Where is John 5:4?

Question: Why is John 5:4 not there except for the italics down the bottom?

Answer:
The answer to this question lies in how the New Testament is put together. There are many manuscripts that make up the New Testament as we know it. Lots of manuscripts agree with each other over the overall content of the New Testament which SHOUTS to its reliability as a document.

However there are some minor discrepencies between manuscripts and here in John 5:4 is one of them. Hence the note at the bottom of the NIV, b3.

Some less important manuscripts .... and then they add in v4 the piece of text from those other manuscripts.

In each case you have to weigh up with it should be included in the narrative or not by looking at whether it fits into the the book (internal evidence) and then whether it matches up with other manuscripts (external evidence) e.g. is it the only manuscript with this rendering. The NIV sometimes puts it at the bottom but most of the time it is totally unseen in the English translations.

I've got the joy joy joy down in my heart! Where? Down in my heart!

Question: What does it look like for God to be the object of our joy? Is it wrong to get joy from the things that God has blessed us with (material, positions, friends, so forth)?

(I have just got the Flanders kids singing the above title in my head - now it's in yours!)


For those reading who did not hear what I was talking about on Sunday I said two things about joy.


1. God is the object of our joy


2. God is the giver of our joy

These questions get down to the 'nitty-gritty' of God as the object of our joy. Maybe to rephrase the statement will help: Does knowing God personally bring you joy?

God does indeed give us many good things in this life and in the here and now. But even in the best of times with those things there joy is only momentary. Even in friendships or a marriage relationship - if the place where I always and only look to joy from is in them, then when their sinfulness inevitably shines through that joy is halted. So, it is not wrong to be thankful for them and yes some of them may bring joy, the Scriptures at various points warns against making any of them into idols.

Realising this then helps us to see how God is the object of our joy. I think (which means I haven't done the work to really justify this) but joy and satisfaction are linked together. Think about a time when you hung out with good friends and ate a wonderful meal - you were satisfied. You have that feeling inside that 'all is good'. You know you are well fed and you know that you have good friends this satisfaction consequently leads to joy. One follows the other so to speak.

The same is with God, if we are satisfied with where God has placed us in this life (and I guess flowing from this is a complete and real trust in his sovereignty) and with what he has given us will lead to joy. God has given us something worth rejoicing over - his Son. Let's examine Scripture to see how this is overwhelmingly true:

Luke 1:14 when the angel speaks to Zechariah about Jesus' birth

He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his
birth

Luke 1:44

As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb
leaped for joy

Luke 2:10

Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all
the people. Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is
Christ the Lord

John 3:29

The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom
waits for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegrooms voice. That joy
is mine, and it is now complete.

Luke 10:17, 20

The seventy two returned with joy and said, 'Lord, even the demons submit
to us in your name....(v20) Jesus replied, 'However, do not rejoice that the
spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.'

This is a key verse in seeing that joy flows from our redeemed nature. Luke 15 shows this with 'rejoicing in heaven over repentant sinners'


Joy flows out of being 'in Christ'. Maybe this doesn't always seem the case because we often forget (me included) what a remarkable thing it is to be a Christian. To remember again what are sinful state means for us and how great and wonderful an act of God it was in sending Jesus to be the 'saviour of the world' (John 4:42)


Even as you look at the book of Acts and the early church you see that joy is found in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Acts 2:26 (quoting Psalm 16)

Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live
in hope

Interestingly David's joy in the Psalm is ultimately grounded in Jesus Christ.

Paul shows us that joy is not static but a daily practice - Phil 3:1, 4:4

Rejoice in the Lord always, I will say it again: Rejoice!

Peter says something similar - 1 Pet 1:8

Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see
him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious
joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your
souls

Over and over again we see that our joy is because of the great acts of salvation in Jesus Christ.

John Calvin says,

Joy is a quiet gladness of heart as one contemplates the goodness of God's
saving grace in Christ Jesus

So, what practical advice can I give you to discover this joy - it must be to discover Jesus Christ, not just once but again and again, every single day, always.

Next post: we will see how joy is also future looking as we answer the question - what does it mean to rejoice through thick and thin?

A religious experience

The Question:

When Dave talked about a religious experience, I was just wondering what he meant by that?

Let's put it into context, I was talking about what being born again is not and so as part of my talk I said 'being born again is not having a religious experience'.

Many churches around the world and indeed in our own backyard can produce a gathering that only aims to produce a particular experience or feel that would make someone believe they are born again just by being part of that experience. There are some groups that operate whereby they take away your watch, keep you up late and have emotionally, intense and draining preaching just to produce in you a particular experience.

But my question is what is the substance of being born again? As I said on Sunday it is a radical transformation from the inside out (or you could say that it is change in attitude to Jesus as LORD). It is God working to produce in us a new identity, a whole new person. 2 Corinthians 5:17

If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has
come!

