Don't Hate Your Job

Most people have a season at some point in life where they really don't like going to work.  In fact, some people even hate their jobs.  They don't get along with their employer, or if they are the employer they don't like their employees.  But the Bible teaches that this ought not be the case for Christians.

Risen Life Church in Salt Lake City, Utah has been journeying through the book of Ephesians and I was called upon to preach from Ephesians 6:5-9.

Ephesians 6:5-9 is often a text that gets skimmed over because readers think that the slave or the bondservant relationship to an earthy master is outdated in not relevant to life today.  They couldn't be more wrong.  In my sermon, I deal with the instructions to employees and employers.  Then I journey into what the text demonstrates as the larger Master-slave relationship we as believers have as Christians. Everybody is a slave to something, either sin or righteousness.  If Jesus is our Master than we are slaves who are truly free.  I explain this in greater detail in the sermon and you can listen by clicking on the link below.


You get the opportunity to serve Christ when you go to work.  What a grand opportunity!  Remember this as you head into work and have joy in your workplace because of what Christ has done for you.


*I opened my sermon with a very brief discussion of our efforts to plant a church in the Salt Lake valley.  Risen Life is our sending church and a core team is meeting in my home as we seek God's vision for how we are to begin this new work.  My name is Bryan Catherman and if you are interested in learning more about our efforts, praying for us, financially supporting us, or joining our mission, I would love to hear from you.  You can contact me here.

Follow Me as I Follow Christ?

How many times have you heard a pastor give instructions or guidance that you're really not sure he follows himself?  "Here's what you should do," he says, although he may not have any experience to back it up?  I wonder how often I do this. Or how about those time when a pastor gives some kind of instruction followed by a slightly out of context passage, attempting to use the Scripture as a convincing hammer? 

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul offers a block of instruction on the topic of food.   Christians in Corinth were eating food that the Law suggested was not good to eat.  Other believers were invited into homes and their hosts were serving food that was sacrificed to idols.  The issue however, was not the food or the Law, but the attitude of the believers toward one another.  They had disagreements as to how others in the Church should behave regarding the Law, these hosts, and the various ideas surrounding food.  Paul deals with the attitudes and at the conclusion of his instruction, Paul says, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1, ESV).  

"Follow me," Paul says, "as I follow Christ."  That's a bold statement!  The first question we probably ask when we hear Paul's words might be, "Why wouldn't Paul just say follow Christ?"  Some might even claim that Paul is being arrogant here.  "He's making much of himself rather than Jesus" they may argue.  How can Paul make such a statement?

Galatians 2:20 provides us some insight into Paul's thinking.  He writes, "I have been crucified with Christ.  It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.  And the life I now live in the flesh I life by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20, ESV).  

When Paul is saying follow me, he is really saying follow Jesus.  Only as Paul is filled with the Spirit and sanctified more and more, he is able to demonstrate how Christ lived and instructed us to live. 

"But why wouldn't Paul have simply instructed people to follow Jesus," we may still ask. "Why wouldn't Paul have encouraged them to ask, 'What would Jesus do?'"  Well, at the time Paul didn't have the Gospels or the New Testament to turn to.  As an Apostle, one of his responsibilities was to model the gospel and write God's revleation under the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit for future generations.  However, I believe he would have said the exact same thing even if he had the 27 books of the New Testament we have today.  Paul served as an under-shepherd of Christ and was filled by Jesus himself.  The more Paul was full of Jesus the less room he had for himself.  As Paul was crucified, daily, he was becoming less.  And the more he could be a living example of Christ (even if he could have handed someone God's written Word), the more people could see and experience the Living God through Paul.

People can and should read God's Word for themselves, but how much better would it be if they could meet Jesus in conjunction with their reading and studying?  How much better would it be if God's people could follow Jesus, literally.  One way to do so is to come in contact with God's people who are filled with Jesus.  And God's appointed leaders, being filled with Christ, should be able to look at the people they are called to care for and say, "Follow me as I follow Christ."  When the flock sees a shepherd, they really should see Jesus. When a lost person meets a missionary, he should see Christ. When a child looks to her dad, she should see God living in him.  

It is in this way that a pastor can lead even when he may not have the personal experience or worldly qualifications.  If he is dead to himself and filled with Christ, then it should be Christ guiding the leader so the leader can guide the flock.  The key however, is that the leader is following Christ and being filled with the Spirit of God.  And in this way, the leader can say "I'm following Jesus, journeying toward God; follow me if you'd like to get there too." 


*The photo used in this post is in the public domain and is made available from the National Archives.

No Sex Outside of Marriage, Really?

In our society, especially in the West, sex is a really big deal.  It seems to define many relationships, although it is usually the act of sex that is important rather than the relationship itself.  But the Bible says the relationship comes first and places an extremely high view of marriage. Some however, have a difficult time seeing marriage for what it is; and others  even say that as long as the couple is monogamous, it doesn't matter if they are married.

Genesis 2:23-25 shows us a picture of the ideal and it looks fairly different than the arguments of society.  God provides the ideal and principle for marriage, even calling the woman the man’s “wife.”  This first marriage is a union far superior than simply a sex act.

As we read further in the Old Testament, we find many positive instances of man and women being joined in marriage and then they have sex.  Sex comes as a result of marriage, not a precursor to it. We also see many negative instances of men having sex with women whom they are not married to. The former is written about positively and the latter is viewed negatively and sinful.

However, it is the New Testament epistles that provide the clearest instruction on this matter for Christians today.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 demonstrates that sex apart from one in a covenant relationship with his or her spouse is wrong. The idea is that because people cannot control themselves outside of marriage (and it would likely prove too difficult to abstain entirely as it seems the Corinthians may have inquired of Paul), a man should have a wife and a woman a husband so they can fulfill their passions in a moral way rather than in a way that is sexually immoral.  If a husband or wife is required to have moral sex, than a marriage must be required to have husband or wife.  A monogamous sex partner is simply not enough.  The wedding, not sex, that is the process of making the covenant. Sex is the consummation of the covenant as seen repeatedly in the Old Testament.

Hebrews 13:4 says that the marriage bed should not be defiled but honored. God judges the sexually immoral and adulterers. Adultery is not only defined by cheating on someone, but sex outside of marriage. And given the picture of the great love between a man and wife in the Song of Solomon, it would seem that sexual immorality would be more about those having sex outside of the loving, caring, consensual, beautiful, God honoring marriage.  The act of sex is not the thing that honors God, but the marital relationship itself. And within this marital relationship, sex can honor God as well.  Outside of a marriage bed, sex is a defiling act.

It must also be noted that God repeatedly condemns sexual immorality and both Hebrews 13:4 and 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 define any sex outside of a marriage covenant as sexually immoral. (Examples of God commanding his people to remain free from sexual immorality include: Acts 15:20, 1 Corinthians 5:1, 1 Corinthians 6:13, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Corinthians 10:8, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, and Jude 7.) Therefore, sex is only acceptable to God inside the marriage covenant.

*Photo of rings taken by Flickr.com user, FotoRita and is licensed under  a creative commons license.

Hebrews Relationship with the Old Testament

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult for a student of the New Testament to miss the significance of the Old Testament. These two sections of the Canon are like two acts of a play that depend upon each other for the proper presentation of the plot, conflict, and resolution. Character development—a necessary tool for any successful play—usually spans from the first raised curtain to the final curtain call. To properly understand the conclusion, one must understand the beginning. Like the two-act play, the New Testament depends upon the foundations set in the first act, which is typically called the Old Testament. Hebrews, probably more so than any other New Testament book is a second-act book that is highly dependent upon the first act. Its author demands that the reader know the Old Testament in order to fully understand the claims made by the book.

Hebrews, written to an audience with an old covenant background, makes heavy use of the Old Testament. George Guthrie writes of the book, “Thirty-five quotations from the Greek translation of the Old Testament and thirty-four allusions work to support the development of Hebrew’s argument. In addition, the writer offers nineteen summaries of Old Testament material, and thirteen times he mentions an Old Testament name or topic, often without reference to specific context.”[1] Carson and Moo write, “[T]he author cites the Greek Old Testament as if he assumes his readers will recognize its authority.”[2] Clements believes that the original readers are “men and woman who are assumed to be fully familiar with the scriptures of the Old Testament, although they themselves are Christian.”[3] Regardless of the exact identity of the original readers (which will be discussed below), George Guthrie argues, “The author assumes his audience has an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament. Of all the writings of the New Testament, none is more saturated with overt references to the Old Testament. The author so filled his discourse with Old Testament thoughts and passages that they permeate every chapter.”[4]

The Hebrews author exhorts that the new is better than the old. “His line of approach,” according to Donald Guthrie, “was that everything in fact was better – a better sanctuary, a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a better covenant. Indeed, he aims to show that there is a theological reason for the absence of the old ritual, glorious as it may have seemed to the Jews.”[5] And Scott contends, “The Epistle to the Hebrews clearly affirms that because the final age (‘these last days,’ Hebrews 1:2) is present, the new covenant has made the former obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear; (Hebrews 8:13).”[6] Thus, to understand the thing that is better, it seems that the reader must have some familiarity with the former.

