying the full context of the verses used for proof texts would prove my point.

The problem is that it’s taught that “maturity” means an ability to “discern” God’s mind or voice (as is generally the case), making one of two outcomes is certain. Those who “hear” nothing despair of their faith, wondering why God doesn’t “speak” to them. Others will begin to sanctify their own thoughts (often, not always, biblically informed) with a spectrum of language from the more obtuse (“I feel led…”) to the more certain (“God told me…”). Christening our decisions thusly may sound Godly, but it’s simply moving responsibility for consequences from us to God.

Popular teachers like Beth Moore and Sarah Young (“Jesus Calling”) report these intimate, inaudible conversations they have with God, and attempt to set them below Scripture in value, but ultimately and necessarily devalue Scripture in the process. When one is familiar enough with Scripture, these new revelations (that’s what they are) will sound a lot like God, but to give them His authority is more than troublesome. Study the Scriptures and discover the weightiness of claiming “God said,” and further the consequences when He says, “No, I didn’t.”

If you insist still that God’s speaking to you (outside the Bible), use this test of qualities of His New Testament interactions. Is it rare? Is it intrusive and unsought? Is it unmistakably supernatural (audible/visible visitation)? Is it clear and unambiguous? If it meets those criteria, it has authority and must be obeyed. If not, it may just be your imagination. (Note: thanks to Greg Koukl at str.org for his teaching on this.)

There is a mysterious way that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us, but He doesn’t make our decisions for us. The Word gives us boundaries within which we are free to do as we please. The accounts of God’s sacrificial love for his people in Scripture should be sufficient promise and hope until His return.

Fundamentalism of a Different Sort

One variation of Vince Lombardi’s annual “back to basics” training camp talk went, “Gentlemen, this…is a football…Am I going too fast?” Anyone who’s played organized sports remembers related preseason and post-loss mid-season talks or drills. A musician’s scales, a singer’s “do-re-mi” and a ballet dancer’s five “positions” are all versions of the same, and most everyone remembers school textbooks titled “Fundamentals of…(Whatever).” Yes, fundamentals are fine – until you start talking about religion and add an “-ism.”

Christian fundamentalism in the late 19th– and early 20th-century was an attempt at recapitulating the basics of the biblical Christian faith in response to the wholesale acquiescence of liberal protestants to cultural mores and Enlightenment perspectives that seemed to militate against biblical truth. As is often the case, valid beginnings don’t guarantee staying on course. In just a few decades, some Fundamentalists began to unbiblically (1 Corinthians 5:10) withdraw (socially if not physically) from the still-changing culture. “Fundamentalist” has often been used pejoratively ever since for anyone with a conservative, biblical view of the faith.

Enter Islamic Fundamentalism. I’m not an expert on Islam, but I’ve seen Quranic views that extolled the “peaceful religion” of many, and those of fundamentalists, “extremists” and “radicals.” Whether the abhorrent behavior of terrorists is borne from right or wrong interpretation of their holy text, or from some other sociopolitical dynamic, I don’t know. I do know that comparisons between those who commit crime in the name of God (including some “Christians” today and over the history of the church), and those biblical Christians who “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) are ludicrous.

Recently, Evangelical Christianity (the next “movement” attempting to rescue biblical Christianity from the last movement as it diverged) at least partly overstepped and conflated their faith and politics – it was called the Religious Right. Thankfully, the confusion cleared, but left a worry from the more secular that anyone who brought their faith to the public square was attempting to build a theocracy. Ours is “fundamentalism” of a sort, so a biblical Christian is unable to dispatch the resultant worldview from their politics, but we want no more than our voices heard and votes counted. If there’s such a thing as “Christian Jihad,” it’s to save lives, not take them. (Note: I still consider myself a Christian and an Evangelical, though “biblical Christian” saves so many words of differentiation from others who use the same descriptors.)

True, biblical Christians rightly decry tired, staid, lifeless churches, but we must be careful on how we define “lifeless.” Many faithful churches, with enlivened members, have been “doing it the same way” for many years. Our culture worships the “new and exciting,” but heaven’s population will be heavy with those faithful who found wonder in the weekly recitation of the gospel of grace by the preached Word of God and the right practice of the sacraments, despite living an otherwise mundane existence.

So I’ll take the label “fundamentalist” and even “extremist” since, by nature, that’s what the biblical Christian life is. However poorly I personally meet it, the call of the Christian is to love and service, to one another and to neighbors (Matthew 5:16), including the proclamation of the truth of the gospel (Mark 16:15). How “radical” this is, though, should be determined by the surrounding culture, not by some intentional effort to try harder. The brightness of the light often depends on the darkness of the night. Any aberrant need to stand out or be intentionally radical leads only to burnout and disillusionment when we fail, or self-righteousness when we believe we’ve succeeded.

Follow the Leader?

We live in a society of changing “norms” and diminishing distinctions. The New Tolerance has popularized the idea that truth is in the eye of the beholder. Instead of Truth, there is “my truth” and “your truth.” Even in contradiction, each remains equally valid. This sort of relativism sits atop the P.C. throne, and has made inroads into discussions of religion, ethics, politics and even gender. The idea comingles harder (more objective) and softer (more subjective) sciences to muddle “truth” such that personal preferences and mitigating circumstances affect perception. Physics is one of the harder sciences, and I have as yet not seen anyone able to relativize gravity. If you and I step off the 22-story Executive Office Building of the Capitol, our feelings/beliefs about gravity will have little to do with the mess we’ll make on the plaza. My contention here is that religious/spiritual “Truth” is as similarly hard and fixed and as unforgiving as gravity.

