Written by T. M. Suffield |
Saturday, August 20, 2022
There is no pressure in Christianity to be happy. There is instead an invitation to feel. To truly enter into the reality of the things that life throws at you, good and bad. To discover the emotions of God, what he loves and what he hates. We are invited to live life to the full. And that may look more like your life than you realised as you read through tear-stained eyes. Or it may not, and you may have to truly enter the joy and the sorrow of the situations that you find yourself in. Jesus did, and he invites us to follow him, with a cross on our shoulder.

Jesus came to give us life, and life to the full. Life that is abundant, excessive in quantity. We know the words of John chapter 10 well enough, but I think it’s difficult for us to picture what that means.
I hear the phrase “life to the full,” and I inevitably picture someone into extreme sports—perhaps a surfer—who is living their life to the full by chasing the thrill of adrenaline coursing through their body.
Or, if we look at the culture of our churches rather than the things we say, we might wonder if ‘life to the full’ had more to do with being Middle-Classed and living a nice well-adjusted life where our psychological drama is kept to a minimum and we earn a good salary and live in a nice-looking house with our 2.4 children. You might scoff at the characterisation, but when 70% of the British church is degree educated, something is off, even if this is unlikely to be the cause.
Life to the full cannot mean living like a beach bum. It cannot mean living like an upwardly mobile knowledge-worker in the suburbs. It cannot mean being employed by a church. And, it must be possible for people in all three of those situations.
Why can’t it? It must include Jesus’ own life. If his life cannot be described as ‘to the full’ or ‘abundant’ then we are defining our terms wrongly. When Jesus said ‘life to the full’ he must, as Alain Emerson points out in his beautiful memoir Luminous Dark, surely have meant a life like his own.
At this point I suspect you’re still with me. Most of us know this implicitly, even when our cultures speak differently. We imagine instead that life to the full is a life replete with joy, with friendship with God, and with demonstrations of God’s power dogging our footsteps.
A fully charismatic ‘naturally supernatural’ lifestyle, that sounds more like it! That lines up with Jesus’ own ministry and sounds like ‘life in abundance’ as well. That’ll be it, right?
A life like his own. Marked by suffering as well as joy. We should imagine that our abundant life will be as marked by struggles, disappointment and pain as his was.
What is life in its fullness?
Read More
Related Posts:

John the Baptist had warned the people to repent before it was too late (Matthew 3:2). Jesus also came calling the rebels to repent, to lay down their lives, and follow Him to life instead of to destruction (Matthew 4:17). But when they refused Him, He pronounced dreaded woes upon their cities (Matthew 11:20-21; 12:41) and nation (23:13-36). He told them parables that vividly portrayed the downfall of their kingdom (Matthew 22:1-14). In Matthew 24:4-5, Jesus began answering His disciples’ questions about when these things would happen. He told them many false messiahs would arise in Judah and that they were to avoid such wicked men. The nation had rejected the true messiah. Now, it is only fitting that their demise came about at the hands of many false ones.

It Wasn’t Addressed to You
Suppose I told you that my great grandfather was a proud and noble German, who survived the first world war and began raising children before the second. I want you to imagine that sometime around the year 1920, my grandfather received a message from God, that he was commanded to write down and share with his children, which would detail events soon to take place in their lifetime and country.
In those letters, my great grandfather describes a rising German tyrant; a man who will reinvigorate the German economy, win an improbable election, convert many of their people into party loyalists, would build the greatest spy network in history to surveil his own people, and would kick off the bloodiest war ever waged by invading neighboring Poland. As the letter ends, imagine my great grandfather warns his oldest teenage son, “When you see these things happening, do not speak about them with anyone! Your own countrymen will certainly betray you. Instead, son, I want you to run for your life! Take your sisters and brothers and escape from the Fatherland. Do not speak to anyone and tell them what you are doing… Just go!”
If I were wise, I would see that my great grandfather perfectly predicted the rise of Nazi Germany and gave my grandfather a perfect road map to follow so that he and my family members would live. If I were a great fool I would begin reading that letter as if everything in it applied to me or some distant future generation.
Sadly, this is exactly what has happened in the study of eschatology. Many sit down and read the conversation notes between Jesus and His disciples in Matthew 24, where He was warning them with specific signs and evidence for the Roman invasion of Judah (that would happen in their lifetime) and ignorantly conclude: “yeah, this must be about me”.
To correct this egregious error, we have been studying the Biblical context of Matthew 24 and seeing how Malachi, Jesus, John the Baptist, and the immediate context of Matthew 21-23 all paint the same exact picture. Matthew 24 is not describing events that will happen in the far-off distant future. Jesus is not describing John Hagee’s blood moons, Left Behind’s Antichrist’s, Late Great Planet Earth’s tribulations, or locusts doubling as Apache helicopters. Matthew 24 is describing the downfall of Jerusalem by the invading Roman armies and today we will look at the first lines of evidence Jesus will give to His disciples.
The Appearance of False Messiah’s
After Jesus’ shocking prophecy of a destroyed Jewish temple (Matthew 23:37-24:2), His disciples come to Him asking questions such as: “when will these things happen?” In Matthew 24:4-5, Jesus begins answering His disciples’ questions. He says:

