Thursday, September 17, 2009

Acts: Authorship, Date and Purpose

AUTHORSHIP
Testimony in early church history is very straightforward that Luke, the beloved physician and traveling companion of Paul, wrote the third gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.

The evidence in the text supports this tradition:
-Based on Luke 1:1-4, the author was not an eyewitness but was associated with eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and ministry.
-Based on Acts 1:2, the author was not an apostle.
-The author joined Paul at Troas in Acts 16:10, the first use of "we" in the book.
-The style and quality of the Greek suggests the author was well educated.
-The author includes himself in the company of Paul during the Roman imprisonment at the conclusion of Acts.

Using Paul's epistles written during this time (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon), we can compare who was with Paul during this imprisonment, and eliminate those mentioned by name in Acts from the list of potential authors (since the author simply refers to himself in the first person ("we"). That process very quickly leaves only a handful of people who could have written the book, with Luke the obvious choice.

Luke is mentioned by name only three times in the NT (Col. 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). From Colossians 4:14 we learn that Luke was a physician, and since Paul did not list Luke in the group of Jewish companions in Col. 4:11, we can infer that Luke was a Gentile. And of course this matches what we deduced earlier: the author was a well-educated man who was not an apostle but who was associated with them.

DATE
The Book of Acts ends with Paul's imprisonment in Rome for two years, which based on other factors of chronology must be dated around AD 62. At that point the book abruptly ends, making no mention of the crucially important events that followed quickly:
  • the outcome of Paul's trial
  • the fire in Rome in AD 64 and subsequent Neronian persecution
  • the martyrdom of Peter and Paul around AD 67
  • the destruction of the temple in AD 70
The simplest explanation for these omissions is that the book was written before the took place. Consequently, my view is that Luke-Acts was written very early, around the year AD 62.

RECIPIENT
Luke-Acts is written to the "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:1-3). Other than the fact that such a description - "most excellent" - was used of one with social standing, nothing is known of the recipient of Luke-Acts. Based on Luke 1:1, where Luke speaks of what has happened "among us," it is possible that Luke is including Theophilus in the Christian movement. Some have suggested that Theophilus was a recent convert, and that Luke was writing (at least in part) to explain the movement he had recently joined.

PURPOSE
As we discussed last week, Acts is doubly parallel. It is parallel in its entirety with the gospel of Luke, and its two halves (Acts 1-12 and 13-28) are parallel to each other. So the content of Acts is clearly written with a view to showing the continuation of the work of Jesus in the lives of His disciples, and to show that Paul was following the same course of ministry as Peter.

But what prompted Luke to write this book? I would like to suggest that while Acts serves many purposes, the specific occasion that prompted its writing was Paul's trial. This book served as a virtual legal brief in preparation for Paul's trial at Rome, exonerating the Christian movement in general, and Paul's ministry in particular.

In the first half of Acts, Luke shows that the early believers were held in high regard by the populace (2:47), and that opposition was limited to the Sadducees (4:19-21; 5:17-18). This all changed with the trial and murder of Stephen, which was precipitated by "false witnesses" (Acts 6:13). At the end of the first half of the book, James was murdered by Herod Agrippa, and Peter imprisoned, only to miraculously escape, while Herod was struck down by God (as even Josephus reported).

In the second half of Acts, Luke is insistent that Paul's ministry followed the law, and that for the most part the disturbances that clouded his ministry were caused by the same kind of disgruntled Jews who harassed Christians in Acts 1-12. Notice these key episodes:
  • In 16:20-21 Paul and Silas were beaten and jailed in Philippi after casting out an unclean spirit. When the magistrates ordered their release the next day, Paul refused to leave until his rights as a Roman citizen were acknowledged, striking fear in the hearts of the magistrates, who apologized to Paul for his treatment.
  • In 18:12-17 the proconsul Gallio refused to hear the case brought against Paul by Jews in Corinth, dismissing their complaints as arguments over Jewish law.
  • In 19:35-40, the town clerk of Ephesus quelled a riot that was sparked by Paul's preaching about idolatry by insisting that the proper legal process be followed.
  • In 21:33-39 and 22:24-29, the commander in charge of the garrison in Jerusalem rescued Paul from a mob and learned that Paul was a Roman citizen (which caused him to be alarmed since he had threatened to beat Paul).
  • When a plot to murder Paul was uncovered in 23:12-22, the commander (who is finally named - Claudius Lysias), wrote a letter to the governor in Caesarea in 23:26-30 explaining the need to transfer Paul (while admitting that Paul had done nothing worthy of punishment).
  • In 24:10-21, Paul defended himself against his accusers before Felix, challenging his accusers to name any charge against him that would stick (other than his defense of the resurrection).
  • In 25:6-12, Paul again declared his innocence (this time before Festus), and invoked his right as a Roman citizen to appeal his case to Caesar.
  • In 25:13-22, Festus explained the case to Agrippa and Bernice, admitting that Paul was innocent.
  • In 26:30-32, Festus, Agrippa and Bernice concurred that Paul did nothing deserving imprisonment.
Virtually every page of the record of Paul's ministry recounts Gentile officials rendering verdicts in Paul's favor.This accumulated record would have been invaluable in Paul's trial in Rome.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Introduction to Acts

Tonight I am starting a class on the Book of Acts. Here are some introductory notes.



I. The Genre of the Book of Acts

A. The last several years have seen a scholarly consensus that Acts falls somewhere in the continuum of ancient historiography, particularly Hellenistic history (Witherington 39-51).

B. Greco-Roman historians had three goals: to be truthful, useful, and entertaining (Aune 95).

C. Ancient historians had a point of view, but were careful to present accurate history.

D. Literary forms of Greco-Roman history (Aune 89-95):

1. Prefaces (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1), which secured the good will of the audience while gaining their attention and disposing them to receive instruction. Hellenistic histories often contained:

a. Requests and dedications

b. Comments on the value of history

c. Mention of predecessors (often critical)

d. Assurance of impartiality

e. Methodology

f. Reasons for the choice of subjects

2. Episodes connected to form a unified composition.

3. Speeches, which often explained motives. Speeches comprise approximately 30% of Acts.

4. Digressions, many times explanatory in nature (as in Acts 23:8).

II. The Characteristics of Narrative Literature

A. Recent scholarship has paid greater attention to the literary features of the narrative sections of the Bible.

B. Typical ingredients of narrative (Osborne 153-173):

1. A narrator (in the case of Acts sometimes in the first person).

2. Narrative time (not necessarily chronological).

3. Plot, usually centered around conflict of some kind (in Acts, it is the opposition to the spread of the gospel).

4. Characters (in Acts, secondarily Peter and Paul, primarily the Holy Spirit).

5. Setting (particularly in Acts this is geographical).

6. Literary techniques such as irony, comedy, repetition (two conversion stories are told three times: Cornelius and Paul; and three times Paul says he is going to the Gentiles – 13:46; 18:6; 28:28).