Whatever your position is on what happens to our ethereal selves when our bodies die, it’s nonsense to believe we could all be right. The naturalist believes we cease to exist at physical death. We biblical Christians believe heaven or hell await our (temporarily) bodiless souls until Christ’s second coming. We can’t both be right. You can add reincarnation, passing into “oneness,” or the ubiquitous idea that most everyone but despots, serial killers and pedophiles go to some type of heaven. “S/He’s in a better place” may provide opiatic comfort to us as a culture as we watch everyone die, but it begs the question why we try so hard to push death days or weeks as the precipice inevitably approaches. Death is batting around a thousand, and while we could all be wrong about our destination, we can’t all be right.

I might be wrong in my beliefs, but I’m not wrong saying that whatever is, is, and our beliefs and preferences, like in the case of gravity, don’t change the facts. The New Tolerance disagrees, riding in on a white horse named “Fairness,” proclaiming Sincerity as savior. All beliefs are equally (if only subjectively) true and valid and good. Religions, even nominally “Christian” forms, join hands with all who will agree to this wide, inclusive road to a wonderful afterlife and sing. Tra-la…la-la…la?

Here’s the real question: What do YOU believe? Why?

If you’ve thought about the eternal consequences of death for even a moment and settled your position, however tenuously, you’ve trusted someone – your parents or teachers or pastors or scientists or some amalgam of the world’s views. Whether religious/spiritual or areligious/naturalist, you have placed your “faith” in someone or some idea.

Consider this – some thirty years ago, I had a friend who was a fairly new pilot in the F-111. He was flying a night, low level mission with an experienced instructor. This aircraft had terrain-following radar with a type of “auto-pilot” so the plane could fly low and fast with the pilots’ hands off the controls. The system kept forcing the plane to pitch-up and climb (a built-in safety measure) when there was no apparent obstacle, so they assumed the system wasn’t operating properly. They toggled it off. Seconds later they flew into the side of a mountain at over 500 mph. This macabre example is a cautionary tale of death’s insidiousness, ignored warnings and misplaced trust.

So, again, what do you believe and why? By grace, confirmed by study, the biblical Jesus Christ has earned my trust regarding my eternal destination. Has whoever informed your view truly earned your trust? Much is at stake.

[This article originally appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat.]

Understanding the Gospel: What is Good News?

Everyone believes that they are right. Think of the well-worn religious parable of the elephant and blind men. Each has hold of a different portion of the elephant. Asked to describe the elephant, each is confined to his tactile perspective, where a leg “is like a tree trunk,” the tail “is like a rope,” the side “is like a wall,” the trunk “is like a snake,” and the ear “is like a leaf.” “So,” says the teller of the parable, “each has their own perspective, and likewise each religion has some portion of the whole truth.” Sounds compelling until you realize this “inclusive” storyteller is claiming to see the whole elephant! He’s not blind, everyone else is. One path or many? Are our divergent beliefs inconsequential? God only knows for sure.

It comes down to authority. Who or what informs our theological ethic? Unaided conscience? Present social mores? Biblical Christians believe that the Bible is our authority simply because it’s God’s revelation to us (Kevin DeYoung said about the parable that everything changes when the elephant speaks!). I could be wrong, but I have good reasons to believe that the Bible is true – all of it, not just my favorite bits. I know there are tough verses, but I have sufficiently studied the doubters’ accusations and believers’ responses. There remain tensions, nuances and depths of understanding that escape me, but I’m comfortable with the admixture of the rationally grasped, the spiritually understood and the mystery when I find neither. After all, the God of the Bible is a God who can be essentially, not comprehensively, understood (Is. 55:8,9).

While the Bible proclaims clearly that ALL are sinful (Rom. 3:23), or sick, if you will, many people don’t perceive their need for saving or healing. Others would save themselves with perfunctory religiosity – church membership, attendance, rituals – and/or they simply work their “balance sheet” accumulating good deeds and minimizing bad, or hope by comparison with others that they make the grade. “Hey, it’s not like I ever killed anybody.” It’s not a competition. If it was, we’d all lose.

You see, no résumé, no balance sheet, and no comparison of deeds will suffice to cancel the debt each of us owes. If we were true to ourselves, we’d rightly argue with Paul about who, indeed, is the “chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). I pity the person who cannot look inside and see something broken, something sick, something that needs fixing. I hope you can see that. If so, I have GOOD NEWS!

The gospel, or good news, is that “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The God of the Bible is a holy God who hates sin. In his grace, he visited the punishment for sin on his sinless Son, Jesus Christ, on the cross. His death and subsequent resurrection “conquered the grave.” If we trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ on our behalf, we will be saved, adopted as sons and daughters. We have no righteousness of our own (Titus 3:5) – instead, we trust in Christ alone. Augustus Toplady wrote in his classic hymn, Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me, “Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling.”

I understand the exclusive claims of this gospel and the offense it is to some (1 Co. 1:23). Whether biblical Christians are right or wrong, we believe that our ability to truly love the world rests on the proclamation of the gospel. Are we clumsy, forgetting the grace shown us? Too often. Grace should be humbling, for it is not merited, not earned and not deserved.

[This article originally appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat.]