“See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. – Matthew 24:4-5

Before we look into the history books to see if an emergence of false messiahs occurred between the giving of this prophecy and the downfall of the Jewish temple, there are a couple of phrases we need to look at to confirm our suspicions.
“See to it”
When Jesus looks at His disciples and says “See to it”, He is communicating an expectation that applies to them. He is not telling them to be on the lookout for events that will happen in OUR future, long after they are dead. He is using a word that means “to watch out for”, “to be prepared for”, or “to direct your attention carefully to what is in front of you”. Why? Because these events will happen in THEIR lifetime and they will need to be fully awake and on guard if they are going to see them!
“That No One Misleads You”
Second, Jesus instructs His disciples on why they need to be on constant high alert. The reason is that liars and deceivers did arise in the days ahead, attempting to lead many of them away from Him. Jesus is saying, as the temple and Jerusalem are near imminent destruction, false messiahs will grow up in the land, among the people, and will attempt to lead many of them astray. Jesus warns them because He wants them to avoid such people at all costs so that they will be spared from their destruction. He does not mention this because He wants them to be worried about the future false messiahs that will be misleading all of us.
A Bit About “Messiahs”
Now, before I prove such a period of false messiahs occurred, I would like to give just a bit of history on why it happened. To do that, I want to talk about what the word “messiah” means, what expectations the word brings, and the historical events that created a messianic vacuum. Then, in conclusion, I want us to look and see how Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24 came true with shocking accuracy.
The Meaning of the Word Messiah
The word for messiah originally comes from “χριστός” (khris-tos’) in the Greek and “הַמָּשִׁיחַ” (maw-shee’-akh) in the Hebrew. Instead of those words meaning a single person who is called “the Messiah”, both words originally just meant “a person who was anointed for service”. For instance, in the Old Testament, there were three kinds of people who would be anointed in Israel. There was the anointed high priest, who oversaw the worship of God at the temple. There was the anointed king, who made sure the enemies of God did not triumph over God’s people in the land. And then there were the anointed prophets, who called the people to repentance whenever they broke their covenant.
Here we see that the word messiah was a much older and more widely used word that was given partly to the high priests, partly the monarchs, and partly to the prophets of Old Testament Israel. Since the fullest expression of messianic identity included these three anointed roles, and since no Old Testament man held even one of these roles perfectly, the Old Testament anticipates a coming Messianic figure who would be anointed for all three, as true Prophet, Priest, and King.
The Socio-Political Expectation for Messiah
By the time Jesus burst upon the scene, many were trying to guess the identity and the role of the coming messiah. They were asking things like “Would he be the final anointed king who would throw off the tyranny of Rome? Or would he be the final prophet that leads the nation into covenant renewal and fellowship with God? Or would he be the final end-time priest that cleanses the people and ushers in an era of resurrection?” If you are interested, the first-century Jews have much to say within the Qumran writings about their expectations for the messiah.
And while no one at that time was thinking the Messiah would be the perfect embodiment of all three offices, they were anticipating an end-time priest, king, or prophet who would free them from their slavery to Rome and exalt them high above the other nations. Therefore, it should come as no surprise when the Pharisees ask John the Baptist if He is the messianic prophet they were looking for (John 1:19-23), or challenge Jesus if He had the authority of a messianic high priest to cleanse their temple (John 2:18).
Read More
Related Posts:

We must not let the sincere desire to be gentle or pastoral with those who experience same-sex attraction force us to redefine systematic theological categories which would amount to a challenge of God’s wisdom and goodness as Creator. 