In an effort to understand the exhortation of author of Hebrews, this post will examine the author’s of use of the Old Testament. First, a brief discussion of the potential identity of the author and the most likely original audience should serve to provide an appropriated backdrop for the author’s Old Testament usage. Once the background is set, specific passages will be explored; however, for the scope of this post, not every reference to the Old Testament will be mined for additional understanding. In concluding this post, attempts will be made to understand how dependent the book of Hebrews is upon the Old Testament. Can the key points of Hebrews be understood by a reader with no previous knowledge of the Old Testament passages cited or alluded to in Hebrews? Does Hebrews require further study of the old covenant or does the author provide enough background information that right new covenant understanding can come from the book of Hebrews alone? How should a present-day teacher or preacher approach Hebrews in light of the examination of this post?
AN AUTHOR AND HIS READERS

The author of Hebrews is a mystery. Most introductions contain convincing arguments on why the author was not likely Paul, who wrote Romans and many other Epistles, despite that P46 places Hebrews behind Romans in the Pauline corpus.[7] And it may have been an Eastern Church belief that Hebrews was associated with Paul that allowed it its inclusion in the Canon. Even with the support of Jerome and Augustine, after the forth and early fifth centuries the idea of a Pauline authorship was drawing fire.[8] Today, Carson and Moo write, “The Greek of Hebrews is more polished than that of Paul, and the consistent quality of the rhetoric is quite remarkable.”[9] Hagner points to Hebrews 2:3 as proof that Hebrews was not written by Paul because the author claims to have only second-hand knowledge of the gospel but in passages like Galatians 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul claims to have learned directly from God.[10] And Davies contents, “It would be very unusual to find a modern scholar holding this view, for there are no positive reasons for it, and strong reasons against it.”[11] But if Paul is not that author, who might the author be?

Luther first proposed that Apollos might be the author. Hagner provides a case for this authorship pointing to Acts 18:24, which states that Apollos was a “learned man” and held a “thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.” And Apollos would know Timothy enough to reference his release from prison (Hebrews 13:23).[12] Tertullian supported Barnabas as the author. Hagner lists that Barnabas was a Levite and would be interested in the livitical system, he was from Cyprus, and was likely influenced by Hellenistic culture.[13] Other suggested authors include Clement of Rome, Priscilla, Jude, Philip, and Silvanus.[14] Presently however, only aspects of the author can be gleaned from the text but there is still no clear evidence—internal or external—that leaves scholars with any solid suspects.

The audience on the other hand is shrouded in slightly less mystery. From Hebrews 10:23, it is fair to assume that the author had some specific people in mind when writing his Epistle.[15] There is silence on the temple, and the Old Testament is quoted from polished Greek, leaving one to conclude that either author or the audience did not know Hebrew. The audience was either not in Jerusalem or if in Jerusalem, they were most likely Greek-speaking expatriates.[16] And while there is no clear identification of who the original audience was, Hagner argues, “the early church was very probably correct in understanding the first readers to have been Jewish Christians. The vast majority of modern scholars have agreed with this conclusion from analysis of the content of the book.”[17]

EXAMINING THE OLD TESTAMENT IN HEBREWS

As one tries to understand how the Hebrews author uses the Old Testament, one must first ask how the author viewed the Old Testament. Yisa believes that the author was not arguing against the Old Testament, but rather building upon his position with a strong trust and understanding of the Old Testament. He writes, “At surface level, it may seem that the author of Hebrews uses the Old Testament in an allegorical and fanciful way. However, that is far from the truth. A closer examination of the book proves that the author shared the Jewish and early Christian presuppositions and exegetical principles of the literal and natural sense of the text, a high view of Scripture, and the divine inspiration of the Old Testament as the Word of God.”[18] Like Yisak who essentially argues that the author of Hebrews holds to a Christocentric hermeneutic, Hagner writes, “Christ is seen to be the key to the real meaning of the OT as it can now be understood in this era of fulfillment. From this point of view, all of the OT points directly or indirectly to Christ, who is by definition the telos (goal) of God’s saving purpose.”[19] And Yisak rightly points out, “[The author] intended to teach that Jesus is the unifying factor of Scriptures.”[20]

Also worth noting is the source (or sources) from where the author drew his information. “In quotations,” writes Hanger, “the author regularly follows the Greek (LXX) rather than the Hebrew (or Masoretic) text that has come down to us.”[21] Bruce identifies two Greek texts that are in agreement with the author’s quotations (Alexandrinus and Vaticanus), but twice as many quotes are in agreement with Alexandrinus than Vaticanus. Interestingly, some of the quotations agree with neither.[22] Bruce explains, “[The author] may have selected his variants (where he knew more readings than one) for interpretational suitability. These variants were sometimes borrowed from the other parts of the Greek Bible or from Philo, but appear for the most part to have been introduced on his own responsibility. It has been argued on the basis of his use of certain Old Testament quotations that he was familiar with the interpretations of Philo and used some quotations in such a way as to counter these interpretations.”[23] And it may even be argued (as Bruce does) that the author of Hebrews actually influenced other Greek texts.[24]

From the broad background, this post will now adjust the attention to some specific Old Testament passages found in Hebrews. One way to outline Hebrews by major themes is to look at Chapters 1-10 as an argument that Christ is superior. In nearly every case, the inferior items are something argued from the Old Testament. Christ is superior to angels, Moses, the previous priesthood, the previous sacrifices, and even the entire old covenant. The remaining three chapters are centered upon the necessity and superiority of faith. To understand the thing that is better there is a necessity to understand the previous thing, and the author often reminds his readers of the Old Testament to make his case. Examining the book of Hebrews in this fashion will not give equal treatment to every Old Testament quote and allusion found in Hebrews, and in fact, some quotations will be neglected all together; however, this approach should provide enough examples to support the thesis of this post.

Christ is superior to the angels. The book of Hebrews wastes no time with an introductory opening and is quickly arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels. To make this argument, the author appeals to Deuteronomy 32:43, 2 Samuel 7:14, Psalm 2:7, Psalm 45:6-7, Psalm 102:25-27, and Psalm 110:1. Most of the entire first chapter is actually comprised of Old Testament quotes. Davies points out that all the Scripture appealed to in this specific argument is ascribed to God as the speaker, showing the author’s belief of divine authorship of the quoted passages.[25] Also worth noting is how short many of the quotations are. Most of them are one sentence, and of those, the first four quotes are rather short sentences. It is as if they are to serve as merely a reminder rather that a first-time presentation of the material. And the reader must already trust these statements as God’s Word, that is, divine Scripture, or there is no value in using the passages to support the argument for Christ.

Christ is superior to Moses. In Chapter 3, the author compares Jesus to Moses, saying, “For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses […].”[26] And while the author provides a little glimpse of who Moses was in verse 5 when he says, “Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant,” he provides very little about Moses the character. It is as if the reader must already be aware of Moses or the author wants to the reader to do some research. In providing commentary on this passage, Bruce discusses aspects of the golden calf, the relationship with Aaron, and even the unfavorable report from spies.[27] None of this is mentioned in the Hebrews passage, but Bruce seems to feel the need to express it to explain the comparison. Guthrie feels that he must do the same thing in order to explain the rebellion in verse 8.[28] In order to see a complete picture of Moses, one must read the Old Testament, and it seems the author understood this and expected it of his readers, just as Bruce, Guthrie and many others have done.

Christ is superior to the Old Testament priesthood. Much like the author’s argument about Jesus’ superiority to Moses, he also argues that Jesus is superior to any present priesthood system. This argument spans from the tail end of Chapter 4 through Chapter 7 with some minor breaks. For this argument, the author specifically only quotes Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4, but he alludes to the order of the Melchizedek priesthood and even of the high priest system that his readers would likely be familiar with. But unlike the Moses argument, the author provides some background on the mysterious person called Melchizedek. It is as if he expects the readers to be slightly less informed of Melchizedek—maybe aware of the person but not the magnitude of meaning wrapped up in him— because Hebrews 7:1-10 offers an explanation of who Melchizedek was before the author compares Melchizedek and Jesus. One might point out that the author of Hebrews provides enough information that the reader may not need to do additional research to understand the comparison, and this is a valid observation. This demonstrates the author’s awareness of his original audience and his awareness of the common understanding of Moses compared to that of Melchizedek. When likened to the author’s treatment of Moses, there is an indication the author must teach where necessary but depend upon the audience’s knowledge of the Old Testament where he can afford to do so.