III. The Structure of the Book of Acts

A. Many ways to analyze the structure

1. By geography (Jerusalem – Judea and Samaria – End of the earth)

2. By evangelism (Jews, transitional, Gentile)

3. By evangelists (Peter, Philip and Barnabas, Paul)

B. Key to structure: Luke’s summaries (6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20).

C. On this basis, here is a suggested structure:

1. Peter, Apostle to the Jews (Acts 1:1-12:24)

a. The gospel in Jerusalem (1:1-6:7)

b. The gospel in Judea, Galilee and Samaria (6:8-9:31)

c. The gospel begins to reach Gentiles (9:32-12:24)

2. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles (12:25-28:31)

a. The gospel in eastern Asia Minor (12:25-16:5)

b. The gospel in western Asia Minor and Europe (16:6-19:20)

c. The gospel in Rome (19:21-28:31)

IV. Narrative Parallels in Acts

A. Parallels between Luke and Acts. Remember that Acts is volume two of a two-part work. As Luke weaves his narrative, there are many parallels between the gospel and Acts:

1. Both have a preface dedicated to Theophilus (1:1-4; 1:1-5).

2. Both mention the coming of the Spirit at the beginning (3:22; 2:1-13). Luke mentions the Spirit more than all other gospel writers, and Acts could rightly be called the “Acts of the Holy Spirit.”

3. Both contain an opening sermon which sets the tone for the rest of the book – particularly the theme of rejection by Jews and the acceptance of Gentiles (4:16-30; 2:14-40).

4. Both mention a lame man healed by the authority of Jesus (5:17-26; 3:1-10).

5. Both mention conflicts with leaders of the Jews (5:29-6:11; 4:1-8:3).

6. Both mention a centurion who was well regarded by the Jews sending men to ask for help (7:1-10; 10:1-34).

7. Both mention a resurrection in connection with a widow (7:11-17; 9:36-43).

8. Both conclude with proclaiming the gospel to the nations (24:47; 28:29-30).

B. Parallels between Peter and Paul. There are many parallels in the narrative of Peter’s work and Paul’s work:

1. Both sections record a special manifestation of the Spirit (2:1-4; 13:1-3).

2. Both sections contain a major sermon after the manifestation of the Spirit (2:14-40; 13:16-40).

3. Both sections describe the healing of a man lame from birth (3:1-10; 14:8-13).

4. Both contain a stoning instigated by the Jews (6:8-8:4; 14:19-23).

5. Both describe a mission to Gentiles (10-11; 13-21), which some Jews found controversial.

6. Both sections describe imprisonment around the time of a feast (12:4; 21:16); a Herod (12:5-6; 25:13); an escape (12:6-11; 23:12-35); an abrupt conclusion with little information about the fate of the apostle (12:17; 28:30-31); a final statement about the success of the word of God (12:24; 28:30-31).

C. Parallels between Jesus and Paul. Luke seems to make a special effort to parallel the experiences of Jesus and Paul.

1. Both set their face to go to Jerusalem, where suffering awaits them.

a. Seven references in Luke (9:51-53; 13:22; 13:33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11; 19:28).

b. Seven references in Acts (19:21; 20:22; 21:4; 21:11-12; 21:13; 21:15; 21:17).

2. Both face similar experiences once in Jerusalem:

a. Initially a good reception (19:37; 21:17-20a).

b. Visit to the Temple (19:45-48; 21:26).

c. Opposition from Sadducees, support from scribes (20:27-39; 23:6-9).

d. Seized by a mob (22:54; 21:30).

e. Slapped (22:63-64; 23:2).

3. Both faced four trials, before the Sanhedrin (22:66; 23:1); a governor (23:1; 24:1); a Herod (23:8; 25:23); and a governor (23:13; 25:6).

4. Both were declared innocent three times by Gentiles (23:4, 14, 22; 23:9; 25:25; 26:31).

5. A centurion has a favorable opinion or relationship with both (23:47; 27:3, 43).

D. Some conclusions we can draw about the purposes of Acts. Based on the narrative devices Luke uses, here are some key themes in Acts:

1. The apostles were continuing the work initiated by Jesus to bring the gospel to all, including the Gentiles (Luke 2:29-32; Acts 28:28).

2. The work of the apostle Paul in taking the gospel to the Gentiles was as legitimate as Peter’s work in taking the gospel to the Jews.

3. “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).

Bibliography

Aune, David E. The New Testament and Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987

Kurz, William S. Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993

Mattill, A.J. “The Jesus-Paul Parallels and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: H.H. Evans Reconsidered.” Novum Testamentum 1995: 15-45

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: IVP, 1991

Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974

Witherington, Ben III. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Living As Exiles - Lessons from the Book of Daniel

Introduction
I believe there are aliens on our planet. They look like normal human beings, but in fact they are under the control of a leader who is not on planet earth. And His goal is world domination. And His alien underlings are on a mission to bring everyone in the world under His control! They are everywhere – there are some in America, even here in Middle Tennessee. In fact, there are many right here in this room! I am one of them!

Well of course I am not referring to little green men – but to Christians. Scripture uses the language of “strangers and aliens” to describe our status as Christians who live in a world that is not truly our home. Passages like 1 Peter 2:11, which in the NASB says:

Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.

Other versions say: “sojourners and exiles” (ESV).

Since the New Testament often uses descriptions of Israel in the OT to describe the church, it only makes sense that the NT writers would also employ the language of the exile to describe the status of Christians living in a world whose values and morals are foreign to them. As the old spiritual says, "This World Is Not My Home I'm Just as Passing Through." We are natives of this world, but we have been transformed by Christ, raised and seated with Him in heavenly places.

Col. 3:1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Or to put it as Paul does in Philippians 3:20, our citizenship is no longer here, but in heaven.

The passage that I especially want to focus on as we think about being exiles or aliens is 1 Peter 2:11-17:

11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. 13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.


In this passage Peter gives three basic commands to his readers, the “sojourners and exiles” living in the world but not of the world.

First, he tells them “abstain from the passions of the flesh.” One of the most difficult things Christians in the first century faced was the vastly different outlook their culture had on human sexuality versus the standards of godliness and holiness. Perversion was not only pervasive, in some of the pagan religions perversion was a religious duty. First century Greco-Roman culture was even more saturated with the lurid and obscene than our own time, if that’s imaginable. So it was crucial to remind the early Christians, as Peter does, that one of the primary ways our alien status must demonstrate itself is in the area of moral purity.

Second, he tells them to “keep your conduct among the Gentiles [in other words, pagans] honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” The early Christians were indeed spoken against, slandered as atheists because they denounced the officially sanctioned gods of the state; haters of mankind for shunning social gatherings like the gladiatorial contests at the Coliseum, as incestuous cannibals for gathering in private with their “brothers and sisters” to eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus.

In that climate, it was imperative that the early Christians live in such an exemplary way that there could be no shred of truth to any allegations of dishonorable behavior. But the goal of this concern for Peter is not their own personal exoneration – it was so that when they were vindicated, their accusers would become confessors, and glorify God on the day of visitation.