Until recently the doctrine of concupiscence received little attention in Reformed circles. Perhaps it was mentioned in passing during a systematics class in seminary, but until the first Revoice conference in 2018 few knew how to pronounce, much less define concupiscence. Since then however, the PCA has produced a helpful Ad-Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality (AIC) that unquestionably affirms, “thoughts and desires arising in us prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will are still sin.” The report continues, “We reject the Roman Catholic understanding of concupiscence whereby disordered desires that afflict us due to the Fall do not become sin without a consenting act of the will. These desires within us are not mere weaknesses or inclinations to sin but are themselves idolatrous and sinful.”1 In this the members of the study committee make clear what the PCA believes concerning concupiscence—the attraction to sin is sin.
What is less clear, however, is what kind of sin it is. Should we understand concupiscence as an actual sin or as original sin only? I started asking this question after watching the video featuring Drs. Timothy Keller and Kevin DeYoung wherein they talked their way through the AIC study report. While the AIC report and the accompanying video are helpful overall, we should not agree with comments made by Dr. Keller from minutes 27:52 to 29:05 of the video. During this exchange, Dr. Keller posits that concupiscent desires that are contrary to nature are no more heinous than concupiscent desires that are according to nature. To be specific, Dr. Keller argued that a man sexually desiring a woman not his wife and a man sexually desiring another man are both “equally illicit, equally wrong.”2 The question I asked myself immediately was, “How can that be? What about WSC Q.83? What about the qualitative difference between sins against nature and sins according to nature?” Dr. Keller’s comments thereafter brought the heart of the issue into sharper focus, “And we have to be very careful not to say, ‘Well, the desire for a man is unnatural desire, a woman is natural, so one of those is a more sinful desire than the other.’ This text is actually saying ‘no,’ that basically they’re both equally illicit, they’re both equally wrong, the capacity for sin is still wrong, it’s the original sin is what’s wrong with this and I think that’s very important, that we don’t create a little hierarchy inside.” Herein lies the issue—is concupiscence (i.e. unbidden sexual desire) a mere “capacity” or part of original sin and thereby exempted from degrees of heinousness, or is it an actual sin and can be more or less heinous? Though this might seem like hairsplitting, imprecision on this point leads to even greater problems further down the line as will be shown.3
Before addressing the matter of homosexual desire specifically, let me say now that both of the aforementioned desires are sinful. Sinful desires according to nature and sinful desires contrary to nature are both sin. Both justly deserve God’s wrath and curse, and require wholehearted repentance of the sinner. We all stand in need of the grace of God. Furthermore, neither natural or unnatural concupiscent desires are as heinous as physically engaging in the activity desired. Our Larger Catechism teaches that sins that “break forth in word and action” are more heinous than those that are only “conceived in the heart.”4 Such being the case, those who struggle with same-sex attraction should not be made to feel that those desires that arise prior to a conscious act of their will are as heinous as actively nursing those desires or engaging in sexual activity. As the AIC wisely says, “To feel a sinfully disordered sexual attraction (of any kind) is properly to be called sin—and all sin, ‘both original and actual’ earn God’s wrath (WCF 6:6)—but it is significantly less heinous (using the language of WLC 151) than any level of acting upon it in thought or deed. The point here is not to encourage those with homosexual attraction to become comfortable with or accepting of it. Rather, it is to counter the undue heaping of shame upon them as if the presence of homosexual attraction itself makes them the most heinous of sinners.”5 With this I wholeheartedly agree and echo the need to be compassionate and discerning in how we handle the doctrine of concupiscence. Sins externalized are always worse than those which remain internal and our manner of approach ought to reflect this truth.
We must not, however, let the sincere desire to be gentle or pastoral with those who experience same-sex attraction force us to redefine systematic theological categories which would amount to a challenge of God’s wisdom and goodness as Creator. In all our discussions surrounding sin and its heinousness, let us have a greater fear of offending Almighty God than of offending man. In order to understand whether concupiscence should be classed as an actual sin or original sin, we must first define them both.
Original Sin
The Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) teaches that original sin consists of three parts: the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want (lack) of original righteousness, and the corruption of our whole nature.6 This means that all those who are descended from Adam by ordinary generation are born with a guilty verdict over their heads by virtue of their federal head’s failure to keep the covenant of works. Adam’s guilt is imputed to all his posterity making them legally guilty before God.7 According to Thomas Vincent, the want of original righteousness includes, “1. Want of spiritual knowledge in the mind. 2. Want of inclination and power to do good; and want of all spiritual affections in the will and heart.”8 This means that fallen mankind is originally inclined toward evil whereas Adam, prior to his fall, was originally inclined toward righteousness. In addition to this inherited guilt and want of “perfect conformity of all the power and faculties of soul to the holy nature of God,” original sin means that we inherit corrupted natures from Adam.9 The extent of this corruption is universal meaning that it touches every part of our being and, consequently, everything proceeding therefrom (inclinations, volitions, thoughts, words, deeds, etc…) will be corrupted and displeasing to God.
Actual Sin
WSC Q.18 goes on to teach that the sinfulness of that estate wherein to man fell consists not only in his original sin but also in “all actual transgressions which proceed from it.” Actual transgressions are those sins which we commit against God in thought, word, and deed, whether intentionally or unintentionally.10 Actual sin is the fruit and original sin is the root. The reason these are called “actual” sins is because they are acts of the soul as opposed to the inherited, corrupted nature (i.e. original sin) that gives rise to those sinful acts. It is worth saying here that one must be careful not to equate “actual sin” with sin “acted out” or externalized. Actual sins do not need to be manifested in either word or deed for them to be considered actual. For example, consider Jesus’ teaching on lust in the Sermon on the Mount.11 It was not just the outward act of committing adultery that was sinful, but even the look with lustful intent, which was born in the heart, was sinful. If it “proceeds from” original sin, whether internally or externally manifested, the language of our Standards teaches that it is an actual transgression. 
Read More
Related Posts: