Bible Study

•

The Parables of Jesus: Entering, Growing, Living, and Finishing in God's Kingdom by Terry Johnson

If you ask, "Why did Jesus teach in parables?" most people will answer:  "to make it easier to understand."

When the disciples asked Jesus why He taught in parables, He answered, "

This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. (Matt 13:13-17 ESV)

According to Jesus, He used parables not to make it easier to understand, but to make it more difficult to understand!

Why?  Johnson puts forward the thought that parables were perfect for Jesus' "purposes in election".

He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. (v.11)

I think the verse that follows contradicts the imposition of the doctrine of election into this passage, though.

Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. (v.12)

I think this verse says that (even if there is no doctrine of election and we all start out with the same ability), those who have even a little bit of understanding will be given more...and those who refuse to listen to the Word will have even what they started with taken away.

But the point remains that Jesus used parables to illuminate the truth to some...and to veil it to others.

•

I just read the letter to the church as Ephesus again.

...For he himself is our peace...

Christ is our peace, if we look anywhere else, we won't find it.

...He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near....

Christ is our peace and He came to preach peace and He sends us to preach peace. Not peace with the world, but peace with the Father, because it is only through the Son that we can reach the Father.

...I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God's grace given me through the working of his power.

Paul was a servant of the gospel...yes, and a slave to Christ. For him, his position of servant and slave was a position of strength, not weakness.

When Paul wrote this letter, he was in prison for preaching the gospel, and he kept right on preaching. He was no wimp. He was a strong leader and he was a devoted servant.

I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength. (Phil 4:12,13)

•

Today is the Jewish Day of Atonement and it brought to mind a post I wrote a while ago:

~~
When I think of "sacrifice" - the first sacrifice that comes to my mind is the sacrifice of my Saviour. The story of the scapegoat is such a beatiful "looking forward" to Christ. Too many times we read the New Testament through the eyes of the Old Testament; today I read the Old Testament with eyes fixed on Christ.

The Scapegoat by William Holman Hunt, 1854. Hunt had this framed in a picture with the quotations "Surely he hath borne our Griefs and carried our Sorrows; Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of GOD and afflicted." (Isaiah 53:4) and "And the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a Land not inhabited." (Leviticus 16:22)

Leviticus 16:7-22.

The only time this word "azazel" is used in the Bible is in reference to the "Day of Atonement"

Aaron was to take two goats and cast lots over them - one of the goats would be for the sacrifice, the other would be for "Azazel" (KJV translates "azazel" as scapegoat; the word has two roots ez [she-goat, goat, kid] and azal [to go away, evaporated, gone])

Before anything - Aaron was to sacrifice a bull as a sin offering for himself and to make atonement for himself and his household...

Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil

Aaron was to do with the first goat as he had done with the bull - the blood of the sacrifice was to be sprinkled on the mercy seat.

And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself

Many people have never read this story - we know the word "scapegoat" but don't really know how Biblical it is.

The people of Israel were sinners (aren't we all?). On their Day of Atonement, all of their sins were placed on the scapegoat and sent away.

How does this relate to us?

As Christians, our day of atonement came on the day Christ died on the cross. On our Day of Atonement, all of our sins were laid upon the Lamb of God.

Romans 3:25
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.

Just as Aaron laid the sins of Israel on the scapegoat, so God laid on Christ the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6) Christ his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), just as the goat bore all of Israel's iniquity on itself.

The goat went out into the wilderness. The Hebrew word is midbar {mid-bawr'} and means (among other things) "uninhabited land" - a place where nobody was. Psalm 103:12 tells us that "as far as the east is from the west,so far does he remove our transgressions from us. That's a long way. Not only that, but our sins are gone out from us, Jeremiah tells us that (under the New Covenant) God will forgive our iniquity and remember our sin no more.

Our sin is GONE and God will remember it NO MORE!

The carnival theme is "the Beauty of Sacrifice" - how beautiful is "NO MORE"?

• 6 Comments

•

The Book of Revelation is also known as "the Revelation of John".

That's not what the book says.

v.1 The revelation of Jesus Christ (...) to his servant John

Is this important?  Maybe not...but we begin to think of it as "the Revelation of Christ, to John", we have a greater understanding of who the message is from.

It is for us...from Christ...through John.

I just got a study guide from Back to the Bible.

If Christ is the One who gave this revelation about Himself - how many ways does He describe Himself...in verses 4-8?

