George Washington And Christianity

Mary Thompson, a research historian at Mount Vernon:

Buying Christ's Honor With Your Losses

"Blessed are they who would hold the crown on His head, and buy Christ's honour with their own losses." (Samuel Rutherford, Letters Of Samuel Rutherford [Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2012], 258)

Jesus sighted

Tim Sledge

@Goodbye_Jesus

Christians assert Jesus was crucified, rose from the dead 3 days later, appeared to some of his followers over a 40-day period, then disappeared in the clouds.

That was 2,000 years ago & Jesus hasn't been seen or heard from since.

But he's coming back any day now. #HeIsNotRisen

https://twitter.com/Goodbye_Jesus/status/1250068066790236161

I don't normally comment on Sledge. I only became aware of him when Jeff Lowder began retweeting him. Sledge is an apostate Baptist minister who's laboring to parlay his apostasy into a career. He repeats all the canned objections to Christianity. 

Unfortunately for him, the market niche for apostates is very tight. Bart Ehrman is the star attraction. Other wannabes are fighting for crumbs.

What I'd point out is that there are many reported Christophanies throughout church history right up to the present. That includes a collection published by Oxford University Press:

https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/visions-of-jesus/

In addition, the Muslim world is undergoing a quiet Christian revival due to reported dreams and visions of Jesus. This has been documented in books by Tom Doyle and David Garrison, among others. 

My point is not to vouch for every reported Christophany. But there's lots of prima facie evidence that Jesus has been seen and heard in the intervening 2000 years. And we'd expect Christophanies to be underreported since it's not like there's a team of researchers in every generation going door-to-door to interview people.  

"He is not here"

"He is not here" (Paul Helm)

Jesus as Satirist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbbByfpRgWI

https://www.scottmasson.ca/info

Christ in the House of his Parents

Here's an interesting painting:

This was a revolutionary, landmark painting at the time, breaking free from iconographic conventions. If you look closely, it's rich with symbolism. The sheep in the background are Christian emblems. The dove on the ladder and boyish John the Baptist with a bowl of water foreshadow the baptism of Christ, while the wood, nails, and bleeding hand wound foreshadow the crucifixion. 

It was, however, controversial at the time because it offended Victorian sensibilities. They found the depiction of the Holy Family irreverent and indecorous. Too down-to-earth. That's a good example of how religious piety can become far removed from the original reality. 

He Gave You Himself

"When he could give you no more - and the fathomless depths of his love, and the boundless resources of his grace, would not be satisfied by giving you less - he gave you himself. Robed in your nature, laden with your curse, oppressed with your sorrows, wounded for your transgressions, and slain for your sins, he gave his entire self for you. And let it be remembered that it is a continuous presentation of the hoarded and exhaustless treasures of his love. His redeeming work now finished, he is perpetually engaged in meting out to his church the blessings of the 'offering made once for all.' He constantly asks your faith, - woos your affection, - invites your grief, - and bids you repair with your daily trials to his sympathy, and with your hourly guilt to his blood. You cannot in your drafts upon Christ's fulness be too covetous, nor in your expectations of supply be too extravagant. You may fail, as, alas! the most of us do, in making too little of Christ, - you cannot fail, in making too much of him." (Octavius Winslow, A Pastoral Letter [London, England: Houlston and Stoneman, 1852], 7)

Watch the world burn

According to Matt. 4:8-10:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"

Imagine if Christ had bent his knee to the devil. Imagine if our Lord had bowed his heart to Satan, pledging an oath of fealty, not to his Father but now to the Adversary.

Nothing would have delighted Old Scratch more than to see Christ strike out on his own path, the autonomous God-man, away from the love of his Father, in rebellion against his Father.

Moreover, Christ would've ultimately paid homage to Lucifer, for how can one take up arms against God without at the same time acknowledging the Archfiend in his insurrection against God was "right" (exchanging the truth for a lie)? Or perhaps, would it not have been logical for the defiant insurrectionists to join arms and forces under a single leader (e.g. to avoid divide and conquer)? In any case, I expect the Father of lies, the first apostate, would welcome all other subsequent liars and apostates as their Prince of Darkness and the god of this world.

However, if this had actually happened, what would've transpired next? The Godhead would have been divided. As such, I imagine the whole of creation would've collapsed. Surely "he [who] upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:3) would do so no more.

If this had occurred, would Satan have won? Yet he would've "won" by destroying all...including himself. It would've been worse than a Pyrrhic victory.

Nevertheless, I suspect this is what he most wants, this is his end-game: the destruction of all things even if it means his own destruction. Some just want to watch the world burn.

Of course, we thank our Lord he never succumbed to sin and rebellion. We thank our Savior who defeated and triumphed over the devil and evil. Still, I don't doubt the deceiver and thief of souls would be more than willing to take a consolation prize or two in destroying the souls of those who turn away from God. Therefore: "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Pet. 5:8).

How Jesus viewed the OT

i) Some critics of inerrancy claim that Jesus corrected the OT. Therefore, Jesus didn't subscribe to inerrancy. Of course, if inerrancy is false, how do they know for sure what Jesus really said? But let's bracket that for now. 

ii) The most often-cited passage to prove their contention is Mt 19:8. But there are some basic problems with that appeal:

a) If would be circular and counterproductive for Jesus to use Genesis to correct Deuteronomy. How can Moses correct himself? Christ's appeal to Gen 1-2 still assumes the authority of the Pentateuch. 

b) Marriage is a creation ordinance. Divorce is not. So the two lack equal standing. 

c) Although divorce was a concession to human hard-heartedness, that doesn't mean Deut 24 was mistaken or uninspired. There's a fundamental sense in which the entire old covenant is a divine accommodation to sinners. Same thing with the new covenant. Strict justice demands immediate retribution. The fact that God provides lesser penalties, temporary remedies, or simply forgives sin, is a merciful concession to our moral and spiritual plight. Gen 1-2 presents the ideal. Deut 24 fell short of the ideal. But that's true of God's dealings with his people in general. God doesn't punish us as we deserve. 

iii) Sometimes critics cite the so-called antitheses in Mt 5 ("You have heard, but I say"). But that doesn't mean Jesus is correcting the Mosaic law. In context, Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees. Criticizing the oral Torah. Something he did on other occasions as well. Pharisaic casuistry was, by turns, stricter and laxer than the Mosaic law. 

iv) Finally, critics appeal to how Jesus would sometimes break the Sabbath. However, the Sabbath was never an end in itself, but a means to an end. Higher obligations supersede lower obligations. 

