http://rss.desiringgod.org/link/10732/15318957/how-would-you-summarize-ephesians
You Might also like
-
Roses Grow on Briers: Unsentimental Love in a Sentimental World
At present, I’m enjoying a slow walk through Middle-earth. We first toured some of this terrain together almost six years ago, as I read aloud The Hobbit to our twin boys. Now, they’re almost twelve. Harry Potter is behind us. The boys are almost teens, more grown-up, with maturing palates ready for richer fare — and the patience that Tolkien requires. At long last, we journey to Mordor.
The Lord of the Rings is striking for its contrasts. Suffocating darkness, then stunning bursts of light. Brooding evil, and resilient good. Yes, this tale has its greys — perhaps the most common color named in the trilogy. Yet beneath its cloaks is a marked world of stark contrasts. From the beginning, this is not a journey Frodo started from some deep urge for adventure. He doesn’t choose to go; he signs no contract. Pursued by Black Riders who have breached the Shire, he is forced to run, with life and death — and the whole world — in the balance.
When all the world is so quickly at stake, diverse races soon divide between Mordor and the West. Even Elves and Dwarves join together in the Fellowship. The horror of the White Wizard’s change in allegiance is that the chasm between Evil, and those who would resist it, is so stark. And in the meantime, one who is Grey is shown to be White.
This is one reason Lord of the Rings is a welcomed influence in many Christian homes. We teach our children first and foremost from Scripture that the real world is one of stark contrasts, with many voices vying to paint it all in shades of grey. Cloaked as it may be for now, ours is a world of darkness and light, of evil and good, of wrong and right. We need eyes for biblical reality — what God himself says about our world through the apostles and prophets and climactically in his Son — and we are happy to be helped along by some great stories, and wise voices, that echo the contrasts of Scripture.
God Put Roses on Briers
One such wise voice is Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). No, I am not yet reading him aloud to my children, but I dream of the day. At least I hope some of his spine will come to them through their father.
Edwards, says biographer George Marsden, “saw all created reality as bittersweet contrasts, dazzling beauty set against appalling horrors, ephemeral glories pointing to divine perfections” (Jonathan Edwards: A Life, 136). And what is at the center of that contrast-filled reality and beauty?
At the core of Edwards’ outlook is a rigorously unsentimental view of love. . . . Edwards’ universe was similar to that of many of our own moral tales, from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings to countless lesser entertainments. (137)
Star Wars may be a stretch, but the point is well-taken in terms of contrasts between light and dark. Often we need to go back — to Tolkien and Lewis seventy years ago, to Edwards in the early 1700s, and most of all to the Scriptures — to escape the gently disorienting breezes of our own day, feel the great directional gusts of reality, and remember that life and death are at stake. The atmosphere of secularism rests so heavy on us that we are prone to take eternity so lightly. But the real world is one of briers and worms, of snakes and sharks, of death and hell.
“The atmosphere of secularism rests so heavy on us that we are prone to take eternity so lightly.”
In Scripture, God shows us the glory of his light against the backdrop of darkness. Slavery in Egypt accents the glory of his deliverance. His people regularly falling under foreign powers accents his rescues under the judges. The destruction of Jerusalem, and the horrors of exile, accent the glory of return and restoration. The death of his own Son precedes the glorious rush of resurrection life; and our own sin, the stark contrast of grace and the gift of new life. In it all, we learn our need for God, and learn to marvel in his light.
As Edwards wrote in one of his earliest entries in his journal,
Roses grow upon briers, which is to signify that all temporal sweets are mixed with bitter. But what seems more especially to be meant by it, is that true happiness, the crown of glory, is to be come at in no other way than by bearing Christ’s cross by a life of mortification, self-denial and labor, and bearing all things for Christ. (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 11:52)
Our Trouble with ‘Love’
Another voice unafraid of God’s stark contrasts and God’s unsentimental love — and this one from our own day — is Don Carson.
In the opening chapter of his Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, Carson five times uses the words “sentimental” or “sentimentalized” to characterize the prevailing notions of love in our age — in contrast to the rich, multi-dimensional portrait of God’s love in the Scriptures. Which means that when biblically-shaped Christians speak about the love of God today, we “mean something very different from what is meant in the surrounding culture” (10). What is more, writes Carson:
I do not think that what the Bible says about the love of God can long survive at the forefront of our thinking if it is abstracted from the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the wrath of God, the providence of God, or the personhood of God — to mention only a few nonnegotiable elements of basic Christianity. (11)
“When we listen to God’s own words, we do not find a portrait of his love that is simple or tame.”
Some today flinch at divine sovereignty — and divine wrath all the more. And set against these suspicions are shallow and sentimental notions of his love. Of course God will forgive me, it’s assumed, That’s his job. But when we listen to God’s own words, we do not find a portrait of his love that is so simple, one-dimensional, tame, or boring.