Christ is superior to the old covenant. In making the argument that Christ as the new covenant is better than the old covenant, the author appeals briefly to Exodus 25:40 and extensively to Jeremiah 31:31-34. In appealing to Jeremiah, the author cites what might be the largest quotation from the Old Testament found in Hebrews. Hagner suggests that this citation is “of major importance to the epistle,” and “the explicit reference to the new covenant in this text makes it ideal for his purpose.”[29] This Old Testament passage is so useful in the argument in fact, that is quoted again in Hebrews 10. And just as with the previous uses of the Old Testament, little is outlined or summarized of the old covenant. It seems that the original readers must already hold some understanding of the old covenant, or at least the author assumed they did. And there must be some foundational information the author is assuming because the author is making an appeal that Jesus is better than the thing the reader already knows. What is different here compared to previous passages is that the author is using the Old Testament to demonstrate that the new covenant is actually spoken of in the Old Testament. The new covenant is actually inline with previous writings and the author wants his readers to see what they may have missed.

Christ is superior than the old sacrifices. In Chapter 10, the author argues that Christ is the ultimate sacrifice and writes, “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”[30] Like the argument about the better covenant the author is using the Old Testament to demonstrate that his point has already been made in the Old Testament. The readers should have seen the perfect and final sacrifice in Jesus. In this section, the author turns to Psalm 40:6-8 and again to Jeremiah 31:33-34. Here, the Old Testament supports the displeasure of the old sacrifices and then commentary is offered by the author. He states, “[E]very priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”[31] The author finds not only support in the Old Testament, which is treated as if spoken by God, but also boldness from within God’s Word.

So great a cloud of witnesses. The latter portion of the book of Hebrews argues for the superiority of faith. While many Old Testament allusions and quotations may be examined here, the cloud of witnesses proves most interesting. In a single chapter, the author uses 16 characters from the Old Testament as examples of 14 faithful men and two faithful women. This “great cloud of witnesses” includes Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel.[32] Some background is provided for some of these figures, but hardly more than a sentence. And Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel are lumped together in the explanation. Clearly, the author believes his readers know who these individuals were and need only a simple reminder. But to get a better understanding, the reader could consult Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Ruth, where the accounts and writings of these individuals are found within the Old Testament. The author also includes many unnamed people who have suffered and then he said of them, “And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.”[33] With the exception of the unnamed and more recent faithful witnesses, it is almost a requirement for one to know at least some of the names listed if one is to truly understand the better thing that God has in store. After all, how can one understand the thing that is better without first seeing the thing it is compared to?

CONCLUSION

John Patrick’s stage play, “The Hasty Heart” (1945), takes place in a World War II allied field hospital. In Act I, the hospital patients learn that a Scotsman named Corporal Lachlan "Lachie" MacLachlan is being transferred to the spare bed in their recovery area. Lachie sustained a wound to his kidney and had to have it removed; however, his other kidney is not functioning properly and within about four weeks, Lachie will die of the toxins in his own unfiltered blood. He has no family and he is a bitter, angry man. The commander in charge of the hospital felt that it would be best if Lachie did not know of his condition. While he informed the other patients in the hospital, he asked them to keep it a secret. He also asked the patients and floor nurse to befriend this lonely transfer patient in an effort to improve the quality of his short remaining life. The drama that unfolds shares a remarkable story of the condition of the heart. However, if a theatergoer were to enter and find her seat at intermission between the first and second acts, there is almost no way she would understand the activities playing out before her. In many ways, the play would make no sense. While many things could be learned about Lachie, Yank, and Sister Parker, the overarching plot and conflict would be rather hazy at best. The development of the characters would be only half the story. The same is true of many New Testament books, most especially the book of Hebrews.

As much as the author of Hebrews depends on the specific Old Testament passages, he depends even more upon the reader’s understanding of the scrolls from where those quotes were drawn. Like a playwright, the author is expressing the second act of a two-act play. This is where the conflict is resolved, the plot is concluded, and the character’s development is show to its full capacity.

Hebrews teaches the world much about Jesus; but if the student of the book is to gain the understanding the author intended, it is almost demanded of the student to turn back a few pages and examine the Old Testament. The student must see to what the author is alluding. He or she must observe what was before so there is a solid understand of what is better. In most cases, the author does not provide enough of a summary. The original readers were most likely Jewish Christians and it is assumed that they had the background knowledge of the material. This may not always be the case for modern-day readers; which is why pastors and teachers should be prepared to provide the summary that most students need in order to gain the two-act understanding.

Reading Hebrews a number of times and even studying the Old Testament verses will not fully plum the depths of this rich book. In its pages there is much to be learned, applied, and lived. There is an amazing Savior to be loved. Many commentaries provide additional insight into the author’s use of the Old Testament and these may serve as additional material for further study. However, it is the recommendation of this author that further study consist of starting with Hebrews 1:1 and reading line by line. At any point a quote or allusion to the Old Testament is presented, place a bookmark in Hebrews and explore the passage from where the quote came. Once the Old Testament passage has been read and studied to the point that a good understanding is achieved, turn back to Hebrews and continue where the reading left off. When the end of the book is reached, try it again and see what was not seen the first time. Chances are, this will take years and the journey will move the reader through much of the Old Testament. But the reward will be well worth the journey. It is the prayer of this author that this post is not where the investigation ends, but rather, this post has only served as an appetizer to such a rich reading of the book of Hebrews and even of the Old Testament upon which Hebrews depends.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Revised). The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005.

Clements, Ronald E. "The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews." Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (September 1, 1985): 36-45. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2011).

Davies, J. H. A Letter to Hebrews. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. London, Engl: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, Illi: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.

Guthrie, George. Hebrews. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zonderan, 1998.

Hanger, Donald A. Hebrews. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990.

Scott, Julius, J., Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1995

Yisak, Suru. “The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: Understanding the interpretive method of the writer of Hebrews.” Th.M. diss., (2007) Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dissertations & Theses: Full Text [database on-line]. http://www.proquest.com (publication number AAT 1450952; accessed April 24, 2011).


END NOTES

1 George Guthrie, Hebrews, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1998), 19.

2 D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005), 610.

3 Ronald E. Clements, "The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews" (Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no. 1, September 1, 1985: 36-45, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost) [accessed April 23, 2011], 36.

4 Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, Illi: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), 19.

5 Guthrie, Hebrews, 1998, 32-33.

6 J. Julius Scott Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapid, Mich: Baker Academic, 1995), 327.

7 Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2005, 600.

8 Donald A. Hanger, Hebrews, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, Mass: Henderickson Publishers, 1990), 8-9.

9 Carson, An introduction to the New Testament, 2005, 601.

10 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 9.

11 J. H. Davies, A Letter to Hebrews, The Cambridge Bible Commentary (London, Engl: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 10.

12 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 10.

13 Ibid.

14 Guthrie, Hebrews, 1998, 23.

15 Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2005, 608.

16 Ibid.

17 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 2.

18 Suru Yisak, “The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: Understanding the interpretive method of the writer of Hebrews,” Th.M. diss., 2007 (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dissertations & Theses: Full Text [database on-line. http://www.proquest.com, publication number AAT 1450952; accessed April 24, 2011), 83.

19 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 15.

20 Yisak, 2007, 62.

21 Hanger, Hebrews, 1990, 15.

22 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Revised), The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990), 26.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., 27

25 Davies, A Letter to Hebrews, 1967, 22.

26 Hebrews 3:3a.

27 F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1990, 91-92.

28 Guthrie, Hebrews, 1983, 102-104.

29 Hanger, Hebrews, 1990, 122.

30 Hebrews 10:18.

31 Hebrews 10:11.

32 Hebrews 12:1.

33 Hebrews 11:39-40.


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 3)


[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Rob Bell explores his thoughts about hell in the third chapter of his book, Love Wins.  With a part of this chapter he challenges the traditional Christian view of a place of punishment, sorrow, and anguish, and it also seems that he is laying the ground work for a future argument about the everlasting aspects of the biblical hell.  But Bell also uses this chapter to present an idea of hell on earth, maybe something like his ideas of heaven on earth. However, this twisted idea of hell that Bell shares speaks against the Gospel of Christ and against the biblical idea of hell; it is a heretical argument and a tragic concept with the potential for epic devastation, a message which no Christian preacher should ever suggest, preach, or teach.

Bell argues that hell on earth is for victims. 

How can this be good news?