  • Him who is, who was, and who is to come
  • faithful witness
  • firstborn from the dead
  • ruler of the kings of the earth
  • Him who loves us
  • Him who freed us from our sins by His blood
  • Him who made us to be a kingdom and priests
  • the Alpha and Omega
  • the Almighty

And yet...if someone were to ask me today who Christ is to me...

  • Savior
  • lifter of my heart
  • the Son that the Father sacrificed so that He could adopt me

I think that the important lessons from the book of Revelation:

not...what can we learn about the future?

it IS...what can we learn about Christ?

•

My daily reading was in 1 Chronicles, and then Psalm 1.

Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

Those who mock the Law of the Lord...they are not good counsel.  I sin...and I sin daily.  I am forgiven much.

But theLaw...is the Law, whether I follow it perfectly or not.

It is not a good thing to call "evil" good...or to call "good" evil.

• 1 Comment

•

This relatively short book tells a story of faithfulness.

In one day, his livestock were stolen, his sheep and his servants were all killed.

While he was still hearing this news...another messenger arrived.

All of his sons and daughters were killed.

At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said,
"Naked I came from my mother's womb,
and naked I will depart.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
may the name of the LORD be praised."(Job 1:20-21)

In the midst of everything...Job grieved for a time...and then praised God.

And we can too.  There is a time for grieving, but if we praise God through it all, we learn and grow.

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

We know that our suffering is for a reason and a season

“Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.” Romans 5:3-4,

And nobody can snatch us out of His hand

Romans 8:35-39, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: ‘For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

•

"Our Father"

Community here on earth.  The same Father who is Father to me is the Father to a believer on the other side of the planet.

"our"...unity.

My blood brother has the same physical father as I do.  We (Dave and I) are very different, but our dad is the same dad.  He treats us differently, because we are different people...but he is the same.

Right now, I'm angry and frustrated with Dave...but he's still my brother and I love him.  Don't like him much, but I love him.

We have the same father.

"Father"

the One who gives us life.  Who nurtures us, feeds us.  the only one who will be there always.

Everybody else will leave, only God is the constant.  Trust no one but God.

"Abba" - Father...a term of intimacy, kinship and surety.

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. (Romans 8:14-17, NRSV; cf. Gal. 4:5-6)

•

1 Cor. 15:24-28 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

This is a fairly short segment in Craig Keener's paper, "Is Subordination within the Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18 in Context".

Let me remind all reading that Keener is an egalitarian and has no reason to see eternal submission of Christ as a basis for his stand in the gender role conversation. Further, he reminds us that there is no need to accuse either side of heresy or "tampering with the Trinity".

The first segment (John 5) is here.
In this first segment is Scripture, with my comments block-quoted/inset.
1) Christ reigns now.

Christ is currently at the right hand of the Father (which is traditionally, a place of equal power and authority, and lesser rank) - we have a current example of submission.

2) then comes the end, when Christ delivers the kingdom to God the Father.

"The end" - this makes this an eschatological passage; one that tells us of the end of history (the future). Even then, the action of Christ is to deliver the kingdom to His Father, not to keep it for Himself.

3) after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

For those who believe that a Christian marriage is an authority structure and that the husband is the authority, this tells us that THAT AUTHORITY WILL END at this point.

4) AFTER destroying the last enemy, the final enemy to be destroyed is death.

That is a comforting piece of Scripture...death will be destroyed.

5) FOR God has put all things under Christ's feet.

God is the One who put Christ into power; Christ's authority (as Christ said many times while He walked the earth) was the authority of His Father.

6) BUT [emphasis mine] when it says äll things are put in subjection", it is plain that the Father is excepted

Scripture is telling us that the Father is NOT in subjection to Christ - the Father is excepted.

7) When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him,

Here is a Scriptural, Biblical example of the FUTURE and ESCHATALOGICAL submission of the Son to the Father.

8) that God may be all in all.

New Advent puts it: The Son also himself shall be subject unto him... That is, the Son will be subject to the Father, according to his human nature, even after the general resurrection; and also the whole mystical body of Christ will be entirely subject to God, obeying him in every thing.

MY QUESTION AND POINT (I think that the question must have gotten lost in the shuffle many times) is that if we have a past, present and future (creative, redemptive and eschatological) example of the Son in submission to the Father...where does Scripture tells us when this submission ends?