There is a third command in this passage. First, abstain from fleshly lust. Second, keep your conduct honorable. And third, “be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him.” It would be very tempting to think as a Christian in the first century that since Jesus and not Caesar was the real Lord and King, that you could just ignore what Caesar said. Among the Jews, some took this a step further and openly and violently rebelled against Rome. But that is contrary to what Jesus taught His followers, whom He commanded to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matt. 22:21).

Indeed, not only should Christians obey the law and pay taxes, but also as Peter says at the end of verse 17, “honor the emperor.” “Honor” is a deeper, higher response than grudging obedience. And this kind of respectful citizenship is part of what Peter calls the “will of God” in verse 15, and living as “servants of God” according to verse 16.

So as aliens, Peter says we are to live in purity; behave honorably; serve respectfully. What I would like to do now is look at a book written during Israel’s own period of exile, and see how Israelites living in a foreign land conducted themselves in the very way Peter exhorts all of us to live. And the classic illustration of how to live as exiles is the Book of Daniel.

Daniel
Let’s begin our look at the story of Daniel with a little historical background. The last years of the kingdom of Judah were marked by political vacillation, as the leaders of the nation had to decide how to deal with the growing threat of Babylon. Some leaders chose a pro-Babylonians policy, while others tried to stand up to Babylon (spurred on by promises from Egypt of assistance, which never came). The last of the righteous king of Judah, Josiah, refused alliance with Egypt, and actually went to war with Pharaoh Neco, losing his life in the process. The Egyptians retaliated by removing Josiah’s son – Jehoahaz - from the throne, replacing him with a king of their choosing, his brother, Eliakim, whom he renamed Jehoiakim. Needless to say, this did not sit well with Egypt’s rival to the north, Babylon, and in 605 BC its new king, Nebuchadnezzar, marched in Jerusalem. As 2 Kings 24:1 records: "In his days, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years."

This is where the story of Daniel begins. Daniel 1 says:

1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. 5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. 6 Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. 7 And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.


Nebuchadnezzar gave orders to take some of the royal family and nobility, which served a dual purpose. On the one hand these young men essentially became hostages, giving the Babylonians leverage in case Judah rebelled again. And on the other hand, these boys would be useful tools for diplomacy.

The fact that Ashpenaz, “chief eunuch” (1:3), was given charge may imply the boys were to become eunuchs, as Isaiah prophesied (“And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon,” Isa. 39:7). They were to be the cream of the crop in every way according to verse 4, and to prepare them for the future role as government officials, they were immersed in Babylonian culture (1:4-7), including a new language, a new diet, and new names.

Since naming something or someone is an act of authority, it was common practice in the ancient world to re-name a foreigner under your sovereignty (Joseph became Zaphenath-panea, Gen. 41:45; Haddasah became Esther 2:7).

Just as many Hebrew names contain the name of God (El for Elohim, or iah for Yahweh), the new names given by the Babylonians reflect their many gods:
-Daniel (God is my Judge) – Belteshazzar (Lady of Bel protect the king)
-Hananiah (Yahweh is gracious) – Shadrach (fearful of God or command of Aku)
-Mishael (Who is what God is?) – Meshach (I am of little account or who is like Aku?)
-Azariah (Yahweh is a helper) – Abednego (servant of Nebo)

Imagine being a thousand miles away from home, immersed in a completely foreign culture. As exiles in a climate so hostile to their convictions, how could Daniel and his three friends maintain their commitment to God? What we will see in Daniel are the very same principles we saw in 1 Peter. Though Daniel and his friends lived centuries before Peter wrote his letter, the same fundamental principles apply in their day, in his day, and in our day.

Abstain From Fleshly Lusts
First, consider Peter’s admonition to abstain from fleshly lusts, to live in purity. The issue of purity comes front and center immediately in the Book of Daniel.

1:8 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.

Daniel did not want to eat the royal diet because he believed it would defile him. Why did he fear this? Part of the reason may be the kosher laws in Leviticus 11. Since the Law gave a strict guideline for what could be eaten, Daniel may have felt the safest course in a strange country may have been to avoid everything but vegetables and water. This doesn’t seem to fully explain why Daniel did not want to drink the wine, which was allowed under the Law, but it may have been a big factor in his concern.

Another issue to keep in mind is the connection in the ancient world between food and idolatry. Even in the NT period Paul had to warn the Corinthians about eating in pagan temples. Perhaps Daniel thought that the meat and wine would have been part of pagan sacrifices, and he did not want to be defiled with eating something used in idolatrous worship.

And it may have just been that Daniel wanted to reserve one part of his life from Babylonian influence so that he would not become completely defiled as a pagan. He spoke their language, learned in their schools, bore their name. At least he could draw the line at what he ate.

Whatever the specific issues were in Daniel’s mind, he was convicted about the need for purity, and God blessed him as a result.

9 And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, 10 and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, "I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king." 11 Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 12 "Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’s food be observed by you, and deal with your servants according to what you see." 14 So he listened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king’s food. 16 So the steward took away their food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.

Daniel knew there was a war for his soul, that he needed to take drastic measures to make sure he did not defile himself. Do we have the same vigilance in our determination to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul? What measures have you taken to protect yourself from impurity?

It is very tough to be a Christian, to be an exile. Those of you going back to school, if you go to a school like I did, will find very few friends who will share your convictions about holiness. How seriously are you going to take the war you are in? What steps will you take like Daniel to protect your virtue? Because if you don’t realize your are in a fight, you have no chance to win.

Conduct Yourself Honorably

There are two stories in Daniel that are great illustrations of what Peter talked about in 2:12 – turning slander into praise through honorable conduct. Both are stories involving idolatry.

In Daniel 3 Nebuchadnezzar set up an image (perhaps inspired by his dream in Dan. 2) which he demanded be worshipped, at pain of death.

4 And the herald proclaimed aloud, "You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, 5 that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. 6 And whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace." 7 Therefore, as soon as all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, all the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshiped the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

As devout believers, Daniel’s friends could not obey this command, which quickly came to the attention of some of the Babylonians:

8 Therefore at that time certain Chaldeans came forward and maliciously accused the Jews. 9 They declared to King Nebuchadnezzar, "O king, live forever! 10 You, O king, have made a decree, that every man who hears the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image. 11 And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace. 12 There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These men, O king, pay no attention to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."

This enraged Nebuchadnezzar, who ordered them brought in to face his interrogation.

14 Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, "Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? 15 Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?" 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."

What conviction! We don’t need to make a lengthy explanation – we will not bow down, and though our God can save us, even if He doesn’t, we will not compromise!

You can imagine Nebuchadnezzar is not used to being told no, and he explodes in a furious rage.

19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated. 20 And he ordered some of the mighty men of his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. 21 Then these men were bound in their cloaks, their tunics, their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace. 22 Because the king’s order was urgent and the furnace overheated, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. 23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace.

And you know the rest of the story. The boys are unharmed - to the extent that their clothes don’t even smell like smoke! And not only that, but God sent an angel to be with them, a true "day of visitation," which Nebuchadnezzar was astonished to see. And just as Peter said, by behaving honorably in the face of accusations, these young men led a pagan king to glorify God:

28 Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set aside the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. 29 Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way."