(At this point, I realize that readers who love and support Bell and his book will be tempted to stop reading this review, and that's okay.  But it is my hope that those readers remember arguments that they themselves might have made.  "Don't pass judgment," they might have argued, "and don't form an opinion until you've read the book."  Some also argued that I would have to get to the end of the book to see the entire picture.  So if this is you, I hope you continue reading this review.  I hope you are willing to see it through to the end. I invite comments and questions via e-mail or in person.  Please feel free to contact me. And I realize I have just leveled some serious claims about Bell's ideas; so Mr. Bell, I invite you to contact me to discuss your ideas so I can better understand. Come out to Salt Lake so we can discuss this over a cup of coffee.)

In this chapter, Bell shares some of his observations and experiences he has had as a pastor--a trip to Rwanda, a time sitting with a rape victim, a question from a boy about his father who had just committed suicide, the look of a cocaine addict, the ripples of a marital affair, and a cruel dead man.

When Bell was in Rwanda, he witnessed many teenagers missing hands and legs.  They were victims of brutal treatment, forced upon them by no fault of their own. Bell says this was a tactic of a person's enemy.  Cutting off your enemy's hand or leg leaves a brutal reminder of what you did to him.  He is reminded of you every time he looks at his child.  To this, Bells says, "Do I believe in a literal hell?  Of course. Those aren't metaphorical missing arms and legs" (71).

Bell also asks if his readers have ever sat with a woman as she described what it was like when she was raped.  In another question he asks, "How does a person describe what it's like to hear a five-year-old boy whose father has just committed suicide ask, 'When is daddy coming home?'" (71).   

But here's the problem with these examples.  In the common vernacular, one might suggest that a hot stone massage is "heavenly" or maybe it's a piece of chocolate cake the warrants such a high description.  I even remember once buying a honey-baked ham from a company called Heavenly Ham, but I really don't think I bought a ham from heaven, not even heaven on earth.  This is metaphorical hyperbole.  Heaven is the greatest thing one can think of so we use it to describe great things, as if to say there is nothing better.  But in reality, the biblical heaven is not a hot stone massage or a piece of cake or a ham or even the commercial building where I bought the ham.  That's not what these kinds of statements are attempting to say.  We use the word and idea of hell in much the same way.  Hell is the worst thing we can think of so we make statements like, "War is hell."  We want to dramatically declare that it just doesn't get any worse than this.  So in that usage, armless, legless boys and rape victims and mothers who hear very difficult questions could easily say, "This is hell;" but that would not be the hell described in the bible.

What these horrific examples demonstrate is sin, or rather, the effects of sin.  See, the teens in Rwanda and the raped woman are the victims of sinful acts thrust upon them.  These are examples of sin in motion, the sin of humans; it's sin in the fallen world in which we live.  However, in the model Bell gives us, Abel would have been in hell during the few moments while Cain was murdering him (Genesis 4).  Stephen would have been in hell as he was being stoned to death, despite that the Bible says that he saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man was standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7).  In this model, it seems that the early Saints were passing into a hell on earth while Saul was ravishing the Church (Acts 8).

And let us take a look at a parable Jesus shared about a rich man who died and was in Hades. (Bell also examines this parable, but for a much different reason.)  Luke 16:19-31 tells us a parable of this unnamed rich man and a poor begger named Lazarus.  Lazarus sat out side the rich man's gates starving.  Dogs licked Lazurus' sores, while the rich man did nothing for him.  In the parable, Lazarus ends up in heaven while the rich man ends up in hell.  There is a chasm between the two that does not allow anyone to pass from one place to the other (Luke 16:26).  But looking through the paradigm Rob Bell is giving us, it seems that before the two died, Lazarus was in hell, not the rich man.

In this parable, the dead rich man calls out to Abraham (who is with Lazarus) for mercy, but Abraham reminds the suffering man, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received the good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish" (Luke 16:25, ESV).  And even later, the rich man begs that his brothers be warned so that they may repent (Luke 16:30) and avoid this . . . this what?  The rich man says "agony." Agony for what?  Could it be punishment?  But punishment for what?  His sin.  Maybe for neglecting the poor; maybe neglecting Jesus as Jesus discussed in Matthew 25 (another passage Bell examines for entirely different purposes in the previous chapter about heaven).  Doesn't this make sense in light of Romans 6:23 which states that the wages of sin is death?  Doesn't this make the gospel, that is, that Christ created a bridge across this chasm, seem like amazing news!  The painting that was so frightful to Bell is the bridge, and the reason it is a cross is because that is how Jesus made the bridge.

As I thought about those Rwandan teens, I couldn't help but think about the people inflicting "hell" upon these children.  They may have actually lived rather well, like the rich man.  And what about the rapist? And what about the religious people who stoned Stephen to death?  What about Saul?  It doesn't seem that there was a punishment or agonizing hell on earth for them.  Bell's hell on earth seems only to be agony and suffering for the victims.  Does the Bible really teach that the victims suffer hell on earth, a biblical hell, for the sins committed against them?  Or as with the rich man, does it seem that this judgment and punishment comes in the afterlife?

And what about the feelings and experiences of a cocaine addict or how the suffering a man might feel after he has sinned by having a marital affair?  Has God cast any of these living people in to hell, or at least a hell on earth? (And again, we can't say Mahatma Gandhi is in hell but it's okay to declare that these living people could be in hell?)  The answer is no, God has not cast these living people into hell on earth.  For the victims, we might think of this suffering in light of 2 Corinthians 1:1-11 and Romans 8:28.  These victims are not cast away from God.  And for the perpetrators who are suffering as a result of their own sin, we might call this conviction in some cases, or it may be that the law is acting like a schoolmaster (Galatians 3), all for the benefit of their salvation.  God may feel distant to them, but only because they have pushed him away, done as an act of their own self punishment.  But God has not cast them to the burning trash heap of hell, not yet anyway.  God is not neglecting them; he loves them and desires good things for them.

It may seem that the Bible only talks of hell as a garbage dump as Bell tries to present it.  (He says that the only mention of hell is the Greek word gehenna. But even staying on the surface of semantics, this argument neglects 2 Peter 2:4's use of the word tartaroō.)  And of course it would seem that there are very little mentions of hell or any kind of punishment if we only look for the word gehenna.  And if we neglect Jesus' parables and much of the symbolic hints of punishment and reward, and even much of the direct statements about a punishment for sin after death, we might think that hell is not that big of a deal.  We could falsely draw the conclusion that Jesus wasn't that concerned about hell.  But that would be a mistake.  Before you incorrectly draw that conclusion, read some passages in the Bible again, without anybody's commentary.  Here are just a few examples; there are many more: Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31; Numbers 16:30, 33; Deuteronomy 32:22; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 22:6; 1 Kings 2:6, 9; Job 7:9; 11:8; 14:13; 17:13, 16; 21:13; 24:19; 26:6; Psalms 6:5; 9:17; Matthew 3:12; 5:22, 29–30; 7:23; 10:28; 11:23; 13:24-30, 42-43, 47-50; 16:18; 18:9; 23:15, 33; 25:32-33; Mark 9:43–47; Luke 3:17; 10:15; 12:5; 16:23; John 15:6; Acts 2:27, 31; James 3:6; 2 Peter 2:4; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 9:2; 14:9-11; 18:8; 19:20; and 20:13–15

And I propose that if we are to look for any example of hell on earth we must look to the specific moment while Christ was on the cross as a propitiation for our sins; that is, taking on the sins of the world which were laid upon him (Isaiah 53:4-6; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).  In that moment, when it appeared that Jesus was isolated from the Father, he cried out, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34).  In that moment, Jesus was making a way for us.  And if anything were going to make an argument for hell on earth, it must be this moment.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 4)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.
** Photo of "The Poor Lazarus at the Rich Man's Door" by James Joseph Jacques Tissot is used with permission from the Brooklyn Museum.

Martin Luther: Before the Door

INTRODUCTION

     Standing before the castle door at Wittenberg, Martin Luther—the man once so terror-stricken that he called out to a dead saint for physical salvation1—was unknowingly witnessing his last day of obscurity. It was on the eve of All Saints’ Day, 1517,2 nearly thirteen years after he had vowed to become a monk in exchange for his life. He had written 95 statements that he desired to argue in academia, mostly against the sale of indulgences. Nailing his Theses to the door was nothing out of the ordinary; that was how one signaled the desire for a debate.3 However, even written in Latin, something in Luther’s words were explosive. Something in what Luther had to say was worth wide distribution, printed in the language of the German people. “Luther’s Theses differed from the ordinary propositions for debate,” states Bainton, “because they were forged in anger.”4 In his Theses, Luther attempted to verbally cut down the indulgence sellers; but in the process, he provided a glimpse of salvation through the gospel of faith and grace—a gospel most had never heard.