Unsentimental Love
How, then, is God’s love “rigorously unsentimental”?
God’s love toward sinners comes on quite different terms than his love for his Son. Carson points first to God’s intra-Trinitarian love with which he loves his worthy Son. But we are mere creatures, and fallen, and undeserving. God loves us not because of our worth, but despite it. Our sin deserves the justice of eternal separation. His love toward sinners shines out for what it is against the backdrop of our rebellion, and the hell we deserve. His love for us demonstrates, at bottom, his value and worth, against the common assumption that it preeminently echoes how valuable we are.
And divine justice and wrath are satisfied in the death of God’s Son. His is bloody, deadly, unsparing love — the kind that makes people squirm and some utter horrible phrases like “cosmic child abuse.” The hubris is staggering. Still, he tells us that he loved the world in this way: “he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). How does God show his love for us? “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). How do we know that he is for us, and no one, Satan included, can be successfully against us? God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all” (Romans 8:32).
Carson also observes God’s providential love — he makes his sun rise on the just and unjust — and his yearning love, holding out open hands to any sinner who will bow and received Jesus as his treasured Lord. But sinners, on their own, do not repent without God’s elective love — his special love for his people, his sheep, his bride. And just as unnerving as election, if not more so for some, is God’s provisional love, which is conditioned on obedience.
Twenty-first-century, Christ-haunted Westerners have their sentimental slogans, that God’s love is unconditional, or that he loves everyone the same. It is true that his elective love is unconditional, but certainly not his provisional love. And he does love everyone, in some respect, with regard to his providential love and yearning love, but certainly not in his elective love. As Carson writes, “What the Bible says about the love of God is more complex and nuanced than what is allowed by mere sloganeering” (24).
News Worth Sharing
In such biblical tensions, we find the deep and complex love of our God — his unsentimental love — a love which is not weaker than the world’s version, but stronger. The edges and hard-to-stomach truths do not dilute divine love; they distill it.
God does not promise his people temporal comforts and ease. Nor did he promise, and give, such to his own Son in the days of his flesh. Divine love, in this age, is not simple, sentimental, or predictable. Owning this now, before the next time this world roughs us up, will help us be ready to suffer well, for the joy set before us.
So, we relish contemporary voices with backbone. And we go back a century for Tolkien and Lewis, or back three centuries for Edwards, and four for the Puritans. And best of all, by far, we build our lives daily in this modern world in the firm words and stark contrasts of the Scriptures, as faithful Christians have for two millennia. Then we watch with compassion as our world tries to satisfy itself with a cheap, thin, sentimental counterfeit.
And we stand ready with such good news to share about the love of our God.
-
Trembling Before God on Sunday
Audio Transcript
On Monday we looked at humor. In what ways is a humorous personality a liability? That was APJ 1813. The answer there was that humor can be stewarded well. The key is developing sober-mindedness — an awareness that doesn’t abolish humor, but puts humor in its place and protects things that are greater and more glorious. To be sober-minded, as we saw, is to cultivate a “demeanor that corresponds to the weight of the great things of life.” Which means we must avoid being “obsessed” with humor to the point that we become “incapable of serious moments” and “allergic” to them to the point that we become quick to break serious moments with injected humor. In other words, we must learn to tremble before God. This word is especially relevant to the tone of our Sunday gatherings together.
And that brings us to today. In the presence of God, everything trembles. The earth trembles, according to Psalm 114:7: “Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob.” The psalmist trembles in Psalm 119:120: “My flesh trembles for fear of you, and I am afraid of your judgments.” Indeed, the one who trembles at God’s word, that person catches God’s attention, according to what he tells us in Isaiah 66:2: “But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.” And in the New Testament, Paul calls us in Philippians 2:12 —Christians — to “work out” our salvation “with fear and trembling.”
So why do Christians tremble? Here’s Pastor John to explain, from a 2005 sermon.
Here’s Revelation 19:15: “From his mouth comes a sharp sword [now, this is describing Jesus at his second coming] with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” Now, that last sentence is exceedingly terrible. “He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.”
Almighty Fury
Just make four observations:
1. God is “Almighty.” We are not dealing here with a mere president of the United States, the mere premier of China. We’re dealing here with the person whose power includes all the power of the political realm, and all the power of the electromagnetic realm, and all the power of the atomic realm, and all the power of the gravitational pull of the biggest stars in the universe, and all the power that upholds the universe by the word of his might. We are dealing here with what’s called Almighty — omnipotence, absolute sovereignty — and he is angry.
2. The second observation is that this Almighty God is about to pour out his wrath. So, he is a God of love (the Bible is clear about that) and he is also a God of justice and holiness and wrath (the Bible is very clear about that). We need to know God as he is, not as we make him up to be.