If there is no place that Scripture tells us that the submission of the Son ends; that He grasps full equality not only in essence and person, but also in His role in relationship to the Father, then the teaching that eternal submission is false is teaching from silence.

Keener's comments (bolded emphasis mine):

In some sense the messianic king and Son of man must reign forever (Isa 9:7; Dan 7:14; Luke 1:3233), but Jewish people also usually affirmed that God himself would reign more directly in the final time (Exod 15:18; Ps 146:10; Mic 4:7).40 So Paul's first hearers probably would not have found his point difficult to grasp.

Depending on how much weight one hangs on the grammatical details here, scholars debate the extent to which Paul shares with some of his contemporaries the view of an intermediate messianic kingdom. Some believe Christ's reign refers to his present reign concluded by death being placed under his feet at the believers' resurrection (1 Cor 15:25-26), others to a later period based on the succession of "thens" suggested in 15:23-24. In either case, in the end Christ himself will be plainly subordinated to the Father (15:28) in a more complete way than he is before that day (15:27), though he sits already at the Father's right hand (cf. Acts 2:34-35).

At that point, God will be "all in all" (1 Cor 15:28). This refers to his unchallenged authority over all else, in this context presumably including the Son. (...)

Despite some thorny questions about the meaning of some of Paul's language here, which we have not endeavored to resolve, this passage appears to affirm the Son's willing and loving subordination to the Father in the future era. For Paul, then, Jesus' deity (e.g., 1 Cor 8:6) is presumably not incompatible with his recognition of the Father's higher rank, even in the eternal future. Paul's wording does not indicate the sense in which the Son submits to the Father-it surely differs from the sense in which the rest of creation submits to both of them (Rev 22:3). But it does suggest that the Father and Son embrace roles that remain distinct in some respects even in eternity.

• 11 Comments

•

Q: What is "subordinationism"?

A: Very simply put (and there are many nuances), subordinationism is the belief that there is a hierarchy within the Godhead (Trinity) that has the Father as the head, with the Son and the Spirit flowing from the Father and in an equal, but submissive role. The main reason for this little series of posts is the way that it relates to the conversation on gender roles - I'm not sure that it plays a huge part, but the conversation did spark my curiosity.

Q: Is this the heresy of "Arianism"?

A: No. What was defined as heresy at the Council of Nicea

  • Arianism taught that Christ is a created being - of "like substance", but not the "same substance" - sort of a "lesser god" or "created god".
  • Arianism denied the full deity of Christ.
  • Ariansim denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

Q: What is different about the two?

A: Subordinationism declares that each member of the Trinity are individual persons, yet fully unified in will and purpose; each member of the Trinity is fully God.  James White, in "The Forgotten Trinity" puts in this way: There is One "WHAT" (the Godhead/Trinity).  Within that one WHAT, there are three "WHOS" (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).  To deny that the persons of the Trinity are indeed three persons, is a denial of the Trinity that is known as "modalism" - held to by "Oneness" churches.
The Son and the Spirit are "generated" from the Father, yet all three are eternal and fully God and fully equal in person, dignity and deity. Are we confused yet? This is why the Trinity is called a "mystery".

Other helpful terms:

"ekporeusis"

"The monarchy of the Father"

"filioque"

"Eternal Sonship"

It is a mistake to confuse the belief of eternal submission with the heresy of Arianism.

• 2 Comments

•

The whole alcohol debate is probably going to be with me for a while, since my dad is a legalistic teetotaler and I'm - well - not.

In the sermon at my church this morning, the text was on the Sabbath (legalism vs. God's law) and how the Jews used hedge laws to "protect" themselves from breaking the law - if you obeyed man's hedge laws, you could never get close to breaking God's real one.

A "hedge law" is an "extra" law that the Jews used to create a hedge around the Law of Moses. For instance - all the Decalogue says about the Sabbath is: "but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates."

So, the Jews took it and ran with it - "what's 'labor'?" - and ended up with a bunch of hedge laws that never appear in Scripture: how far you can walk, how much jewelry (in weight) a woman can wear, etc. These hedge laws were so restrictive that Christ was condemned by the Pharisees for healing on the Sabbath.

Christ never broke God's Law - but he did break the law of man - the hedge laws.

And that's what we have today - hedge laws.

If you don't use alcohol at all, you will never be able to break God's prescription against drunkeness.

Would Christ have obeyed this "hedge law"?