     As Luther walked away from the castle door, he could not likely have predicted the eruption that was soon to ignite. He likely did not suspect that he eventually would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church, for much of his life condemned to live as a wanted man or die by the flames reserved for heretics.5 All he knew was that he was justified to confidently stand before God, saved by grace through faith, because the Word of God declares it so. The Martin Luther that entered the Augustinian cloister at Erfurt, trembling at the fear of his Creator and Judge, confessing for hours, was not the same Martin Luther that walked away from the castle door on October 31, 1517. The change came through God’s Word, over time. In what follows, this post will examine Luther and his clarification of theology leading up to the Ninety-Five Theses.

     Turning to his friends before entering the Black Cloister, Luther proclaimed, “This day you see me, and then, not ever again.”6 It was July 17, 1505. He was 22 and a student of the law. Two week before, Luther was traveling outside of Stotternheim when a great storm overtook him. Bainton writes, “A bolt of lightning rived the gloom and knocked the man to the ground.”7 Alone in a field, Luther cried out not to God, but to St. Anne, the patroness of miners and the preferred saint of Hans Luther, his father. “St. Anne help me!” pleaded Luther, “I will become a monk.”8

     Friends speculated the cause for sudden change of course in Luther’s life. One friend believed it was rooted in “the melancholy he displayed after the death of two friends.”9 Another acquaintance believed a supernatural spirit had visited Luther.10 Hans, furious that the investment in his future security via his son’s education, said of his son’s decision, “God grant it was not an apparition of the Devil.”11 Years later, Luther told his father that it was out of fear of death and of God’s judgment that forced the monastic vow. He called it a ‘calling by the terrors of heaven.’12


THEOLOGY OF SUPERSTITION

     It is no wonder Luther would fear death and judgment, turning to bargain with St. Anne and the religion of the day—a hybrid of German paganism and Christian mythology.13 As already mentioned above, Luther’s father, an ore worker, regularly turned to the patroness of miners. His mother, Margaretta, although a woman of prayer, believed that pagan spirits “played such minor pranks as stealing eggs, milk, and butter.”14 The “untutored folk” of the German countryside unquestionably held superstitious notions. “For them,” writes Bainton, “the woods and winds and waters were peopled by elves, gnomes, fairies, mermen and mermaids, sprites, and witches. Sinister spirits would release storms, floods, and pestilence, and could seduce mankind to sin and melancholia.”15 Bainton argues that Luther was never fully free of such ideas.16

     The religious fervor of environment and pagan practices also contributed to the superstitious understanding held by Luther upon his entry into the congregation of Augustinian monks. Even from childhood, Luther was taught sacred songs. He “learned by heart” says Bainton, “the Sanctus, the Benedictus, the Angus Dei, and the Confiteor.”17 Luther was taught to sing psalms and hymns, he attended mass, and he took part in processions on holy days. Every town resided in the shadows of tall steeples and spires, churches and cloisters; they lived in the echoing rings of church bells. Priests and monks were everywhere. Religious processions cut through the streets. Priests proclaimed indulgences and superstitious relics of Christian folklore proliferated daily life. People sought cures at shrines.18 “Daily at Mansfeld the sick were stationed beside a convent in the hope of a cure at the tolling of the vesper bell. Luther remembered seeing a devil actually depart from one possessed.”19 Even in light of the Renaissance, Luther’s university had yet been affected by its grip. Luther still learned that storms, earthquakes, and other natural events still might hold to a divine cause.20 Regardless of the degree, all training worked through a religious monocle. According to González, “The theme of salvation and damnation permeated the atmosphere in which [Luther] lived.”21 Bainton contends, “The entire training of home, school, and university was designed to instill fear of God and reverence for the Church,” and this training found tremendous success in the life of Martin Luther.22 So the vow of a young man believing he was a dead man should come at no surprise.


ANFECHTUNG

     In light of Luther’s institutional fear of God, he committed to a rigorous monastic lifestyle in an attempt appease God’s justice. Luther had been known to suffer bouts of depression and melancholy; however, his first year in the monastery brought him peace and happiness.23 He lived a daily routine of prayer and study. Given that he was accepted into the order after the initial one-year probationary period, it can be assumed that he indeed adapted to the monastic lifestyle.24 Eventually, his abilities were recognized and he was granted the opportunity to become a priest.25 But alas, his terror of God’s wrath returned. Of Luther’s first mass, González states, “he was gripped by terror upon thinking that he was holding and offering nothing less than the very body of Christ.”26 The power of the priesthood in this ritual was ultimately the key to the power of the Church over the state, the people, and even the angels. Luther recalled his thoughts after the moment he said, “We offer unto thee, the living, the true, the eternal God,”

     At these words I was utterly stupefied and terror-stricken. I thought to myself, “With what tongue shall I address such Majesty, seeing that all men ought to tremble in the presence of even an earthly prince? Who am I, that I should lift up mine eyes or raise my hands to the divine Majesty? The angels surround him. At his nod, the earth trembles. And shall I, a miserable little pygmy, say ‘I want this, I ask for that?’ For I am dust and ashes and full of sin and I am speaking to the living, eternal and true God.”27

     And so began what might rightly be called Luther’s Anfechtung, a word with no English equivalent. An anfechtung is something of a trial used by God to test a man, or “an assault by the Devil to destroy a man.”28

     Luther found himself in great despair, wrecked by fear. To overcome his Anfechtung, Luther engaged in a works-based salvation attempt of fasting, prayer, withholding comfort and joy, and rigorous contemplation. He would confess often, fearful that he may overlook a sin, maybe even one he was unaware he had committed. Bainton writes, “Whatever good works a man might do to save himself, these Luther was resolved to perform.”29 For Luther, God’s justice seemed too much for him to bear. And the more he toiled, the worse his Anfechtung became. Luther would never be good enough to safely stand before God.

     In the winter of 1510-11, Luther was called upon to represent the Augustinian order in Rome.30 Given so many relics and ritualistic opportunities for grace, Luther was hopeful he would finally feel worthy of God’s Kingdom. Upon entry to the city, he shouted, “Hail, holy Rome!”31 But over the months he was there, Luther witnessed enough to ensure still more trial and mental anguish. His Anfechtung was still well fed. A sign of his doubt is seen in his words at the top of Pilate’s Stairs, which he climbed on his knees, repeating the Pater Nosters on each step before kissing it, all hoping to spring Grandpa Heine from purgatory. Upon the top of the stairs he said, “Who knows whether it is so?”32 For Luther, the Church was losing its claim as a means of grace. About the entire trip, Luther commented “that he had gone to Rome with onions and had returned with garlic.”33 Upon his return to Erfurt, Luther was sent to Wittenberg to teach at a new university. Although he already held a doctorate of Bible, his father confessor felt that the answer to his Anfechtung may be found in deeper, regular study and teaching of the Scriptures.


FROM THE WORD OF GOD

     In the late summer of 1513, Luther began lecturing on the Psalms. During the fall of 1515, Romans became the topic of his lectures. And in 1516-17, it was Galatians. “These studies,” according to Bainton, “proved to be for Luther the Damascus road.”34 It was gradually throughout this period (1513 through 1517), not in some lightning-strike moment as some would like to think, that Luther’s understanding of God’s justice began to incorporate grace and faith. It is here that salvation by faith alone found deep meaning for Luther.

     First, Luther began to understand that Christ too had Anfechtung. Surely as a monk, Luther would have memorized most, if not all of the Psalter. However, his deeper study of the Psalms was Christological, meaning that at every point the text was speaking from the first-person, Luther took this to be Christ’s words. While this hermeneutic might face challenge in the light of other Psalms, it found traction with Luther at the point of the twenty-second Psalm. It is written in verses 1-2, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest” (ESV). Suffering was not what Luther had believed it to be if indeed Christ too could be forsaken. This was the beginning of Luther’s discovery, but in and of itself, it did not offer him much relief.