Likewise, the ceremonial law was never a moral absolute. It was inherently temporary: meant to foreshadow something greater and more enduring.  

v) Moreover, we need to consider Christ's overall view of the OT. As Warfield documents:

     (3) John 10:34-35. How far the supreme trustworthiness of Scripture, thus asserted, extends may be conveyed to us by a passage in one of Our Lord’s discourses recorded by John (John 10:34-35). The Jews, offended by Jesus’ “making himself God,” were in the act to stone Him, when He defended Himself thus: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified (margin “consecrated”) and sent unto the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” It may be thought that this defense is inadequate. It certainly is incomplete: Jesus made Himself God (John 10:33) in a far higher sense than that in which “Ye are gods” was said of those “unto whom the word of God came”: He had just declared in unmistakable terms, “I and the Father are one.” But it was quite sufficient for the immediate end in view—to repel the technical charge of blasphemy based on His making Himself God: it is not blasphemy to call one God in any sense in which he may fitly receive that designation; and certainly if it is not blasphemy to call such men as those spoken of in the passage of Scripture adduced gods, because of their official functions, it cannot be blasphemy to call Him God whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world. The point for us to note, however, is merely that Jesus’ defense takes the form of an appeal to Scripture; and it is important to observe how He makes this appeal. In the first place, He adduces the Scriptures as law: “Is it not written in your law?” He demands. The passage of Scripture which He adduces is not written in that portion of Scripture which was more specifically called “the Law,” that is to say, the Pentateuch; nor in any portion of Scripture of formally legal contents. It is written in the Book of Psalms; and in a particular psalm which is as far as possible from presenting the external characteristics of legal enactment (Psalm 82:6). When Jesus adduces this passage, then, as written in the “law” of the Jews, He does it, not because it stands in this psalm, but because it is a part of Scripture at large. In other words, He here ascribes legal authority to the entirety of Scripture, in accordance with a conception common enough among the Jews (cf. John 12:34), and finding expression in the New Testament occasionally, both on the lips of Jesus Himself, and in the writings of the apostles. Thus, on a later occasion (John 15:25), Jesus declares that it is written in the “law” of the Jews, “They hated me without a cause,” a clause found in Psalm 35:19. And Paul assigns passages both from the Psalms and from Isaiah to “the Law” (1 Cor. 14:21; Rom. 3:19), and can write such a sentence as this (Gal. 4:21-22): “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written ....” quoting from the narrative of Genesis. We have seen that the entirety of Scripture was conceived as “prophecy”; we now see that the entirety of Scripture was also conceived as “law”: these three terms, the law, prophecy, Scripture, were indeed, materially, strict synonyms, as our present passage itself advises us, by varying the formula of adduction in contiguous verses from “law” to “scripture.” And what is thus implied in the manner in which Scripture is adduced, is immediately afterward spoken out in the most explicit language, because it forms an essential element in Our Lord’s defense. It might have been enough to say simply, “Is it not written in your law?” But Our Lord, determined to drive His appeal to Scripture home, sharpens the point to the utmost by adding with the highest emphasis: “and the scripture cannot be broken.” This is the reason why it is worth while to appeal to what is “written in the law,” because “the scripture cannot be broken.” The word “broken” here is the common one for breaking the law, or the Sabbath, or the like (John 5:18; 7:23; Mat. 5:19), and the meaning of the declaration is that it is impossible for the Scripture to be annulled, its authority to be withstood, or denied. The movement of thought is to the effect that, because it is impossible for the Scripture—the term is perfectly general and witnesses to the unitary character of Scripture (it is all, for the purpose in hand, of a piece)—to be withstood, therefore this particular Scripture which is cited must be taken as of irrefragable authority. What we have here is, therefore, the strongest possible assertion of the indefectible authority of Scripture; precisely what is true of Scripture is that it “cannot be broken.” Now, what is the particular thing in Scripture, for the confirmation of which the indefectible authority of Scripture is thus invoked? It is one of its most casual clauses—more than that, the very form of its expression in one of its most casual clauses. This means, of course, that in the Savior’s view the indefectible authority of Scripture attaches to the very form of expression of its most casual clauses. It belongs to Scripture through and through, down to its most minute particulars, that it is of indefectible authority.

     It is sometimes suggested, it is true, that Our Lord’s argument here is an argumentum ad hominem, and that His words, therefore, express not His own view of the authority of Scripture, but that of His Jewish opponents. It will scarcely be denied that there is a vein of satire running through Our Lord’s defense: that the Jews so readily allowed that corrupt judges might properly be called “gods,” but could not endure that He whom the Father had consecrated and sent into the world should call Himself Son of God, was a somewhat pungent fact to throw up into such a high light. But the argument from Scripture is not ad hominem but e concessu; Scripture was common ground with Jesus and His opponents. If proof were needed for so obvious a fact, it would be supplied by the circumstance that this is not an isolated but a representative passage. The conception of Scripture thrown up into such clear view here supplies the ground of all Jesus’ appeals to Scripture, and of all the appeals of the New Testament writers as well. Everywhere, to Him and to them alike, an appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an indefectible authority whose determination is final; both He and they make their appeal indifferently to every part of Scripture, to every element in Scripture, to its most incidental clauses as well as to its most fundamental principles, and to the very form of its expression. This attitude toward Scripture as an authoritative document is, indeed, already intimated by their constant designation of it by the name of Scripture, the Scriptures, that is “the Document,” by way of eminence; and by their customary citation of it with the simple formula, “It is written.” What is written in this document admits so little of questioning that its authoritativeness required no asserting, but might safely be taken for granted. Both modes of expression belong to the constantly illustrated habitudes of Our Lord’s speech. The first words He is recorded as uttering after His manifestation to Israel were an appeal to the unquestionable authority of Scripture; to Satan’s temptations He opposed no other weapon than the final “It is written”! (Mat. 4:4,7,10; Luke 4:4,8). And among the last words which He spoke to His disciples before He was received up was a rebuke to them for not understanding that all things “which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and psalms” concerning Him—that is (Luke 24:45) in the entire “Scriptures”—“must needs be” (very emphatic) “fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). “Thus it is written,” says He (Luke 24:46), as rendering all doubt absurd. For, as He had explained earlier upon the same day (Luke 24:25-27), it argues only that one is “foolish and slow of heart” if he does not “believe in” (if his faith does not rest securely on, as on a firm foundation) “all” (without limit of subject-matter here) “that the prophets” (explained in Luke 24:27 as equivalent to “all the scriptures”) “have spoken.”

4. Christ’s Declaration That Scripture Must Be Fulfilled

The necessity of the fulfillment of all that is written in Scripture, which is so strongly asserted in these last instructions to His disciples, is frequently adverted to by Our Lord. He repeatedly explains of occurrences occasionally happening that they have come to pass “that the scripture might be fulfilled” (Mark 14:49; John 13:18; 17:12; cf. 12:14; Mark 9:12,13). On the basis of Scriptural declarations, therefore, He announces with confidence that given events will certainly occur: “All ye shall be offended (literally, “scandalized”) in me this night: for it is written ....” (Mat. 26:31; Mark 14:27; cf. Luke 20:17). Although holding at His command ample means of escape, He bows before on-coming calamities, for, He asks, how otherwise “should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Mat. 26:54). It is not merely the two disciples with whom He talked on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:25) whom He rebukes for not trusting themselves more perfectly to the teaching of Scripture. “Ye search the scriptures,” he says to the Jews, in the classical passage (John 5:39), “because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life!” These words surely were spoken more in sorrow than in scorn: there is no blame implied either for searching the Scriptures or for thinking that eternal life is to be found in Scripture; approval rather. What the Jews are blamed for is that they read with a veil lying upon their hearts which He would fain take away (2 Cor. 3:15-16). “Ye search the scriptures”—that is right: and “even you” (emphatic) “think to have eternal life in them”—that is right, too. But “it is these very Scriptures” (very emphatic) “which are bearing witness” (continuous process) “of me; and” (here is the marvel!) “ye will not come to me and have life!”—that you may, that is, reach the very end you have so properly in view in searching the Scriptures. Their failure is due, not to the Scriptures but to themselves, who read the Scriptures to such little purpose.

5. Christ’s Testimony That God Is Author

Quite similarly Our Lord often finds occasion to express wonder at the little effect to which Scripture had been read, not because it had been looked into too curiously, but because it had not been looked into earnestly enough, with sufficiently simple and robust trust in its every declaration. “Have ye not read even this scripture?” He demands, as He adduces Psalm 118 to show that the rejection of the Messiah was already intimated in Scripture (Mark 12:10; Mat. 21:42 varies the expression to the equivalent: “Did ye never read in the scriptures?”). And when the indignant Jews came to Him complaining of the Hosannas with which the children in the Temple were acclaiming Him, and demanding, “Hearest thou what these are saying?” He met them (Mat. 21:16) merely with, “Yea: did ye never read, Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou has perfected praise?” The underlying thought of these passages is spoken out when He intimates that the source of all error in Divine things is just ignorance of the Scriptures: “Ye do err,” He declares to His questioners, on an important occasion, “not knowing the scriptures” (Mat. 22:29); or, as it is put, perhaps more forcibly, in interrogative form, in its parallel in another Gospel: “Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures?” (Mark 12:24). Clearly, he who rightly knows the Scriptures does not err. The confidence with which Jesus rested on Scripture, in its every declaration, is further illustrated in a passage like Mat. 19:4. Certain Pharisees had come to Him with a question on divorce and He met them thus: “Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? .... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The point to be noted is the explicit reference of Gen. 2:24 to God as its author: “He who made them .... said”; “what therefore God hath joined together.” Yet this passage does not give us a saying of God’s recorded in Scripture, but just the word of Scripture itself, and can be treated as a declaration of God’s only on the hypothesis that all Scripture is a declaration of God’s. The parallel in Mark (10:5 ff) just as truly, though not as explicitly, assigns the passage to God as its author, citing it as authoritative law and speaking of its enactment as an act of God’s. And it is interesting to observe in passing that Paul, having occasion to quote the same passage (1 Cor. 6:16), also explicitly quotes it as a Divine word: “For, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh”—the “he” here, in accordance with a usage to be noted later, meaning just “God.”