The other story that illustrates this truth comes much later in the time of Daniel, at the end of the 70 year captivity. The Persians conquered Babylon in Daniel 5, and in Daniel 6 the new Persian leader retained Daniel in his administration. I have no idea how old Daniel was at the start of the book, but by Daniel 6 he was 70 years older – maybe he was close to his 90s.

The Persians were pagans just like the Babylonians, and in Dan. 6 they issued a decree demanding prayers be made to the Persian king. But this decree was prompted by jealousy:

4 Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom, but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. 5Then these men said, "We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God."

Can you think of a better description of honorable conduct than this?

And once more, Daniel refuses to bend his beliefs to conform to his surroundings:

10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. 11 Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God. 12 Then they came near and said before the king, concerning the injunction, "O king! Did you not sign an injunction, that anyone who makes petition to any god or man within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?" The king answered and said, "The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked." 13 Then they answered and said before the king, "Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or the injunction you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day."

And once more, a pagan king imposes a severe penalty for disobedience, ordering Daniel into the lion’s den. But early the next morning when he came to see what happened, Daniel greeted him:

22 My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no harm."

Daniel’s actions were blameless, in the words of Peter, his behavior was honorable. And the result once more was praise in the “day of visitation”:

25 Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth: "Peace be multiplied to you. 26 I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel,
for he is the living God,
enduring forever;
his kingdom shall never be destroyed,
and his dominion shall be to the end.
27 He delivers and rescues;
he works signs and wonders
in heaven and on earth,
he who has saved Daniel
from the power of the lions."

Notice – it wasn’t just that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego or Daniel were vindicated, though they were. In fact Daniel’s accusers get the treatment they sought for him. But the real issue is that God was glorified – by pagan kings no less!

We are in a foreign land, and if your friends know you are a Christian, you better believe they are looking for opportunities to attack your conduct. Why? Maybe the same kind of jealousy that prompted the Chaldeans and Persians to snitch on Daniel and his friends. What a wound it is to the name of Christ when will give them ammo! It is tough to live under that kind of scrutiny, but the payoff is enormous! Leading unbelievers to glorify God!

So our goal should be that if we are attacked, it will be for the same reasons as Daniel: we shall no complaint against Shane unless we find it in connection with his God. And then by our faithfulness, lead our friends to glorify our Father!

Be Subject

It may very well be that the toughest thing Peter told his strangers and exiles to do was to be subject to every human institution. Tough because their leaders were often corrupt and demented (that’s what years of inbreeding does to people!). And these instructions are even tougher for us, because we live in a nation born in rebellion to monarchy.

But imagine how tough it was for Daniel and his friends. The Babylonians were their enemy. Took them hostage – fancy way of saying they kidnapped them. During the time they were in captivity, the Babylonians attacked Jerusalem twice more, undoubtedly killing some of their loved ones, sacking their capital city, and destroying their temple.

How would you have felt about the Babylonians? Would you have protested? Formed a resistance movement? Tried to assassinate the king?

Daniel and his friends did just the opposite. They served the king with loyalty and brilliance.

1:18 At the end of the time, when the king had commanded that they should be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. 19 And the king spoke with them, and among all of them none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Therefore they stood before the king. 20 And in every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom. 21 And Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus.


And after Daniel interpreted his famous dream in Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar promoted Daniel, who in turn promoted his friends:

2:46 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and paid homage to Daniel, and commanded that an offering and incense be offered up to him. 47 The king answered and said to Daniel, "Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery." 48 Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. 49 Daniel made a request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the affairs of the province of Babylon. But Daniel remained at the king’s court.


When the regime changed hands, the Persians also recognized Daniel’s stellar leadership:

6:3 Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him. And the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.

Why do you think Daniel and his friends gave such devoted service? What did Peter say: 13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake …16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

They did it for the Lord’s sake, as servants of the living God.

2:20Daniel answered and said:

"Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,
to whom belong wisdom and might.
21 He changes times and seasons;
he removes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to those who have understanding;
22 he reveals deep and hidden things;
he knows what is in the darkness,
and the light dwells with him.
23To you, O God of my fathers,
I give thanks and praise,
for you have given me wisdom and might,
and have now made known to me what we asked of you,
for you have made known to us the king’s matter."

We have a unique situation in our country in that theoretically we are the government. We are a democracy, a special kind, a representative democracy – a republic. We delegate to those we elect, and we owe them the kind of respect Peter says every human institution deserves. Not just when we like the leaders, or agree with them.

Isn’t embarrassing to see the news reports about chaos and violence at these townhall meetings? The complete lack of civility and respect for people of different opinions? Isn’t hard to reconcile that kind of conduct with 1 Peter 2, or Paul’s request for prayers I 1 Tim. 2-

1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

So much of the dialogue in our political process today is dominated by who can be the loudest, the most hysterical, who can distort the other person’s position to the most grotesque extreme.

This is unbecoming of Christians. And this is why I say this could be the most difficult thing the Bible teaches about being exiles. Because I have opinions, strong ones, about politics, and about our leaders. And I often disagree with them. But I don’t respect them for their sake – I respect them for the Lord’s sake – just like Daniel.

Conclusion
As far as we know, Daniel never returned to Jerusalem. He lived out his life as an exile in a foreign land. But even if he had made his way back to Jerusalem, he would not have been home. Because his home, and ours, is with God.

The only thing that remains of the kingdoms Daniel served is artifacts in museums. Babylon and Persia are no more. And some day, all that will be left of the republic now known as the United States of America will be displays in a museum. That is just the nature of human history. But since we are not ultimately citizens of America, but rather our citizenship is in heaven, we have nothing to be afraid of. We are exiles, members of a kingdom that cannot be shaken, serving a King who will never be deposed by an enemy, but who will some day defeat every enemy and subdue every rebel.

Heb. 13:14 For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Who Killed More - God or Satan?

Who killed more people in the Bible, God or Satan? According to a chart that has circulated for several years around the internet, Scripture records 2,038,344 killings by God, compared to Satan's meager death toll of 10 victims. Of course these totals are intended to have shock value, seemingly making God a much greater villain than Satan. What should believers make of such numbers?

In the first place, there is no question that the Bible depicts God as a holy God, whose abhorrence of sin and desire for justice is such that at times He imposed severe penalties. In fact, I will go so far as to stipulate that the numbers reflected in charts like the one I linked above are correct. God did indeed take many human lives in Scripture.

However, like many statistics, this one can be very misleading if not placed in its proper context. It is unfair to pick these numbers out of the Bible without interpreting them in the context of the overall biblical message. Here are some key considerations:

1. The Bible does not teach that God arbitrarily or capriciously killed people. It teaches that He did at times impose the penalty of death on those who deliberately and defiantly broke His laws.

2. The Bible teaches that God desires that the wicked should repent and live rather than face such consequences. "As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezekiel 33:11).

3. Since God created humanity with free will, it is our choice as to whether we will be blessed or punished. The fact that many people in Scripture chose the course that led to punishment says more about human sinfulness and recalcitrance than anything else.

Further, the notion that Satan only killed ten people in Scripture (the family of Job) is a grossly unfair reading of the Bible. Scripture teaches that Satan wreaks havoc in the world in many ways.