     More than likely, Luther’s peace was found in 1515 in the book of Romans. Luther’s most challenging struggle came from his understanding of the ‘justice of God.’ But Romans 1:17 reads, “For in the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith’” (ESV). As Luther has told the story, he struggled to resolve the conflict that the gospel could be both the revelation of God and the justice of God. How could the good news of the gospel be of justice? It did not fit within his understanding of God’s justice or his observations of salvation as taught by the Church. González writes, “Luther hated the very phrase ‘the justice of God,’ and spent day and night seeking to understand the relationship between the two parts of that single verse, which, after declaring that in the gospel, ‘the justice of God is revealed,’ affirms that ‘the righteous shall live by faith.’”35

     Luther found his answer when he looked at God’s justice differently. Justice, it seemed to Luther, was no longer seen as the punishment of sinners, as he had always been taught. In fact, justice and righteousness—nearly synonymous terms—are given as a gift from God to those who live by faith, not because they are faithful but because God grants it as he so desires.36 Regarding this breakthrough, Luther said, “I felt that I had been born anew and that the gates of heaven had been opened. The whole of Scripture gained a new meaning. And from that point on the phrase ‘the justice of God’ no longer filled me with hatred, but rather became unspeakably sweet by virtue of a great love.”37


PAINTING THE CORRECT LUTHER

     Most of what is known about Luther’s history comes from Luther and others, written years after the actual events. It is difficult to view Luther’s understanding of God’s justice, grace, and faith before October of 1517 outside of everything following the Ninety-Five Theses on the Wittenberg door. How firm was Luther’s understanding on grace by means outside of the Church. Did he believe that any grace came by way of relics or ritual? How about his position of Sola Fide, that is, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone? In his book, The Facts About Luther, O’Hare attempts to vilify Luther and repeatedly projects the later-Luther into the early events of Luther’s life. 38 While one might find fault with O’Hare’s methods, it is often the case that this too occurs in favorable treatments of Luther. Hollywood has found it entertaining to paint Luther as a reformer from strike of the lighting bolt rather than a young man trying to fit within the norms of the Church but running into struggles. Many authors have committed this error as well. Wilson raises this issue even within Luther himself, writing,
[W]e do have a problem in understanding Luther’s monastic career. His later writings on the religious life are utterly condemnatory and he came to consider his Augustinian years as worse than wasted. ‘In the cloister I lost both the salvation of my soul and the health of my body.’ But such statements were made after he had turned his back on monasticism. His memories were coloured by that rejection and his combative teaching undoubtedly involved exaggeration.39
Therefore, this study will now briefly turn to three early documents in an effort to seek Luther’s understanding of grace and faith prior to his fame: Luther’s earlier ninety-seven theses, the Ninety-Five Theses, and The Leipzig Disputation.

     The Ninety-Seven Theses. Only a couple months before Luther’s famous Ninety-Five Theses, he penned another list of matters for debate called Disputations Against Scholastic Theology. He had hoped they would create a stir but they untimely fell upon deaf ears.40 Reading the ninety-seven statements designed for academic debate among students, one should notice the surfacing of grace. Numbers seven through nine deal with man’s sinful nature and inability to bring himself to salvation outside of God’s grace. Number twenty-five hints at a works verses grace arrangement, reading, “Hope does not grow out of merits, but out of suffering which destroys merits. This in opposition to the opinion of many.”41 The twenty-ninth statement argues that the sole disposition toward grace is the eternal election of God, and number thirty reads, “On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace.”42 It is false notion to think that man can remove the obstacles to grace, this according to number thirty-three, and thirty-four argues that man does not in himself alone contain the ability to have good will. Forty, which might give the greatest insight into Luther’s understanding by 1517 says, “We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds, but having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds.”43 And most compelling is that statements fifty-two through the remainder of the document deal with grace and the law. Noteworthy, eighty-nine states, “Grace as a mediator is necessary to reconcile the law with the will.”44 It is clear from reading Disputations Against Scholastic Theology that Luther’s theology was driving strong roots deep in his life, especially considering that the bulk of his Ninety-Seven Theses deal with grace and God’s justice. What is difficult to ascertain from this work is how Luther feels about faith in Christ alone for salvation.

     The Ninety-Five Theses. Much of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses is targeted at indulgences; however, his thirty-second point states, “Those who believe that, through a letter of pardon, they are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with their teachers.”45 Clearly, Luther is stating that the paper pardon offers no grace, but given what we know of Luther’s position before October 31, 1517, it is a safe assumption that Luther would also condemn many other Church instituted means of grace. Thirty-four argues, “For grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of human appointment.”46 Fifty-two calls the hope of salvation from letters of pardon “vain,” and sixty-eight says that in no way should indulgences be compared to “the grace of God and the piety of the cross.”47 While again, much can be seen of Luther’s idea of grace, at this point, he speaks little if anything about faith alone for salvation.

     The Leipzig Disputation. The Liepzig Disputation is Eck’s account of his debate with Luther in 1519. While little from Eck’s perspective demonstrates Luther’s ideas of grace or Sola Fide, Eck does offer one hint of Luther’s faith in Christ over men or the Church. (It is for this reason that it is included in this analysis.) At one point, Eck reports to the Church that Luther denies that the Church was built upon Peter or any man, instead, according to Eck’s report, “[Luther] would stand alone against a thousand, though supported by no other, because Christ only is the foundation of the Church, for no other foundation can man lay.”48 Clearly, Luther’s faith was in Christ alone.


CONCLUSION

     We cannot know what Luther was thinking while he was nailing his Ninety-Five Theses to the door at Wittenberg, but we can speculate that he was confident in his understanding of grace and faith. Through years of struggle and study of God’s word, Luther found security in not only his salvation, but also in his ability to approach his Creator as a beloved child would his perfectly just and perfectly loving Father.

     There have been volumes written by and about Martin Luther and his theology. Given the massive amounts of material, there is much room for more study on Luther’s understanding of grace and faith before his fame. And it might prove interesting to examine his understanding over the course of the reminder of his lifetime. It is the hope and prayer of this author that more research will be conducted and offered to the Church so that there will be continued growth and understanding through the struggles and discoveries of Martin Luther.


BIBLIOGRAPHY


Bainton, Roland Herbert. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Meridian, 1995.


Bettenson, Henry Scowcroft, and Chris Maunder. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.


González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol I. San Francisco: Harper Row, 1984.


Luther, Martin. Basic Luther. Springfield, Ill: Templegate Publishers, 1994.


Luther, Martin, Timothy F. Lull, and William R. Russell. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress, 2005.


Marty, Martin E. Martin Luther. New York: Viking Penguin, 2004.


Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. Luther: Man between God and the Devil. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.


O’Hare, Patrick F. The Facts About Luther. Rockford, Ill: Tan Books, 1987.


Wilson, Derek A. Out of the Storm The Life and Legacy of Martin Luther. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2007.






1  Roland Herbert Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Meridian, 1995), 15.
2  Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, Vol I (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984).
3 Bainton, 60.
4 Ibid.
5 Heiko A Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 22.
6 Martin E. Marty, Martin Luther (New York: Viking Penguin, 2004), 6-7.
7 Bainton, 15.
8 Ibid.
9 Marty, 7.
10 Ibid.
11 Bainton, 32.
12 Marty, 7.
13 Bainton, 19.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., 20.
18 Bainton, 20.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 González, 16.
22 Bainton, 20.
23 González, 16.
24 Bainton, 27-28.
25 González, 16.
26 Ibid.
27 Bainton, 30.
28 Ibid., 31.
29 Bainton, 34.
30 Ibid., 36.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid., 38.
33 Ibid.
34 Bainton, 46.
35 González, 19.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid., 19-21.
38 Patrick F. O’Hare, The Facts About Luther (Rockford, Ill: Tan Books, 1987).
39 Derek A. Wilson, Out of the Storm The Life and Legacy of Martin Luther (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2007), 45.
40 González, 19.
41 Martin Luther, Timothy F. Lull, and William R. Russell, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings (Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress, 2005), 36.
42 Luther, Lull, and Russell, 36.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid., 38.
45 Martin Luther, Basic Luther (Springfield, Ill: Templegate Publishers, 1994), 12.
46 Luther, 13.
47 Ibid., 15.
48 Henry S. Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 212-213.

 *This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.    

** "Martin Luther" by Lucas Cranach the Elder, painted in 1529, is in the public  domain.

Advancing Toward the Protestant Reformation

     Too often, people assume that the Protestant Reformation started with Martin Luther, when in reality it was a developing movement that started long before Luther hammered his Ninety-Five Theses to the door at Wittenburg.  I'm not going to get into too many details, but here is a very brief overview of the other developments that contributed to the Reformation. 

      Paul wrote to the Galatians that, “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”[1]  What Paul probably did not understand without the advent of the microscope is that the yeast actually grows and reproduces itself as it consumes the sugars in the dough.  Eventually there are no more sugars and the dough is cooked.  The events leading up to the Protestant Reformation were much like a batch of dough full of bad yeast.  The papacy was declining and corruption among the church leadership was rampant.[2]  The Great Schism had split Europe, followed by a new crop of religious leaders more interested in the Renaissance than the gospel.[3]  The church was no longer viewed as the defender of the poor.[4]  And there were wars.

      Working against this bad yeast—but growing in the same fashion—were men and movements who felt the church had lost its way, such as Wycliffe and Huss and their followers.[5]  In addition, education was on the rise and more people were learning Greek, “who could now compare the Greek text of the New Testament with the commonly used Latin Vulgate.”[6]  Erasmus and the humanist reformers were long working to see a reformation of the church.[7]  The feudal system was crumbling, as was the economy of the masses.[8]  Given these conditions, the sugar was nearly consumed and the dough was about to feel the heat of the coming Protestant Reformation.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day, Vol II. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.


     [1] Gal 5:9, NIV.
     [2] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day, Vol II (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 6.
     [3] Ibid, 6.
     [4] Ibid, 9.
     [5] Ibid, 7-8.
     [6] Ibid, 7. 
     [7] Ibid, 10.
     [8] Ibid, 8-9.  
 

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.

Knowing Jesus Through The Old Testament by Christopher J.H. Wright

A Critical Review of
Knowing Jesus Through The Old Testament by Christopher J.H. Wright
 
            Dr. Christopher J. H. Wright is a scholar of Old Testament ethics (Ph. D., Cambridge).  For five years, he taught at Union Biblical Seminary (1983-1988) and served as Principal of All Nations Christian College from 1993-2001.  Presently, he is the director of international ministries with the Langham Partnership International and he, as an ordained Anglican, is on staff at All Souls Church, Langham Place in London, England.  Wright has also authored dozens of books including Knowing God the Father Through the Old Testament (IVP Academic, 2007), Knowing the Holy Spirit Through the Old Testament (IVP Academic, 2006), and the subject of this review, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (IVP Academic, 1992) (InterVarsity Press).  Wright’s central purpose of Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament is to stress the importance of the Old Testament as a valuable key to understanding who Jesus was and how Jesus understood himself.

            According to Wright, the Old Testament offers a rewarding illumination of the Messiah.  “In short,” says Wright, “the deeper you go into understanding the Old Testament, the closer you come to the heart of Jesus” (Wright, ix).  However, Wright is not making the argument that the Old Testament points to Jesus, but rather, that the Old Testament pointed Jesus to who he was to become.  Upfront, we writes,
For these are the words he read. These are the stories he knew. These were the songs he sang. These were the depths of wisdom and revelation and prophecy that shaped his whole view of ‘life, the universe and everything’. This is where he found his insights into the mind of his Father God. Above all, this is where he found the shape of his own identity and the goal of his own mission (Wright, ix).
In order to point to specific Old Testament clues about the character, authority, mission, and purpose of the Messiah, Wright must first build the foundation upon which he will frame his argument.  This foundation consists of an overview of the Old Testament as the first act of a two-act narrative, or more specifically, “salvation history” (Wright, 30-54).  The stories are not simply children’s Bible stories; they are accounts of real events.  One such key event, according to Wright, is the covenant made with Abraham.  Genesis 12:3 is a focal point of Wright’s foundation, suggesting that all the people of the earth will be blessed through Abraham and by extension, the nation of Israel, and by further extension, Jesus (a Jew), who became the Messiah of the Jews, Gentiles, and all peoples of the earth.  From this covenant with Abraham to David, to the exile, to Jesus, Wright suggests that the genealogy of Matthew 1:1-17 is designed to remind the Jewish reader of the historical story of the entire Old Testament and the original covenants with Abraham and David.  Then, standing on Galatians 3:39, which reads, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (ESV), Wright suggests that this Old Testament narrative is the story of all believers, not simply the story of the Israelites.  “One people, one story,” says Wright.  “The fact is, that whether we read Matthew 1:1-17 in our Christmas carol service or not, that story is our story as much as it is the story of Jesus.  For through him, we have come to be, like him, the descendants of Abraham” (Wright, 54).
            From his foundation, Wright moves to the framework of his argument—the fulfillment of promise.  First, using a horse/motorcar analogy, he suggests that as situations change, the details of God’s promise (or covenant) change; however, the original intent of the fulfillment remains the same.  Then, switching analogies, Wright constructs a model of the promise/fulfillment—promise/fresh fulfillment cycle.  In this model, each promise is partially fulfilled and then a new promise gives energy and amplification to both the original promise and the new promise for a future fulfillment, eventually leading to a total fulfillment in Jesus Christ that needs no additional promise.  “Like some science-fiction, time traveling rocket,” states Wright, “the promise is launched, returning to earth at some later point of history in a partial fulfillment, only to be relaunched with a fresh load of fuel and cargo for yet another historical destination, and so on” (Wright, 72).  A significant amount of ink is then spent reinforcing the frame, explaining the significance of the various covenants to not just the Jewish people, but the entire world, building to the final covenant of Christ that would not need a relaunch (Wright, 55-102).

            Once the foundation is firmly set and the frame is standing, Wright hangs his argument.  Leading up to Jesus’ baptism, contends Wright, Jesus was diligently reading the Old Testament and coming to understand his role as the Messiah.  Defending himself from Satan’s temptations in the wilderness, Jesus uses Old Testament scripture.  Sparing with the Phrases, he depends on this scriptural knowledge and understanding.  And most importantly, Jesus the Christ is the fulfilling second act of the story.  He is expanding upon the Old Testament law and bringing greater clarification to the narratives that came before him.  The many similarities of the characters of the Old Testament didn’t foretell of the coming Messiah, suggests Wright, instead they defined him (Wright, 103-252).

            While Wright argues that the narrative started in the Old Testament and completed in the New must be viewed in its entirety in order to grasp who Jesus was (and is), he greatly narrows the scope of the Old Testament.  Understandably, in order to articulate his point and make a case for Christ as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, Wright must keep a narrow focus; however, because of his narrow approach to the covenants of the Old Testament, he glosses over the other elements of each individual covenant and the specific fulfillments of each for a real people of a historical time.  Wright completely ignores the Noahic Covenant, likely because this promise from God has no need for a future fulfillment in Christ.  And by focusing only on the portion of the Abrahamic Covenant that promises that the nation born of Abraham’s line will become a blessing to all people, Wright pays little attention to the promise of land and the fact that this covenant first promises that the line will become a great nation before it will be a blessing to all people.  Wright gives little attention to the Mosaic Covenant other than that it is a refueling and relaunching pad on the course for the bigger promise.  “Launched from Mount Sinai,” says Wright of the covenant renewal, “the people of promise head for its next stage of fulfillment – the gift of land” (Wright, 73).  The series of “next stages” provides a troubling idea that these promises were merely all one promise, with the details changing as the situation changed.  At the Davidic Covenant launching pad, Wright zeros in on 2 Samuel 7:16, which says, “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.  Your throne shall be established forever” (ESV).  But this focus pushes aside the portion of the covenant that promises blessings for obedience and punishment for disobedience.  The foundation built by Wright provides strong support of the final completion of portions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants; yet, the same foundation, which glosses over some of the specific details and fulfillments of the Old Testament covenants weakens his argument that the Old Testament is a book of real people and events that Christians should be reading and understanding.  Indeed, his strong ties that draw today’s believers to the Old Testament narrative, also serve to diminish the importance of the Old Testament Israelite people.  While, this reviewer is somewhat critical of Wright’s foundation, I do believe Wright paints a nice picture of the ultimate fulfillment of portions of the covenants.  In addition, Wright’s approach being neither from a fully dispensational theology or fully covenant theology does provide a fresh perspective from which to view the progression of the promises.

            There is little biblical evidence that disputes Wright’s claim that the Old Testament scriptures and songs not only shaped Jesus character, but also helped him understand who he was.  In fact, the Luke 2 story of Jesus as a boy in the temple lends more support to his argument, specifically verse 52: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (ESV).  If Jesus is increasing in knowledge, it only makes sense that some, if not all of this knowledge would be in the scriptures.  Wright spend considerable time expanding on Jesus’ use of scripture—in thwarting off Satan’s tempting efforts, in explaining who he is, in teaching, and in expanding and simplifying the law.  However, Wright’s argument allows for the challenge that Jesus may have merely studied the scriptures and fit the pieces together in order that he may become the Messiah and fulfill the prophecy.  (Although this challenge would struggle to stand against the various miracles, healings, signs, and resurrection of Christ.)  In addition, this challenge could assert that the writers of the New Testament crafted Jesus’ life to fulfill the Old Testament covenants.  Although clearly not his intention to suggest the authors inappropriately drew connections, Wright himself suggests that the New Testament authors contrasted what they witnessed to what they knew before recording the Gospels.  Wright states,
So, when the writers of the New Testament witnessed God’s climactic discharge of that commitment to humanity in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, they checked what they had experienced with what they already knew through their Hebrew scriptures. They looked at all the events surrounding Jesus, and they understood them, illuminated them, explained and finally recorded them, all in the light of the whole sweep of Old Testament promise (Wright, 102).
In addition to paving an avenue for critical attack, Wright’s efforts to demonstrate that Jesus was a real man, specifically a Jewish rabbi, in a real time, flirts dangerously close to stripping the deity from Jesus and leaving him an ordinary man.  For example, Wright states,
...it was the Old Testament which helped Jesus to understand Jesus.  Who did he think he was?  What did he think he was to do?  The answers came from his Bible, the Hebrew scriptures in which he found a rich tapestry of figures, historical persons, prophetic pictures and symbols of worship.  And in this tapestry, where others saw only a fragmented collection of various figures and hopes, Jesus saw his own face.  His Hebrew Bible provided the shape of his own identity (Wright, 108).
And only a page later, Wright says, “Here we have an adult man, at one level indistinguishable among the crowds of those who flocked to John for baptism and in any case otherwise unknown except as a carpenter’s son from Nazareth, who takes upon himself a staggering identity with awesome personal consequences” (Wright, 109, emphasis added).  From other passages, it would seem that Wright does indeed believe Jesus is the Son of God, yet some of his wording, intentional or unintentional, suggests Christ was more ordinary man than God. 

However, Wright’s effort to show the importance of the Old Testament provides an outstanding demonstration of Jesus’ knowledge and use of scripture.  Academic discussion may center on whether or not the Old Testament scriptures shaped Jesus’ self-awareness; but in the practical arena of ministry, it is clear that Jesus knew and used the scriptures.  Jesus himself points to Deuteronomy 8:3, which states, “And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD(ESV, emphasis added).  Pastors and teachers should be in agreement with Wright regarding Jesus’ example, and therefore teach that Christians should learn from Christ’s example and feast on the Word of God. 

            Of the few reviews of Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament this reviewer found (none of which are academic, but rather commercial in nature), most, if not all were in complete agreement with Wright; although a couple including one by Brian Tubbs (2007) focus on Wright’s meandering through his argument, “taking longer than necessary to make some of [his] points” (suite101.com).  This reviewer agrees.  Additionally, most articles regarding Jesus and Old Testament scripture argue something similar to the typology that Wright argues against (Wright, 114-116).  If they are not arguing a typology, they remain focused on the same prophecies that Wright argues Jesus used to shape who he was.  Michael Rydelnik’s “What Does the Hebrew Bible Say About the Coming Messiah?” serves as a good representation of all of these kinds of articles with one exception—like Wright, Rydelnik points to the Hebrew bible in its entirety rather than simply as specific scriptures treated as stand-alone narratives (Rydelnik 2007, 1351-1352).  


             In conclusion, this reviewer found Wright’s purpose—“the deeper you go into understanding the Old Testament, the closer you come to the heart of Jesus” (Wright, ix)—compelling.  His intent is encouraging.  However, the foundation and framework of his argument are built on a narrow focus, which leads to a challenging premise of the progression of Old Testament covenants from the Lord.  In addition, Wright’s detailed work demonstrating Jesus’ use and knowledge of the scriptures is outstanding; however, I struggle to fully agree with Wright because his argument all but suggests that the Old Testament didn’t foretell the coming of the Messiah, but instead shaped the very character of Jesus as the Messiah.  
           
Reference List
InterVarsity Press. “Christopher J. H. Wright.” http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=343 (accessed February 21, 2009).


Rydelnik, Michael. 2007. “What Does the Hebrew Bible Say About the Coming Messiah?” In The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith Ed. Ted Cabal, 1351-1352. Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Bible Publishers.


Tubbs, Brian. Suite101.com “Jesus and the Old Testament A Review of Christopher J.H. Wright's Book on Jesus in the OT” 2007. http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/jesus_and_the_old_testament (accessed February 20, 2009).

Wright, Christopher J. H. 1992. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.  



*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 


Adoption

February 9, 2010

Going before a judge today to finalize the adoption of my son has me thinking a great deal about adoption.  This is second time I've faced a judge and expressed my love for a child that's not the biological product of Lisa and I. Both of my children are adopted and words can't express the depth of my love for them.

It's strange how our society treats adoption.  "Will you," asked the attorney before the watchful eyes of the judge, "love and care for this child in every way the same as you would if he were your natural, biological son?"  The flawed assumption of the question is that shared DNA somehow equals a level of love that adoptive families should strive to attain.  Before my youngest was born, people would ask me the big "what if" questions.  "What if the mom did drugs?" "What if the baby has a hereditary disease?" "What if. . ."  Really, these questions are founded in the incorrect assumption that a non-adopted baby is born perfect, free of "problems" or "complications."  And my favorite question (although I admit I myself have wrongly worried about this question) is: "What if the birth mother wants her baby back?"  Flawed question!  Do parents ever have to deal with losing their biologically born children to things like divorce or kidnapping or death?  And taken away from who?  Do we own our children?  Are only adopted children on loan, or are all children? I like to think that God has put children--adopted or not--in our care only for a time.  Psalm 127:3 says "children are a heritage from the Lord" but Genesis 2:24 says that "man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife," that is, the child, a gift of God, will grow up and become a family of his own.  It's only for a time; sometimes only a very short time.

The Israelite law of the biblical Old Testament made no legal provision for adoption.  There were provisions for orphans; and in situations of infertility, there was polygamy and the use of slave concubines. However, examples of adoption are found in the Bible.  While Abram was still childless, he had it in mind that Eliezer of Damascus would be is heir. (Genesis 15:1-4)  In that time, the heir was to be the first born son and would receive all that the father had.  But in the case of Abram, a non-biologically born person was chosen (although God had another plan for Abram).  And of course there's Moses.  At a time when the male Israelite slave babies were killed at birth by the Egyptians, a mother desired to save her baby.  This Levite woman placed her baby boy in a basket and floated him down the Nile river, sending the baby's big sister to watch from the bank to see what might happen.  Pharaoh's daughter found the baby and took him in as her own. (Exodus 2:1-10) And even Esther was raised by her uncle Mordecai, who, the book of Esther tells us, "had taken her as his own daughter." (Esther 2:7, 15)


Jesus was adopted by Joseph (and Mary, depending on your theology).  Jesus, the Son of God, was conceived in Mary's womb apart from any sexual encounter or inheritance of any sin nature; instead by way of the Holy Spirit coming upon her (Luke 1:35).  Like most ordinary men would, when Joseph learned Mary was pregnant he had in mind to divorce her, that is, until an angel appeared to him and explained the situation.  (Matthew 1:19-20)  But we can read in Luke 2:33 that Joseph was called Jesus' father.  However, only a few verses later (48), Mary asks the boy Jesus, "Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress" and Jesus seems to correct her statement. Clearly there's an interesting earthly verses spiritual adoption dynamic here because Jesus points out that he is in his father's house, meaning in the house of God, claiming that he was the Son of God.  And yet, when Jesus, now a grown man, came back to his home town and proclaimed he was the Messiah, the community asked, "Is not this Joseph's son?" (Luke 4:22)  So while we can't know if Joseph loved Jesus like the biologically born children he and Mary had together, we do see that he took on the earthly role of father.  It seems Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son, loving him in the same way a father today would love his adopted son.           

Often when we think about adoption, we overlook the birth mother.  Think about Moses' mother.  She could have tried to hide the baby, and if she succeeded she would have been able to remain close to her son.  What did she have to lose? If she gave the baby up, he would die; if she tried to hide the baby but failed, he would die.  But she chose a better option for the baby.  And in another situation, recorded in 1 Kings 3:16-28, two prostitutes come before King Solomon.  One had rolled over on her baby, killing it, so she kidnapped the child of the other woman and claimed it as her own.  When both women made claim to the baby, Solomon suggested cutting the baby in half so each woman could have equal portions of the child.  But when the mother of the child heard this, she pleaded with Solomon to let the other woman have the baby.  She pleaded to let the other woman "adopt" the child.  On the other hand, the second woman was content to see the baby cut.  And it was in this great love for her child--so great that she would give the baby up so the baby would live--that Solomon saw the rightful mother.  When a birth mother gives up her child, she should be honored for making a selfless sacrifice, as well has having love for her child and concern for the baby's future.  Lisa and I are extremely thankful for both of our boy's birth mothers.  What a great thing they did for us and for their babies!

But there is something else that should shape our thinking about adoption.  In Galatians, Paul writes, "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.  And because you are sons, God as sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba!" Father!" So  you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God" (Galatians 4:4-7).  We are God's creation, but through faith in Christ Jesus, God's Son, we become children of God through adoption, able to see God not as some far away being, but as our "Daddy!" And for those who believe, trust, and submit to King Jesus, the Son of God, we become heirs of the Kingdom and receive eternal life.