     Thus clear is it that Jesus’ occasional adduction of Scripture as an authoritative document rests on an ascription of it to God as its author. His testimony is that whatever stands written in Scripture is a word of God. Nor can we evacuate this testimony of its force on the plea that it represents Jesus only in the days of His flesh, when He may be supposed to have reflected merely the opinions of His day and generation. The view of Scripture He announces was, no doubt, the view of His day and generation as well as His own view. But there is no reason to doubt that it was held by Him, not because it was the current view, but because, in His Divine-human knowledge, He knew it to be true; for, even in His humiliation, He is the faithful and true witness. And in any event we should bear in mind that this was the view of the resurrected as well as of the humiliated Christ. It was after He had suffered and had risen again in the power of His Divine life that He pronounced those foolish and slow of heart who do not believe all that stands written in all the Scriptures (Luke 24:25); and that He laid down the simple “Thus it is written” as the sufficient ground of confident belief (Luke 24:46). Nor can we explain away Jesus’ testimony to the Divine trustworthiness of Scripture by interpreting it as not His own, but that of His followers, placed on His lips in their reports of His words. Not only is it too constant, minute, intimate and in part incidental, and therefore, as it were, hidden, to admit of this interpretation; but it so pervades all our channels of information concerning Jesus’ teaching as to make it certain that it comes actually from Him. It belongs not only to the Jesus of our evangelical records but as well to the Jesus of the earlier sources which underlie our evangelical records, as anyone may assure himself by observing the instances in which Jesus adduces the Scriptures as Divinely authoritative that are recorded in more than one of the Gospels (e.g. “It is written,” Mat. 4:4,7,10 (Luke 4:4,8,10); Mat. 11:10; (Luke 7:27); Mat. 21:13 (Luke 19:46; Mark 11:17); Mat. 26:31 (Mark 14:21); “the scripture” or “the scriptures,” Mat. 19:4 (Mark 10:9); Mat. 21:42 (Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17);Mat. 22:29 (Mark 12:24; Luke 20:37); Mat. 26:56 (Mark 14:49; Luke 24:44)). These passages alone would suffice to make clear to us the testimony of Jesus to Scripture as in all its parts and declarations Divinely authoritative.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield3.html

Jesus for men

Jesus is tenderly calling you home

Calling today, calling today,

Why from the sunshine of love will you roam,

Farther and farther away?

Jesus is waiting, O come to Him now,

Waiting today, waiting today,

Come with your sins, at His feet lowly bow;

Come, and no longer delay.

Jesus is pleading, O list to His voice,

Hear Him today, hear Him today,

They who believe on His Name shall rejoice;

Quickly arise and away.

I don’t think it’s coincidental that this hymn was written by a woman. It reflects a very feminine view of Jesus. This is Jesus seen through a woman’s eyes.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. We’d expect a woman to see Jesus through a woman’s eyes. That’s only natural. Mind you, I happen to think this hymn is theologically deficient, but that’s an argument for another day.

Male hymnodists, especially Victorians, could also write hymns in this dainty vein. They could psych themselves into that mindset.

But as a rule, it doesn’t work for a man to see Jesus through a woman’s eyes. That’s off-putting. Men need to relate to Jesus as men, not women.

Now, there’s some value in both sexes learning how to perceive things the way the opposite sex perceives them. Being able to assume that viewpoint is important in marriage.

But I’m dealing with male Christian piety. Christian men ought to love Jesus. But what does that mean? How should men love Jesus?  What’s the frame of reference?

Actually, there’s nothing unusual about men loving other men. That’s perfectly normal and commonplace. Paradigm-cases include fathers loving sons. Sons loving fathers. Brothers loving each other.

Another example is male friendship. Players on a high school football team may form strong emotional bonds. A junior high or high school football team can function like a surrogate family.

Men in combat units may form strong emotional bonds. A policeman and his (male) partner may become best friends.

There’s nothing the least bit “gay” about this type of male bonding.

The Bible itself has examples of fatherly love, filial love, brotherly love, and amicable love. The Bible also uses these examples as theological metaphors.

One way for Christian men to foster their love for Jesus is to think of Jesus as a big brother or a best friend. Of course, Jesus is far more than that. But that’s a start. Right now I’m stressing masculine models of affection for other men. And Scripture itself utilizes these models–as well as other models.

We can also reflect on Jesus’ friendship with the twelve disciples. For three years straight, they were inseparable. They did everything together. Went everywhere together. Ate together. Slept together. Slept out in the open, under starry skies. Huddled by a makeshift campfire for warmth on a chilly desert night. Or sweated on hot dusty roads.

They went through everything together. The highs and the lows. They were loved for his sake and they were hated for his sake. Where he was loved, they were loved. Where he was hated, they were hated. 

Moreover, when Jesus called the disciples, it’s unlikely that he was calling perfect strangers. He probably knew most of them from childhood, growing up together in fishing communities along the banks of the Sea of Galilee. Childhood playmates. Adjacent villages within walking distance of each other–up and down the shoreline. They went fishing together. Swimming together. Caught lizards. Surveyed the countryside from the surrounding hills.

They probably came of age together. Attended marriages and funerals together. Shared the mournful death of aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. Mothers dying in childbirth.

As boys they probably went to Jerusalem on extended family pilgrimages. Explored the city together.

That’s why the Ascension is such a wrenching experience for them. They are losing him. Like the untimely death of your brother or your best friend. The separation is devastating. In this life they will never see him again.

Of course, you and I lack that direct experience. But even though you and I weren’t one of the twelve disciples, we can see Jesus through the eyes of his disciples, as if we were one of the Twelve. When we read the Gospels, we see Jesus through the vivid recollection of those who saw him, heard him, walked with him, and talked with him. 

When we read the Gospels, we eavesdrop on these ancient scenes. Overheard these ancient conversations. We step into a time machine. We travel back in time to Jesus’s time. We stand where the disciples stood.

We can also mediate on the sonship of Christ. Christ is the incarnate Son of God. That’s a masculine role. More than a role. Every man is someone’s son.

Of course, his sonship differs from our sonship. From how we relate to our earthly fathers. And his filial relationship with the Father differs from our filial relationship with the Father, through him. But there are similarities as well as differences.

Jesus can help us understand what it means to be a son. What it means to have a father.

In a fallen world, some sons are a great disappointment to their fathers–while some fathers are a great disappointment to their sons. Jesus can bring healing to our damaging experience by modeling the exemplary Son of the exemplary Father.

The example of Christ can show men how to be better fathers, sons, and brothers. And that prepares us to be better husbands as well. He teaches us how to be loving men, beginning with himself.

Christless Arminianism

jesse says:

August 29, 2012 at 1:55 am

    Roger, any chance you could deal with some of the verses Piper quotes and give the Arminian perspective?

 rogereolson says:

 August 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm

        You missed it, so I’ll say it again: No need to, as IF those scriptures mean what Piper says they mean, then Jesus Christ was not the perfect revelation of God and the Bible itself is not worthy of our trust because God is not good and thus not to be trusted.

There’s a reason why Christianity is called…Christianity. There’s a reason why Christians call themselves…Christians (cf. Acts 11:26). Our theology is Christocentric. Our piety is Christocentric. It all comes down to Jesus. Total devotion to Jesus.

Of course, none of us loves Jesus as much as we should. That’s something we need to work on everyday. Reminding ourselves of what he did for us, does for us, will do for us. Adoring his character.

Christian faith means living for Jesus, living with Jesus, dying with Jesus, and sometimes dying for Jesus (martyrdom). As Paul says, our life is hidden with Christ (Col 3:3).

For Christians, Jesus is the touchstone of all that’s right and true. They don’t measure Jesus by what is good; rather, they measure what is good by Jesus.

Compare this with Roger Olson. Olson lacks total devotion to Jesus. If Jesus doesn’t measure up to Olson’s preconceived ideals, then Olson is prepared to flip him off and go his own way. Olson hates Calvinism more than he loves Jesus.

Olson is more important than Jesus. Jesus is only good if Olson says he’s good. Olson doesn’t measure himself by Jesus. Rather, Olson measures Jesus by himself. If by that yardstick, Jesus comes up short, then so much the better for Olson and so much the worse for Jesus. 

Of course, this is nothing knew. Many Jews were looking for the Messiah, but Jesus wasn’t the Messiah they were looking for. He didn’t live up to their expectations. He wasn't their kind of Messiah.

Olson likes to draw lines in the sand. He draws the line with Calvinists. But now he’s drawn the line with Jesus. He’s prepared to draw a line that puts Jesus on one side of the line, and Olson on the other side of the line. Of course, when you draw the line that way, you may find yourself backing into outer darkness.

Keep in mind that Olson is the star player over at the Society of Evangelical Arminians. Although I haven’t kept count, it’s my off-the-cuff impression that his stuff is reposted there more often than anyone else.

Given a choice between Roger Olson and Jesus Christ, I think I’ll take my chances with Jesus.

“Probably everyone involved knew what they were doing”

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/why-was-jesus-crucified

... how does such a nice guy as this sort of Jesus manage to get himself crucified?

...

It’s important to note that Jesus didn’t simply die, he was killed, and not simply killed but executed, and not simply executed, he was crucified (despite the assurances of our Muslim friends to the contrary). We know from other incidents (as, e.g., reported by Josephus) how the Temple authorities and Roman administration treated people who simply caused a disturbance in the Temple, and it wasn’t crucifixion. Flogging, maybe but not crucifixion.

The point of crucifixion wasn’t simply to end a person’s life but, much more, to humiliate and degrade to the extreme, to say “See what this guy got? This is what anyone gets who raises his hand against Rome!”

Pilate was a figure of uncertain character ... , probably not your favorite-uncle type, but he probably knew his job, which was primarily to keep order, keep the Jews in their place, and oversee tax-collection and Roman administration more generally. A hard guy, probably, but not likely someone who crucified people on a whim. He likely took stock of the situation and judged that Jesus had (whatever his intentions) generated what might be an incipient movement that could lead to greater trouble if not nipped in the bud forcefully.

As I’ve put it (in Lord Jesus Christ (esp. 54-56), Jesus rather clearly polarized people over what to make of him. He “quickly became a figure of some notoriety and controversy” (LJC, 55). Though his preaching seems to have focused on “the kingdom of God,” the issue quickly became whether he was or wasn’t the authentic spokesman of that kingdom. And talk of “kingdom” could make ruling authorities worried.

Granted, it also seems likely that the Temple authorities colluded in some way in Jesus’ arrest and execution. After all, the High Priest was appointed by Rome and served as Rome’s pleasure. It would not go well for the Temple authorities if they were seen to ignore someone who seemed to challenge their authority and, by extension, that of Rome.

As I’ve argued (LJC, 54-55), the issue isn’t really what Jesus thought he was or what he intended. The key thing, instead, is what effects and results his activities had on his contemporaries. Some became his followers, willing to abandon their livelihoods to do so. Others (including some powerful people) judged him dangerous, and eventually decided to move against him with mortal intent. That’s what I’d call polarization!

So, however attractive to our own gentle instincts may be the sort of Jesus touted often, a guy who wouldn’t hurt a fly and just wanted everyone to be friends, we have to posit a Jesus who could get himself crucified. And we should do so without caricatured Jewish leaders and Roman governor, and without invoking some legal goof-up. Instead, probably everyone involved knew what they were doing.

The cause of death in the crucifixion of Christ

Since Easter is coming up, I thought some people might be interested in a few articles on the medical aspects of the crucifixion of Christ:

• "On the physical death of Jesus Christ" (Edwards, Gabel, & Hosmer, 1986).
• "Medical theories on the cause of death in crucifixion" (Maslen & Mitchell, 2006).
• "The crucifixion of Jesus: Review of hypothesized mechanisms of death and implications of shock and trauma-induced coagulopathy" (Bergeron, 2010).
• "The Medical Evidence: Was Jesus' Death a Sham and Resurrection a Hoax?".

Of course, there are more medical articles on the topic or related topics cited in the references.

In addition:

Discovering Jesus - Review

Discovering Jesus: Why Four Gospels to Portray One Person? by T. D. Alexander
Reviewed by Paul Manata

Discovering Jesus: Why Four Gospels to Portray One Person?, T. D. Alexander, Crossway, 2010, 141 pages.