3. The third observation is that this wrath is full of fury — “the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” It’s not a cool opposition. It’s not emotionally indifferent. It is a furiously angry wrath.
4. The fourth observation, and it’s the most terrible, is that it is like Christ treading a winepress in which the unbelieving are under his feet, and their blood flows like wine from the winepress.
That’s the image of the beloved apostle John, among others. And my point today is this should produce a certain appropriate emotional response in us.
Favor for the Trembling
Psalm 114:7: “Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob.” Psalm 119:120: “My flesh trembles for fear of you, and I am afraid of your judgments.” That’s a very godly man talking. Isaiah 66:2: “This is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble [this is God talking] and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.” God’s countenance shines with favorable grace upon trembling people.
“God’s countenance shines with favorable grace upon trembling people.”
Or here’s the New Testament testimony that we should all heed. Philippians 2:12: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” To all believers, the Bible says, “Get on the road that leads to life. And if necessary, cut off your hands to stay there; gouge out your eyes to stay there. This is war, all the way to heaven. And as you go, let there be fear and trembling upon this road.”
This is not something you grow out of as you get more mature as a Christian. “Oh, maybe you start afraid, and then later on there’s no fear and trembling.” This is something that immature Christians must necessarily grow into, not something you grow out of.
Our Dread and Sanctuary
To which you should perhaps respond, “But doesn’t the Bible teach, ‘Fear not,’ dozens of places? Doesn’t it say, ‘Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God’ (Isaiah 41:10)? So, what are you saying about the ‘fear not’ passages if you’re calling us to experience normal Christianity as fear and trembling?”
What does “fear not” mean? It means two things:
It means fear God, not man.
It means don’t fear God as your enemy; fear him as one who was your enemy, and who is very great.Let me give you a text for each of those. Fear God, not man: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). This is the way I would put it: “Fear distrusting God; don’t fear displeasing men.” Let it be a terrifying prospect to you to distrust your God, but don’t let it be at all a terrifying prospect to you to displease your enemy who might cut off your head. That’s all they can do: cut off your head. But God, after the head has been cut off, can cast the soul into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear distrusting God. Fear turning away from God.
“Don’t fear God as your enemy; fear him as one who was your enemy, and who is very great.”
Isaiah 8:12 puts it this way — this is a paradoxical verse: “Do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the Lord of hosts . . . let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he will become a sanctuary” (Isaiah 8:12–14).
It’s like when my son Karsten visited Dick Teagan at age six. There was this big German shepherd who met him eye to eye in the doorway at age six. And he was very much afraid. And Dick said, “Don’t be afraid; she’s very friendly.” We sent Karsten to the car to get something we’d forgotten, and he went trotting out to the car, and this dog comes loping up behind him with a deep rumble in her voice. It did not look like this dog was safe. And Dick hollered out to him, “Oh, Karsten, better not run away from her. She doesn’t like people to run away from her.”
And I took mental note: “That’s going into a sermon, because that’s exactly the way God is.” He’s a very friendly God. He just doesn’t like people to run away from him. And he will lope after you with a deep rumble in his voice. And if you don’t heed that rumble and turn and hug his neck, you’re going to be history forever.
-
Evidence for the Cross and Resurrection
Audio Transcript
Welcome back. This new week on the podcast starts off by wrapping up a bundle of recent apologetics questions on the person and work of Christ. We recently looked at six reasons why Jesus had to leave Earth after Easter. Imagine life on earth if Christ were still here with us! He’s not; why not? That was APJ 1978. Then we looked at the question, Why didn’t Jesus have to pay eternally for our sins? Isn’t that the cost — eternal judgment? So, why was his suffering cut so short? That was APJ 1979. And then we looked at the question, Even if the Christian faith is untrue — if the cross and resurrection didn’t happen — aren’t Christians still happier than non-Christians in this life? Don’t our present life priorities make for a more fulfilling experience of this life than the non-Christian’s experience, seeking joy in the world — even if we are wrong? That was APJ 1977.
Related to that one comes today’s question: Why don’t we have more artifacts, more archaeology, or even a more diversified record of historical documents to corroborate the death and resurrection of Christ? Shouldn’t we have more? The question is from a listener named Terri. “Pastor John, hello to you. My question for you is why, in this age, it remains so easy for non-believers to refute the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. If God controls everything, why is the existence of Jesus, and his crucifixion, not made more undeniable? People can so easily say that the events of the Bible are not real. Why did God not orchestrate it so that there were more witnesses, more archaeological evidence, more handwritten accounts? Why did he seem to leave so much room for doubt?” Pastor John, how would you respond to Terri?
I have two main responses to this question. The first is that, historically speaking, the text of the New Testament — the Greek text of the New Testament, the written accounts of first-century witnesses to Christ — is spectacularly reliable. That’s number one. I’ll come back to it and explain why in a minute.