1. He tries to entice humanity to rebel against God, thus facing God’s judgment. The very first story of temptation – Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit – is a classic illustration of this point. God gave Adam and Eve a rich garden full of wonderful things to eat, with one restriction. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17). What did Satan then do? He came to Eve and said, "You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). He deliberately lied to entice Adam and Eve to eat and then die. No wonder Jesus said of the devil in John 8:44, “He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Did God evict Adam and Eve from the garden when they ate so that they would die? Yes. But is God culpable on the same level as Adam, Eve, or Satan? Of course not. When the state makes a law, and that law is broken and the state imposes a penalty, do we blame the state? No, we blame the criminal. And in the case of God’s judgment, the immediate blame should go to those who choose to break the Law, and to Satan for his part in aiding and abetting.

2. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that Satan has limited power to use the forces of nature to cause harm. In fact, the ten people mentioned in the chart that Satan killed were actually victims of “a great wind” according to Job 1 – but obviously a wind that Satan manipulated. Such suffering is not limited to the Old Testament. Jesus encountered a woman who was bent over for 18 years with a crippling disease in Luke 13, but according to Jesus, it was Satan who had bound her with this condition (Luke 13:16).

3. Further, Scripture teaches that Satan not only entices humanity to rebel against God, but also to do harm to one another. It was Satan who entered the heart of Judas to entice him to betray Jesus, for instance (John 13:2). In that light, every example of man’s brutality against his fellow man is a reflection of the work of Satan.

For these reasons, the number 10 is hardly an accurate body count for Satan. In reality, he is liable for every one of those people God punished for sin, and in addition, he is responsible for many more deaths which are the result of disease, disaster, and inhumanity. How could you begin to place a number on that?

Now someone who is a skeptic may question why God created us in the first place, why He endowed us with free will, or why He created Satan with free will, who then uses that will to do the horrible things that he does. Those are good questions worthy of deep contemplation (quick answers: God decided to create beings who could choose a relationship rather than function as robots, and at the end of time He will put the world to rights). But there is nothing inherently contradictory with the basic concepts of God’s holiness, justice, and judgment and our free will.

Finally, the Bible teaches that God is not only a God of justice, but also a God of love and mercy. Such love in fact that He gave His own Son to pay the price for sin, to settle the demands of justice, so that we do not have to face His judgment but can receive mercy. Only by looking at the full landscape of God’s character can we truly make sense of the portrait of God in Scripture.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

The Parable of the Wicked Servant (Matthew 18:23-35)

Introduction
This week the world was shocked by the sudden death of Michael Jackson. He was just 50 years old and preparing for a new tour when he died of an apparent heart attack. Despite his personal eccentricities and perverse behavior, I have to say I have felt nothing but pity for him since his death.

One of the most shocking pieces of information to come out since his death was that he was hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, which is the main reason he was about to go on tour. It is hard to imagine how someone who has made as much money as Michael Jackson could be so broke, but as we have been reminded here in America in the last year, it doesn’t take long for huge chunks of wealth to evaporate overnight.

One of Jesus’ parables is about the very issue of debt, a parable often called the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant.

Let’s begin by reading the parable:

18:23 "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay what you owe.' 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

This parable is so typical of the stories Jesus told: just a few main characters (a king and two servants), and a very basic point about forgiveness. And just as the parable of the good Samaritan was prompted by a question (“who is my neighbor”), this parable was triggered by a question from Peter about forgiveness.

Jesus had just explained to the apostles how to deal with sin among brethren.

18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

While we often focus on the punitive discipline in this passage, the withdrawal of association, clearly what Jesus wanted us to focus on was the prospect of winning that brother back who as sinned against us.

But how often do we have to extend this forgiveness? That’s what Peter wanted to know.

18:21 Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?"

The rabbis had an answer to this question. “If a man commits an offense once they forgive him, a second time they forgive him, a third time they forgive him, but the fourth time do not forgive him” (Joma 86b).

If this tradition was already current in Peter’s day, then by asking Jesus if he should forgive up to seven times Peter was doubling the number given by the rabbis, plus one! Surely that would be the limit of forgiveness.

22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.”
Some of your Bibles have a footnote that says “seventy-seven times” rather than “seventy times seven,” but clearly the point is not the literal total of 77 or 490. When I was a kid there was a guy in my neighborhood who was such a jerk that I started to count toward 490! Jesus’ point is that forgiveness is unlimited, that we must always be ready to forgive our brother when he asks us, which He then illustrated with parable.

One more point before we look at the parable. Jesus said this parable was about the “kingdom of heaven.”

23 "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.

Sometimes in the Bible “kingdom” refers to the realm of God’s reign. In a concrete sense it can refer to the church, those who have made themselves subject to the reign of the eternal King. But other times it refers to the reign itself, the royal power and authority of the king. And that is what Jesus has in mind here. This parable will teach us how God reigns, specifically how He rules in the area of forgiveness.

What I would like to do is start toward the middle of the parable as we begin to draw basic lessons about forgiveness.

Lesson 1: When We Sin Against Each Other It Is Costly (18:28-30)

Let’s look again at verses 28-30.

28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.

A denarius was worth basically one day’s wages, so 100 of them would be worth a lot, between a third and a fourth of a year’s paycheck. And in the parable that is how Jesus illustrates the debt we owe to one another when we sin against each other.

I think it is important to acknowledge this point. When we sin against each other there is a price. It hurts. And it is costly in a currency that really can’t be measured, the currency of emotional heartache.

Some of you have paid a heavy price for the sins of others. You have been betrayed by an unfaithful wife or husband. You have been slandered by your brothers and sisters (maybe even your spiritual brethren). You’ve been lied to, cheated, ill-treated.

You know how David felt when he lamented the vicious attacks of his enemies:

Psalm 64:1 Hear my voice, O God, in my complaint;
preserve my life from dread of the enemy.
2 Hide me from the secret plots of the wicked,
from the throng of evildoers,
3 who whet their tongues like swords,
who aim bitter words like arrows
Or Psalm 41:
5 My enemies say of me in malice,
"When will he die, and his name perish?"
6 And when one comes to see me, he utters empty words,
while his heart gathers iniquity;
when he goes out, he tells it abroad.
7 All who hate me whisper together about me;
they imagine the worst for me.

As we will see, our sins against each other are no comparison to our sins against God, but we shouldn’t take that to mean they are trivial and inconsequential. When we sin against each other the wounds run deep, the pain is real, and the price is costly.

But this only serves to reinforce how much greater the price is when we sin against God.

Lesson 2: When We Sin Against God We Owe an Infinite Debt (18:23b-27)

Now let’s go back to the beginning of the parable.

23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.

Perhaps this is a king who has many governors or ministers, and in the administration of his kingdom he wants to audit their conduct. What he finds is astonishing, a scandal that dwarfs any of the financial crashes that have happened here. One of his servants owes him ten thousand talents.

A “talent” was the largest form of currency in the Roman Empire. I think the largest bill printed here in America was the $100,000 in the early 30s, but it has been long since discontinued. Well, a talent was the largest denomination of money in Jesus’ day.

And the number “ten thousand” was the largest named number (like billion or zillion for us). It is the Greek word we get “myriad” from.

So when Jesus combined the largest currency with the largest named number, what do you think His point was? The debt was astronomical! Infinite! Some of your Bibles may have a footnote trying to put ten thousand talents into modern equivalent dollars, but it is really impossible, and beside the point. This man owes a debt that is inconceivably enormous.

And in this parable, that represents our debt to God. Why do our sins place us in such liability to God? Think of it like this. Some of you may live in gated communities. If I decided to trespass into your complex or neighborhood, what penalty would I face? If there was a security officer at all he probably couldn’t do very much. Maybe at the most I would have a misdemeanor charge of some kind and have to pay a fine. Now, what if I did the same thing, but instead of trespassing in your apartment complex I snuck into the state capitol. That penalty would be a lot stiffer. And imagine if I tried to do get into the White House. I might be put away for a loooong time.

On one level the crime is the same, right? Trespassing. But the penalty, the debt, is much different depending on the rank of the authority whose property I am trespassing.

How could you put a price on trespassing the law of God? How could you measure what it means to disobey the Creator and Sustainer of the universe? You can’t – you could only illustrate it with the largest currency and the biggest number you could come up with. And that is what Jesus did here in the parable.

Jesus’ parables are tantalizingly short of details sometimes, and I would love to know how this man became so indebted. We don’t know how the man on the story became indebted, but we do know how we incur our debt – by sin. And just as with the servant in the story, there is no way we can pay it ourselves.

25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.


Indebtedness was one of the primary reasons people were enslaved in biblical times, and in many instances if the debt was worked off a slave could be released. But how long would you have to work to recoup billions of dollars? This man is going to be enslaved for life!

26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.” 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.


Do you think the king decided to forgive him because he was so impressed with the servant’s earnest promise to pay back the debt? Of course not – that was an absurdity! How could he possibly pay back that debt if he had a million lifetimes to work?

No, the reason the king forgave him was because of pity. It wasn’t because he was impressed with how noble the servant was, but how pathetic he was.

Which of course is why God forgives us. He forgives us not because we are so noble, because He is inspired by our sincere pleas to earn His grace. God forgives us because He sees our wretchedness without Him, and He feels for us because He loves us.

Eph. 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved.

What is remarkable in the parable is not that a servant went into arrears billions of dollars, but that with the wave of a scepter the king forgave him. And it is stunning that God – because of love we could never understand much less deserve – forgives us our debt. We are utterly destitute – but God is rich in mercy because of His great love!

In fact God’s love is so extravagant that it not only cancels our eternal debt but transforms our character so that we become like Him. Or at least that is the affect it should have.

Yet when the first servant was approached by the one who owed him 100 days wages, he did not reflect this transformation:

18:29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt.

And this leads to the third major lesson we need to take away from the parable:

Lesson 3: If We Refuse to Forgive Our Debts to Each Other, God Will Not Forgive Us (18:31-35)

18:31When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers [some of your Bibles may say “torturers”], until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

The king hears that the first servant refused to forgive a substantial debt while he was forgiven an incalculable debt, and his emotions swing from the pity he once felt to anger. Why is he so angered by this? More importantly, why is God so angry when we refuse to forgive others?

In the first place, we are made in His image. And the way we treat each other as those who bear God’s image reflects what we really think of the one whose image we bear.

This is what James said about the hypocrisy of using our tongue to praise God but curse each other-

3:9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

Or as John said,

1 John 4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Very often little kids will bring me pictures they have drawn of me preaching. And it is always amusing to see what I look like to them. I can hardly be too critical, but that picture simply reflects the original. And in the same way, we can’t abuse and mistreat each other who bear God’s image and say that we really love the imager maker.

But there is another reason that God is so angry when we do not forgive. Notice what the master says in verse 33:

33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?'

From the king’s standpoint, his mercy was to have a transforming affect on the first servant; he was to be merciful “as I had mercy.” To fail to reflect this transformation means that the first servant must not have internalized and appreciated the magnitude of the gift he was given.

When you put this parable in modern terms this really becomes clear. Imagine that I was goofing around driving one day in the Shell’s new neighborhood, lost control of my car and careened right into their house and destroyed it. And I go to Allan and beg for forgiveness because there is no way I could work enough to pay off the debt. And he just says, you are forgiven. The next Sunday we all show up at church, imagine Austin owed me a quarter, and that I went over to him and asked for it, and when he couldn’t pay me back I pick him up by the throat and start choking him!

That’s absurd! That’s unbelievable! Or to put it in the language of Jesus in
Verse 32 – that’s “wicked.” I think “unmerciful” is too kind for this man. It is wicked not to forgive so little when we have been forgiven so much. Not that what people to do us isn’t costly – it is. But on the scale of what God has forgiven us, it is miniscule, and when we are unmerciful, we are wicked.

I told you last week that I ought to be disbarred for malpractice because of some of the Father’s Day sermons I used to preach, for subjecting the men in the churches where I preached to my own personal anger at my father for abandoning me. I can tell you when that stopped. It stopped when I realized there was no way I could preach to others about forgiveness, about the sin of bitterness, when I was consumed with it myself. So one Christmas (1995 I think) I tracked down my father’s address, and I wrote him. It was a very brief note, and simply said, “As far as I am concerned the past is the past, and if you would like to have a relationship I would be glad to have one.” Now he never responded, but that wasn’t the point. I didn’t write that for him; I wrote it for me, so that my relationship with my true Father could be what it should be.

Matt. 6:14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

To fail to do this is to lose the forgiveness God has given us.

Conclusion
Anytime I teach about forgiveness this question comes up – what if the person who has sinned against me doesn’t ask to be forgiven? Should I forgive them anyway?

It is clear in the parable, and in the context of what Jesus teaches in verses 15-17 that we forgive when the sinful person asks to be forgiven. So no, if a person does not ask to be forgiven, there is not indication that we just forgive them anyway.

HOWEVER- here is what the Bible does teach.

1. We must always be ready to forgive. This is what Jesus modeled on the cross when he prayed “Father forgive them.” Those at the cross were not forgiven until they confessed their sin to God, but Jesus’ prayer showed that He was ready to forgive, and wanted them to be forgiven. We must always be ready to forgive sins against us, and in fact should be hoping for that to happen.

2. We must not dwell on the offense. Once something happens it is always in the brain, and we cannot keep it from periodically popping up from the subconscious mind into the conscious mind. But we can choose not to dwell on it, and to think on good things of virtue and praise.

3. We must not be spiteful. If someone has sinned against you, and is unrepentant, that does not give you the right to be hateful toward them.

Matt. 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Back to my situation with my father, he has not asked to be forgiven. He has made no indication he wants to be, or that he wants anything to do with me. So I can’t treat him as if this never happened, not because I don’t want to, but because he doesn’t want to. But I let him know I am always ready, and I don’t dwell on it any more, and I prayed for him.

This teaching of Jesus is challenging. The extent to which we obey it depends on the extent to which we realize what God has done for us. And in fact there is one major element of what God has done for us that Jesus doesn’t mention in the parable. In the story, the king just canceled the debt, and no one had to pay the ten thousand talents. But God could not just wave away our sin-debt. He is holy and just. And for Him to be true to His own nature a price had to be paid.

To put it in the language of the parable, it would be as if the king then sent his son to prison to be tortured until the debt was paid. God’s forgiveness was not cheap or easy. It came at the cost of His Son.

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

And it is our hope this morning that such love, such mercy and grace, would compel you to respond and accept the gift of forgiveness.

Monday, June 8, 2009

What Does the Bible Teach About Baptism? (A New Look at Old Questions - Part 4)

Introduction
One of my favorite movies released in the last few years is a quirky comedy called O Brother Where Art Thou. It is a retelling of Homer’s Odyssey, the classic from Greek literature, set in the Depression era American South. The soundtrack is phenomenal, and the characters in the movie are hilarious. The three main characters are fugitives from a chain gang, Pete, Delmar and Everett. While they are on the run they come across a baptismal service taking place in a river, and Delmar, the kindest of the three, splashes off into the water to get to the preach to be baptized.

Some of my favorite lines are what Delmar says when he slogs back to the other two guys. “Well that's it boys, I been redeemed! The preacher warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight-and-narrow from here on out and heaven everlasting's my reward!”

His skeptical friend Everett asks him what he’s talking about, and he says: “Preacher said my sins are warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo!”

Everett asks, “I thought you said you were innocent of those charges.”

Delmar answers, “Well I was lyin' - and I'm proud to say that that sin's been warshed away too! Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now! Come on in, boys, the water's fine!”

Well I suppose this morning’s sermons is really about how accurate Delmar’s theology was. Does baptism “warsh” away our sins? This one of the watershed issues that divides Catholics and Protestants. And it is an issue that frankly separates what I believe from both Catholicism and Protestantism. So this morning I want to accomplish three things:
-First, I want to set forth the basic positions of Catholic and Protestant theology regarding baptism.
-Second, I want to look at what the NT teaches about the topic.
-And third, I want to compare and contrast the biblical picture with those widely held views of baptism.

I. Baptism in Catholic and Protestant Theology

Let’s begin with Catholicism, which is easy since the official positions of the church are set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

So in Catholic teaching, in baptism we find forgiveness of sins and fellowship with Christ and His church.

And because Catholic theology subscribes to the belief that babies are born guilty of sins, the church teaches that babies must be sprinkled in order to receive forgiveness.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.


So the purpose of baptism is the removal of sin, even for those who do not have any faith of their own.

This kind of sacramental thinking led to the Protestant Reformation, which emphasized the need for personal faith in Christ. In fact, Protestants argued that the biblical teaching on justification by faith meant that we are saved by faith alone, without any acts of obedience, such as baptism. And while it is impossible to paint everyone who claims to be a Protestant with this broad brush, I do think it is fair to say that the overwhelming percentage of non-Catholics believe that baptism plays no role in the conversion process, since we are saved by faith alone without any works.

I found this typical statement on the web-

While we should preach that all people are commanded to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38), adding any other requirement to salvation by grace becomes "works" in disguise.

Even though numerous Scriptures speak of the importance of water baptism, adding anything to the work of the cross demeans the sacrifice of the Savior. It implies that His finished work wasn't enough. But the Bible makes clear that we are saved by grace, and grace alone,

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
—Ephesians 2:8-9

Baptism is simply a step of obedience to the Lord following our repentance and confession of sin. Our obedience--water baptism, prayer, good works, fellowship, witnessing, etc.--issues from our faith in Christ. Salvation is not what we do, but Who we have.

In fact, if you have virtually any study Bible, if you look at the commentary on any text that mentions baptism (like Acts 2:38), I would almost bet it says something like “baptism is sign of the forgiveness we have through our faith in Christ.”

So on this, Catholic and Protestant teaching are diametrical opposites:
-Catholicism says, we are saved by baptism, without personal faith in Christ.
-Protestantism says we are saved by personal faith in Christ, without baptism.

Of course, Catholics would say that a sprinkled baby should grow up to develop their own faith, going through catechism class and confirmation to confirm what took place in their baptism, and Protestants would say that once a person has been saved they should be baptism as a good work of discipleship. But as to the purpose of baptism, they are in complete disagreement.

With these positions clearly marked out, let’s look at the NT to see what the text says about baptism.

II. NT Teaching About Baptism

First, the NT teaches that baptism is centered in Christ and what He accomplished in His death, burial and resurrection.

In Romans chapter six, the apostle Paul is refuting a possible objection to his strong message of grace – man is sinful, but God is even more gracious. The objection is that if that’s the case then we should just really live it up in sin, banking on God to be even more gracious. And his counter to this line of thinking is that Christ paid a horrible price to free us from sin, a price we personally identified with in baptism, and because of that deep identification with Jesus’ death we should never revert to the sinful life we once lived.

Rom. 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.


Look at what Paul says in this passage.
-Baptism is Christ-centered. We have been “baptized in Christ.”
-And it is centered on what Jesus did in His death, burial and resurrection. Since we are “in Him,” we share with Him in His death – we were “baptized into his death” –we share in His burial – “we are buried therefore with him by baptism into death” – and we share in His resurrection: “just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

And as Paul says in Galatians 3:27, this newness of life is so shaped by the character of Christ that when we are baptized “into Him” – just like changing clothes - we take off our life and put His on.

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


So baptism is centered in Christ and His work on the cross.

Second, the NT teaches that baptism is our response of faith to Christ and what He did in dying and rising.

I just quoted from Gal. 3:27. Look at it again with the previous verse as well-

26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

In Christ we are sons of God through faith – for – here’s the reason why – we have been baptized into Christ and put Him on.

In this text faith and baptism are not mutually exclusive – they are inclusive and complimentary. As one Protestant commentator says:

“Some will no doubt have problems with the observation that faith and baptism are parallel expressions for Paul…baptism was in the early church the initial and necessary response of faith.” -Scot McKnight, NIV Application Commentary on Galatians, p. 198


Here’s another passage that links faith and baptism- but with completely different imagery. In 1 Peter 3 the apostle Peter makes a comparison between the salvation of Noah and is family and our salvation:

20 God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.


Whatever Peter says about baptism here, let’s first make the point it is Christ-centered – “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” And in particular, Peter says baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Peter doesn’t use the word “faith” here; he says that baptism is an appeal to God, a prayer for a good conscience, and what better way to describe faith than a prayer or plea for help?

It is this inner dimension to baptism rather than the external – not the removal of dirt from the flesh but the appeal to God – that Peter says is the reason baptism saves us, just as Noah was saved.

To quote another commentary:

“Just as the flood spoke of judgment, which those in the ark were both saved from, and saved by, in order to enjoy a new world, so the water of Christian baptism speaks of the death which fell upon Christ, a death due to sinners, which believers into Christ are both saved from, and saved by, and through which they enter into the enjoyment of new life before God.”-A.M. Stibbs and A.F. Walls, Tyndale NT Commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, p. 144


Baptism is our response of faith – our appeal to God – centered on Christ and His death and resurrection.

Now for a third point in the NT-

Baptism is God’s work of salvation in response to our faith in Christ and His death and resurrection.

In Colossians 2 Paul uses another illustration for what happens in baptism – it is spiritual surgery-

Col. 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Just as under the Law of Moses Jewish men were to be circumcised, Paul says that our sins are excised from us in a surgery not by human hands, but by Christ Himself, and that this happens when we are identified with Him in baptism.

As Anglican scholar NT Wright says:
“The transfer from the old solidarity to the new is accomplished in baptism. Such a statement alarms many Christians today; seeing the dangers regarding baptism as a quasi-magical rite through which people are automatically transformed, many draw back from the realism of Paul’s language, not only in this passage but in (for instance) Romans 6:2-11 and Galatians 3:27…But Paul’s thought is not to be forced into the ‘either-or’ of anachronistic Protestant -or, for that matter, Catholic - polemics.”
-N.T. Wright, Tyndale Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, pp 106-107

In other words, the extreme positions of salvation being either by faith or by baptism found in Catholicism and Protestantism is not something people believed in Paul’s day, and it is a mistake to read Col. 2:12 in that light. The answer according to this passage is not either/or but both.

And that leads me to my third objective this morning – to compare and contrast what the NT says with Catholic and Protestant teaching.

III. Baptism in the Bible and Baptism in Theology

First of all, what do these systems have right? Protestants are correct when they say that we must have personal trust in Jesus to be saved. Not only do many passages generally teach this (John 3:16), but as we have seen, many passages which discuss baptism specifically make the same point. We are sons of God by faith – we appeal to God for a good conscience – we are raised through faith in the working of God.

And Catholics are correct to acknowledge the clear link in Scripture between baptism and salvation. In passage after passage we have seen the NT connect the two together.

The mistake in both systems is putting asunder what God has joined together, denying the need for personal faith on the one hand, and assuming that faith and baptism are exclusive on the other.

I sympathize with the Protestant effort to protect justification by faith from the sacramentalism of Catholic practice. But the assumption that baptism can play no role in the conversion process because it is a human work, and relegating it to the category of a good work that we do as Christians, completely misses the point of what we have seen in these verses.

Think about the idea of baptism as spiritual surgery found in Colossians 2. When I lived in IL, one of the little girls at church had a flare up of appendicitis. Her mom called me, and I went up to the hospital to visit with the family. All of the sudden the nurse who wins the all time award for “Worst Bedside Manner Ever” came in and just blurted out, “We’re gonna have to take it out.” Well, little 10 year old Jasmin was petrified and started to cry. And I wanted to cry! But we explained to her that she needed to have surgery because there was something in her making her very sick, and it could even make her more sick if the doctor didn’t get it out. And thankfully the surgery went just fine.

Jasmin had a problem that only the doctor could remove, and she had to put her trust in him to do the surgery she needed. That was an act of faith. And what Paul is saying in Colossians 2 is that we all have something that is fatal – sin. And we need for it to be cut away. Only God can do that surgery, and baptism is when that happens. It is not a good work we do. It is a saving work that Christ does for us!

Conclusion
I think the best way for us to end this study is to compare our own practice with the biblical pattern, just as we critiqued Protestantism and Catholicism.

Since part of what prompted this series of lessons is the questioning of certain beliefs I have seen among former students of mine, and others, I think it is important to stress the view I have given you today of baptism is not just a recent innovation of “church of Christ preachers.” That is the reason I quoted so much today from various commentaries- something I don’t normally do. None of the authors I quoted are in any way connected with “the church of Christ,” but all of them acknowledged the clear implications of these passages about baptism, and some of them did so while deliberately offering the same critiques I did of Catholicism and Protestantism.

And if you are someone interested in history, you may be curious to know that the view I have presented today was held by the early writers in church history. And you don’t have to just take my word for it. As English Baptist authors Donald Bridge and David Phypers have written, “In their understanding of baptism the early Fathers stressed its connection with forgiveness more than anything else.” (The Water That Divides, p. 60)

So for those who are tempted to jettison the emphasis on baptism in conversion as a relic of 1950s church-of-christ-ism, please realize that you are not only abandoning the most straightforward interpretation of passage after passage, but also centuries of church history in which this same view was held.

Something else that I think needs to be said has to do with what we sometimes call the “age of accountability.” How old does a child have to be in order to be baptized? There is obviously no set answer to that question, but I do think we need to be really careful about letting kids be baptized too soon. It is very common for a child who is not even in double digits to want to be baptized, because if a child pays attention at all they will hear it mentioned a lot. And years ago someone told me they thought that if anyone, including a child, came forward to be baptized, that they should be immersed no questions asked. I profoundly disagree with that statement.

I told you one story about Jasmin – let me tell you another. When she was quite young, one Sunday night she came forward during the invitation song. It was totally unexpected for me. So I sat down on the front pew with her and asked her why she came forward- and she said she wanted to be baptized. I said, “why?” And she said, “for the forgiveness of sins.” So then I said, “Are you a sinner?” And she shook her head no! Then I asked, “Have you ever committed a sin.” And again she shook her head no!

Now what if I had done what someone said and just took her and immersed her. How much faith was she putting in Christ’s saving work on the cross? None! How can you put your trust in a Savior to save you from your sins when you don’t think you have any? At that point she did not have faith in Christ – she had faith in baptism. And baptizing someone who has no faith in Christ is the very thing we condemn Catholicism for!

I don’t have any magic or easy answers for when a kid should be baptized. But we must make sure that what they believe about baptism is centered on Christ and His death and resurrection, or else all we are doing when we baptize them is getting them wet.

And that is true for anyone regardless of age. I will tell you that one of my greatest fears is that this church – or any church I have work with – is filled with people who think they are going to go to heaven simply because they punched their ticket by being baptized, but who never truly placed their trust in Jesus, never truly decided to forsake everything to follow Him. If we truly believe baptism is God’s work, His gracious rescue, then we should be profoundly stirred to live for Him. But if you think that your baptism was your work, that you climbed up the final rung of the gospel ladder, then how could you possibly serve God with a heart of gratitude and trust. If we believe baptism is God’s work, we need to live like it!

When Delmar got baptized in O Brother Where Art Thou, he was like a little kid he was so happy. He knew he was a sinner, and he couldn’t wait to tell his friends, “Come on in boys, the water’s fine.”

Do you remember when you were baptized? Maybe it was at the end of a service like this. Perhaps it was in the middle of the night. Do you remember why? Here’s what I hope. I hope that you recall being terrified – terrified because you knew you were a sinner and that God was holy and that you would face His wrath in your sins. And I hope you remember a conviction that only Jesus could take away your sins, and that you knew His word said that to be forgiven you needed to respond in faith, and repentance and baptism. And I hope you remember the joy, the feeling of a millions pounds of guilt lifting off of you when you came up. And may we never lose our sense of dread of our Holy God, nor our sense of joy at His grace.