In this helpful book - which manages to package an ambitious goal with a wide scope in a slim package - T. Desmond Alexander, the regarded biblical theology scholar, presents the one Jesus introduced in four different Gospels. This book would be most helpful for a new or young Christian or someone undertaking their first study of the Gospels. I believe that after reading this book one will be better prepared to approach the Gospels and understand the basic message of each. Discovering Jesus gives the reader a couple of main themes each Gospel employes and that appear to drive or motivate the Jesus presented in that Gospel. These themes are based on history, though, and are not theological "agendas" produced by the early church to gain the upper-hand in an early battle for religious power. However, all of this is done in a very introductory manner, making it ideal for the beginning Christian or Bible student (though no doubt more well-read students of the Bible could stand to profit from some of the insights). Here's a short overview of the book

Chapter one gives a brief overview of the Gospels. Briefly, similarities and differences between the synoptic gospels are presented — often aided by helpful charts and images — and then John's Gospel and its differences with all the synoptics is covered. The conclusion is that the Gospels all share the same goal — to present the good news of Jesus Christ, and while they do so with different perspectives, these perspectives are also complementary, all combining to give as a well-rounded picture of the most unique individual who has ever lived.

Capter two presents common themes in the Gospels, these are: (1) fulfillment on Scripture, (2) the kingdom of God, (3) hostility, (4) centrality of the passions, (5) salvation and the gentiles, and (6) the importance of faith. These themes are seen to greater or lesser extent in each Gospel, but some authors focus more heavily on some than others. Probably the most important or central theme is (4), which is why the Gospels have sometimes been referred to as "passion narratives with extended introductions."

Chapter three and four focus on Mark's gospel. In approaching Mark, Alexander ever-so-briefly covers introductory issues like authorship and dating. He then presents some of the main themes that can be distilled from Mark. He finds that Mark focuses heavily on the theme of "Jesus as the son of God who suffers to ransom others," and secondly the notion of discipleship, which is tied together with the first theme in that disciples follow Jesus in the way of the cross.

Chapter five and six focus on Matthew's gospel. He offers the same kinds of introductory remarks on authorship and dating as he did with Mark and then looks at key Matthean themes. The first theme is the theme of conflict. He notes Matthew is keen to point this out and especially focuses on the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership, which is interesting since Matthew's is the most "Jewish" of the Gospels. The second theme, in keeping with the Jewishness of the Gospel, is the idea that Jesus is King, a King who descended from David. Jesus is the son of David, the divinely promised Messiah who inaugurates the kingdom of heaven.

Chapters seven and eight turn to Luke's Gospel. As with the above, similar introductory remarks are made. After these comments, Alexander turns to the first major theme found in Luke, i.e., the Holy Spirit. He points out how Luke is especially interested in the Holy Spirit, more so than the other Gospels. A second theme pointed out in the Holy Spirit chapter is that of prayer. The next chapter looks at Luke's theme of Jesus as the one who comes to seek and save the lost. Alexander points out how Luke addresses this notion of "finding the lost" more than the other evangelists. Salvation is a major factor, especially the salvation of those of a lowly social status as well as gentiles. Luke presents Jesus as the savior of the world to seek the lost. The last chapter briefly ends with the theme of joy and happiness, the appropriate reaction of those who have been saved.

Chapters nine and ten approach the final Gospel, John's. Similar introductory comments on authorship, dating, and structure are made. The first theme is that of believing (though John's Gospel is "too rich" to really find themes to encapsulate his ideas). He notes John clearly encourages and wants his readers to believe, "psiteuo" (to believe) occurs ninety-eight times, over 1/4 of all occurrences in the New Testament. The next theme is that of the new exodus. Alexander describes how John seeks to make comparisons between Jesus and the book of Exodus. There are several similarities here, from the "signs" intended to induce belief, to the "I am" statements, to the passover, and to the leading of the covenant people out of slavery and into new life. So jesus is presented as the Lamb of God who brings eternal life through a new exodus.

Chapter eleven briefly looks at the composition of the Gospels, covering the "synoptic problem," i.e., how do we account for the similarity between them, which Gospel has priority, and Alexander seems to come down on the side of Markan priority. Alexander then turns to different ideas about the Gospels, whether they are biographies, proclamations, distinctive theologies, or stories. While these views have their problems, especially the last three, there is some truth to all of them. However, the main thing to keep in mind is that history underwrites the story. The good news is rooted in history, and unintelligible apart from it.

The last chapter (twelve) is a review and final observations. The final observations are to grasp the full significance and weight of words like "Jesus is Lord and savior," and to recognize that Jesus is more than a mere man, he's the God-man, "the most unique and incredible 'man' who ever lived and continues to live."

Alexander also includes a helpful biography for "further reading" so that you can take the basic foundation he's laid and expand on it.

All-in-all, this is a helpful book. It is introductory, and several issues are not discussed, or if they are, only briefly. Issues such as seeming "contradictions" or "inconsistencies" between the gospels are not even mentioned, though one might get the idea that they would be given the topic of the book and prior knowledge of questions that are asked of the "differing Gospels." Thus this book isn't very helpful for apologetic issues, though there may be some slight relevance to those discussions to be found, but those issues are really too minimally covered. If this is kept in mind and expectations are in-line with the topic of the book — finding key themes of the Gospels — readers, especially beginning students, should profit from this little book. It can inaugurate or give direction to your studies of Jesus. As Darrell Bock says on the back cover, "Discovering Jesus will get you well-oriented and open up a lifetime of reflection about Jesus."

Innate Solidarity or the Despotism of the Sky

In what might very well be one of his last pieces, Christopher Hitchens has again raised the banner of atheism against the parochial machinations of theism.

Defiant to the end, Hitchens' letter reflects his customary style of rhetoric over substance, so there is little in terms of argument to critique.

However, his article provides insight into modern assumptions about the ultimate source of value and meaning:

It is our innate solidarity, and not some despotism of the sky, which is the source of our morality and our sense of decency.