Second, the obstacles that hinder warranted belief — justifiable belief in the truth of those first-century testimonies — are the same obstacles that people experienced who were looking Jesus right in the face and did not believe, in spite of all his signs. In other words, the root problem, today and then, is not and was not the absence of evidence.
Spectacularly Reliable
Now, why do I say that the New Testament accounts of the first-century Christian witnesses are spectacularly reliable? Terri asks, “Why did God not provide more handwritten accounts?” Now, I wonder if people who ask that have any idea what they are saying. Caesar’s Gallic Wars was written about 50 BC, and there are ten surviving manuscripts. Livy’s History of Rome has twenty surviving manuscripts. Tacitus’s Histories and Annals — written about AD 100 — has two manuscripts. Thucydides’s History — which was written about 400 BC — has eight manuscripts. And most scholars of such sources go about their work with confidence that they are in touch with the original witnesses.
Now, according to the Institute of New Testament Textual Research in Münster, Germany, there are 5,800 manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts of the New Testament. Not two, not ten, not twenty, not eight. It is a spectacular wealth of handwritten accounts of what was originally written, and hundreds of them are older than anything we have for those secular histories.
The science of textual criticism that handles these thousands of manuscripts is able to compare those manuscripts and determine with astonishing accuracy what the original manuscripts actually said. Here’s F.F. Bruce — he was from the previous generation; he was alive when I was studying as a seminary student. He wrote this:
If the great number of manuscripts increases the number of scribal errors [copying errors as you go from one copy to the next], it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is, in truth, remarkably small. (14)
Now, that comes from The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? which you can still get at Amazon. I recommend it. I also recommend Paul Wegner’s A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, and Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
Crucified in History
The remarkable fact is that most historical scholars today — liberal or conservative — believe that the Greek texts that we have in the New Testament are really what the authors wrote near the time when the events actually happened.
“The problem of unbelief is not mainly a lack of evidence, but a deep heart resistance to God and his will.”
Which also means, for example, that when your Muslim friends tell you that the New Testament we have is not the New Testament that was originally written, but a much later creation of the church, you need to know there is zero — I’m talking zero — historical evidence for that claim. They are not making a historically justifiable statement. It is demanded by their faith — not by historical evidence — because they don’t want anyone to think Jesus was actually crucified.
But in fact, the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most historically certain events of the first century. The view that it didn’t happen is highly eccentric from a historical standpoint.
Root Obstacle to Belief
Let me turn now to my second response, which I think is probably existentially the most significant part of Terri’s question. The obstacles that hinder justified belief in the truth of these testimonies today are the same set of obstacles that people experienced who were looking at Jesus in his own day — right in the face, flesh to flesh, eye to eye — and did not believe. In other words, the root problem is not the absence of evidence.
You remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31 — the rich man and the poor man. Lazarus died. Lazarus went to heaven in Abraham’s bosom, and the rich man went to torment. In the torment, he says across this chasm to Abraham,
“I beg you, father, to send [Lazarus] to my father’s house — for I have five brothers — so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.” But Abraham said, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” And he said, “No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead [in other words, if there’s enough evidence; if there’s a sign], they will repent.” [Abraham] said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.” (Luke 16:27–31)
Now, that’s amazing. What it means is that the same inner condition of heart that keeps a person from believing the Old Testament prophets also keeps him from submitting to the evidence of actually seeing someone rise from the dead. That was true then, and it’s true today.
Against the Evidence
You remember the other Lazarus (remember there are two Lazaruses in the New Testament). Jesus raised this Lazarus from the dead. He was dead for four days, and Jesus raised him from the dead to give a sign that people would believe and glorify God. When that miracle happened, some believed — in fact, it says “many . . . believed” in John 11:45. But others went and told the Pharisees. Their response was that they plotted to kill Jesus, and they plotted to kill Lazarus to get rid of the evidence (John 11:57; 12:10).
More than once, people demanded a sign from Jesus even after he had done so many compelling signs already. And here’s what Jesus said to them in John 10:24–27:
The Jews gathered around him and said, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
Here’s what Jesus said to explain that — how a person could come to see Jesus as true. He said in John 7:17, “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.”
Tell and Pray
The problem of unbelief is not mainly a lack of evidence, but a deep heart resistance to God and his will. Changing that heart condition is a great work of God. We are utterly dependent on it in our evangelism. So, let’s not be deterred in our evangelism by anyone who says there’s not enough evidence to justify belief in Jesus. There is enough evidence. No one spoke like this man. The self-authenticating glory of God shines in the gospel of Christ.
So, let’s tell the good news. Tell it everywhere. Tell it all the time. Tell it as compellingly as we possibly can. And then let’s pray. Let’s pray earnestly — all the more earnestly — that God would open the eyes of the blind.