He goes on to explicate this choice:

That essential sense of decency is outraged every day. Our theocratic enemy is in plain view. Protean in form, it extends from the overt menace of nuclear-armed mullahs to the insidious campaigns to have stultifying pseudo-science taught in American schools. But in the past few years, there have been heartening signs of a genuine and spontaneous resistance to this sinister nonsense: a resistance which repudiates the right of bullies and tyrants to make the absurd claim that they have god on their side. To have had a small part in this resistance has been the greatest honor of my lifetime: the pattern and original of all dictatorship is the surrender of reason to absolutism and the abandonment of critical, objective inquiry. The cheap name for this lethal delusion is religion, and we must learn new ways of combating it in the public sphere, just as we have learned to free ourselves of it in private.

Notice how Hitchens frames the issue; we are left to choose between oppressive concepts of objective truth ("despotism"), on the one hand, and dignity enriching subjectivism, on the other.

This is all downstream of Richard Rorty and his famous essay Objectivity or Solidarity, where Rorty defends subjectively defined community. Here are some representative excerpts (emphasis original):

There are two principle ways in which reflective human beings try, by placing their lives in a larger context, to give sense to those lives. The first is by telling the story of their contribution to a community. This community may be the actual historical one in which they live, or another actual one, distant in time or place, or a quite imaginary one, consisting of perhaps a dozen heroes or heroines selected from history or fiction or both. The second way is to describe themselves as standing in immediate relation to a nonhuman reality. This relation is immediate in the sense that it does not derive from a relation between such a reality and their tribe, or their nation, or their imagined band of comrades. I shall say that stories of the former kind exemplify the desire for solidarity, and that stories of the latter kind exemplify the desire for objectivity. Insofar as a person is seeking solidarity, she does not ask about the relation between the practices of the chosen community and something outside that community. Insofar as she seeks objectivity, she distances herself from the actual persons around her not by thinking of herself as a member of some other real or imaginary group, but rather by attaching herself to something which can be described without reference to any particular human beings.

The tradition in Western culture which centers around the notion of the search for Truth, a tradition which runs from the Greek philosophers through the Enlightenment, is the clearest example of the attempt to find a sense in one's existence by turning away from solidarity to objectivity. The idea of Truth as something to be pursued for its own sake, not because it will be good for oneself, or for one's real or imaginary community, is the central theme of this tradition.

...

By contrast, those who wish to reduce objectivity to solidarity--call them "pragmatists"--do not require either a metaphysics or an epistemology. They view truth as, in William James' phrase, what is good for us to believe...They see the gap between truth and justification not as something to be bridged by isolating a natural and transcultural sort of rationality which can be used to criticize certain cultures and praise others, but simply as the gap between the actual good and the possible better.

...

Part of the instinctive resistance to attempts by Marxists, Sartreans, Oakeshottians, Gadamerians and Foucauldians to reduce objectivity to solidarity is the fear that our traditional liberal habits and hopes will not survive the reduction...I think that putting the issue in such moral and political terms, rather than in epistemological and metaphilosophical terms, makes clearer what is at stake. For now the question is not about how to define worlds like "truth" or "rationality" or "knowledge" or "philosophy," but about what self-image our society should have of itself. The ritual invocation of the "need to avoid relativism" is most comprehensible as an expression of the need to preserve certain habits of contemporary European life.

...

We should say that we must, in practice, privilege our own group, even though there can be no noncircular justification for doing so. We must insist that the fact that nothing is immune from criticism does not mean that we have a duty to justify everything. We Western liberal intellectuals should accept the fact that we have to start from where we are, and that this means that there are lots of views which we simply cannot take seriously.

...

The best argument we partisans of solidarity have against the realistic partisans of objectivity is Nietzsche's argument that the traditional Western metaphysico-epistemological way of firming up our habits simply isn't working anymore. It isn't doing its job. It has become as transparent a device as the postulation of deities who turn out, by happy coincidence, to have chosen us as their people.¹

In at least one critical sense, Rorty has won the philosophical debate, and this is reflected in Hitchens' piece.² The secular world, through the influence of the university, accepts these terms: either we choose unity through subjectively defined, community-based morality, or we suffer under those who think they have a divine mandate that allows them to bend the world to their will.³

Even though Hitchens' dilemma is ultimately false (and deeply problematic, for it ends in claiming God as the fundamental problem with the world!), it is partially correct. Formed in the image of a Triune God, we only thrive in loving, service-oriented community. History is filled with examples of professing believers brutalizing those outside of their community. We may only need mention the Catholic Church of the middle ages and its cultural expectations of "how things ought to be"; claiming that its cultural values were derived from a transcendent standard, it laid a delightful foundation for every sort of rank imperialism and colonialism. And Scripture gives us several case studies of claimed followers of God exercising injustice against those who do not hold to the in-group's standard of righteousness. (A prime example is that of the Pharisees.) The thirst for solidarity is natural and good, and there is a limited, qualified sense in which objectivity ruins its pursuit.

Yet because Scripture accounts for this behavior--the misuse of God's truth for selfish, destructive ends--such activity cannot be a sufficient objection to theism.

Indeed, Scripture offers a positive alternative. Christ has come to establish a kind of community that promotes not just in-group solidarity, but love for those outside of the group, even if they are enemies.⁴ In one sense, the Sermon on the Mount presents a choice between two kinds of objectivity: (a) one which inevitably brings derision, scorn, hate, and even violence, toward those who are not part of the in-group, and (b) another which brings peaceful, loving, tolerant solidarity to both those inside and outside the group. In the former, exemplified by the Scribes and the Pharisees, you earn your social and religious standing through righteous obedience to an extrinsic standard. This acceptance inevitably produces a superiority complex out of which arrogance and oppression flow. In the latter, however, acceptance into Christ's kingdom is grace from beginning to end, a justification by faith alone. Since you do not earn the love of God, there is no ground on which to say you are better than those in the out-group. Since you understand your own sinfulness, and what Christ sacrificed to save you from it, you will have grace and power to love others, even those who hate and despise you.

The love of Christ shatters the post-modern dilemma. In Jesus you will find both objective meaning and loving solidarity.

_____________________________

1. Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 21ff.

2. Strangely enough, here we also find the basis of Brian McLaren's objections to modern Christianity, whether in its conservative or liberal forms.

3. While Rorty's essay targets all forms of objectivity, including scientism, Hitchens' narrowing of the scope of objectivity to theism is reasonable given his intended audience of American atheists.

4. I am indebted here to Timothy Keller's conception of Christ's community as described in "The Community of Jesus." This sermon, an exposition of Luke 6:12-36, is available for free, either on the Redeemer podcast or here at the Redeemer website.

Words of light and life

The following is a partial transcript that Annoyed Pinoy typed up of William Lane Craig's podcast entitled "What Is Inerrancy?"

Harris: The debate often centers on Inerrancy with skeptics of the Christian faith and those who are considering [it]...I've seen it go round for years and years just on Inerrancy and that often detracts from the *person* of Christ.

Craig: Yeah, I think that's just a huge mistake, Kevin. Because now, what you're trying to make the focus of your evangelism is *Inerrancy* rather than *Christ*...as you say. It's *Christ* that is the center of the Gospel. And so, *He* ought to be the stumbling stone. Not the doctrine of Inerrancy. Inerrancy is an in-house debate for someone who is already a Christian.

Harris: Okay, alright.

Craig: It's an in-house argument about what corollaries are there to the concept of inspiration.

Harris: Now that is very important because, again, you can go off on a rabbit trail for years with a person on Inerrancy. And, again, to detract you from [what Kevin says is garbled but he seems to say "the central truths of the gospel."]

Craig: It would actually...here's the...here's the serious [thing]...it would keep people from salvation. Which is just horrible. If people have to jump through the hoops of Biblical Inerrancy in order to become a Christian...you will actually prevent people from coming to know Christ. By forcing the unbeliever to embrace this belief in order to be saved."

www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/What_is_Inerrancy_.mp3

1. It sounds very pious to say, in the abstract, that we should focus on Christ rather than inerrancy, but what does that really mean? We don’t have Jesus apart from Scripture. We don’t have independent access to the words and deeds of Jesus.

So who are people coming to? Do we have the words of Jesus?

Jesus doesn’t speak to us directly. Rather, he speaks through others. We have reported words of Jesus.

Did Jesus really say, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,” or is that one of those “in-house” debates?

Do we have the deeds of Jesus? We have reported deeds of Jesus. Jesus reported statement to Mary is embedded in a story. But did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead? Or is that one of those “in-house” debates?

The words and deeds of Jesus go together. But if the record of his words and deeds is errant, then maybe Jesus didn’t raise Lazarus from the dead. Then maybe Jesus didn’t say, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.”

2. Did Jesus really appear to Paul on the Damascus road, or is that one of those “in-house” debates? Did God really call Abraham out of Ur, and make a covenant with Abraham–to bless all nations? Did Isaiah really see into the future? Did the Apostle John really see into heaven? Are these merely “in-house” debates? Are these peripheral to the Christian faith?

3. Is it appropriate to tell God, “Take a little piece of paper and write down in two or three sentences the bare minimum I need to believe to avoid going to hell. Then shut up! That’s all I want to hear!”

What kind of attitude is that? It’s not as if we’re only obligated to believe some “saving” truths. Rather, we’re obligated to believe whatever God tells us.

And we should believe what he says because of who he is. That’s the main thing. To believe the word of God because we believe the God of the word. For if we didn’t believe in God, there would be no reason to believe in his word.

That’s the problem with this grudging, nominal approach. If people can’t bring themselves to believe whatever God tells them, then they don’t really believe in God.

We trust what he says because we trust him. We take God at his word because he is truthful and trustworthy.

If you don’t have that, what do you have? What’s left?

Notice how Craig treats the word of God like a yoke. We mustn’t burden unbelievers by “forcing” them to take God at his word.

What a thankless attitude! Shouldn’t we view the word of God as a blessing rather than a burden? A light in the darkness? Something that frees us, not shackles us? An object of gratitude rather than resentment? 

The word of God is a priceless gift to lost sinners. How can Craig possibly say that having to believe the word of God is a hindrance to salvation? What a perverse thing to say! You might as well say fresh water is hazardous to a man stranded in the desert.

The word of God is the word of our Father in heaven. The word of God is the word of our Good Shepherd. Words of light and life. Healing words. Words which guide us and guard us on the journey home. What could be more precious? More essential to our wellbeing?

The Date of the Nativity

"The Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus' Life" (PDF) by Paul Maier.

Stoning Jesus

On the one hand:

CORAM DEO SAID:

The sophistry you employ to defend wanton violation of the 2nd Commandment might have been interesting if you were a Jew explaining your reasoning to Moses in the desert of Sinai a few thousand years ago as you died in a hail of stones, but here it simply comes across as obstinate, stubborn, willful pride and presumption.

On the other hand:

Matthew 12:1-2

1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him,(C) "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath."

Luke 6:6-7

6On another Sabbath, he entered the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was withered. 7And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse him.

Lk 13:10-14

10Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. 11And there was a woman who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself. 12When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, "Woman, you are freed from your disability." 13And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God. 14But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, "There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day."

John 5:15-16

15The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. 16And this was why the Jews(A) were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

Jn 7:19-24

Why do you seek to kill me?" 20The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?" 21Jesus answered them, "I did one work, and you all marvel at it. 22 Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? 24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

Jn 9:13-16

13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. 14 Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. 15 So the Pharisees again asked him how he had received his sight. And he said to them, "He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see." 16Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath."

Question:

If CD were a 1C Palestinian Jew, would he be on Jesus' side, or would he side with those who sought to stone Jesus as a law-breaker?

The deity of Christ in Hebrews

"The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews" by Richard Bauckham is available via Google Books.

HT: John Bugay.