How does this come about?

The experience that is worth seeking out is an experience of the Word of God. It is only through this 'experience' that someone can be transformed, not by music, not by raising hands, not by any other means but by the Word of God. Pushing further we see that this is the work of the Spirit, which is what Jesus goes onto say in John 3 anyway:

Spirit gives birth to Spirit

New birth (regeneration, being born again whatever you want to call it) is wholeheartedly connected to the work of the Spirit. But how does the Spirit work? Scripture seems to clearly tell us that the Spirit and the Word are intimately connected (in fact I would say that you cannot and should not cut them off from each other!). Take for example Ephesians 6:17

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word
of God

To divorce these two has the potential to land us in danger of misunderstanding the Spirit and the Word. Hopefully this clarifies to a certain degree what I meant by 'being born again is not a religious experience'. It is an experience but not in the sense most people would say it is

Born Again: Water and Spirit

The Question:
What does the 'water' in John 3:5 refer to? Is it human birth?

Great question!
Firstly we can see that John has repeated this phrase from v3

I tell you the truth that no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is
born again

And v5

I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of
water and the Spirit.

There are a raft of interpretations put forward by various people but only two seem main contenders:
1. The water can refer to human birth (as in the question) then it becomes a reference to the amniotic fluid that happens at childbirth. So, consequently there are two births, one natural and the other supernatural. However, this connection is not supported by any other places in Scripture to make it a viable option. Due to the close connection between v3 & 5 the water and Spirit need to be taken as a reference to the 'born again' (or as the footnote in the NIV says 'from above')
2. Water may refer to Christian baptism. A lot of commentaries go down this line and understandably because of the various references to baptism that surround this passage. However if the water = baptism and therefore a necessary role in entering the kingdom of God it is surprising that it is never mentioned again. But that is not to completely right this off altogether, there may be some allusion to baptism.

Having seen that neither of these two options are completely satisfying the third option seems to be the go
3. We have to take seriously the parallel with v3 'from above'. There seems to be a unity in how the words are put together that show that water and spirit are talking about the origin of regeneration (that is being born again). And Nicodemus is in trouble as Israel's teacher for not getting it, so the answer must lie somewhere in the Old Testament.
The Spirit in the Old Testament is God's principle of life and there will be a time when it is poured out upon all. It is a source of righteousness. Water is used figuratively to refer to renewal or cleansing. The two ideas come together in Ezekiel 36:25-27

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse
you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new
heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone
and give you a heart of flesh. And I will pour my Spirit in you and move you to
follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws

This seems to depict individual and corporate regeneration (born again) was an idea presented strongly in the Old Testament. Regeneration that was of water and of the spirit. That is cleansed pure by the metaphoric washing of water and by the very real presence of the Holy Spirit (although not until Jesus returns to the Father read John 14-16 to see this).

The Word

Question: I still find the concept of 'the Word' confusing!

John 1:1-18 introduces the reader to 'The Word'. Why would John use such a concept to describe Jesus?

There are a number of reasons put out there as to why:
1. It could be capturing some thoughts of that current day. Some people, called the Stoics, understood the word to be the rational principle by which everything else exists. That is everything that was on this earth was the seed of the Word.
2. Another group of the day were those who believed in Gnosticism although this is less likely
3. Some think John was leaning on a guy called Philo who made a distinction between the world we can see and the ideal world. The world we can see is a copy of this ideal world. And the word was the ideal man from which all other human beings are derived from.
4. However none of these seem to be the forefront of John's mind, the place to begin is the Old Testament. It is there we see God's word connected with

• The powerful activity in creation
• Revelation of himself
• Deliverance
• Judgment
• Healing
• Rescuing from the grave
• The Word is personified in Proverbs (see 8:22ff)

To quote Don Carson from his commentary on John

In short, God's 'Word' in the Old Testament is his powerful self-expression
in creation, revelation and salvation, and the personification of that 'Word'
makes it suitable for John to apply it as a title to God's ultimate
self-disclosure, the person of his own Son.

And again,

The term had a semantic range so broad that they could shape the term by
their own usage to make it convey, in the context of their own work, what they
knew to be true of Jesus Christ.

So, it seems that John takes a term commonly used in his era and uses it convey something of the majesty and glory of the revelation of the Father in his Son, Jesus Christ.

Cumberland Unichurch

During my years at Moore College I helped begin a church for university students at Cumberland College in Lidcombe called Cumberland UniChurch. My old pal Izaac is blogging about some of the history so I thought I would give it a plug
http://izaacta.blogspot.com/

Enjoy the read.

A heavenly & earthly distinction

The question:

What is the difference between heavenly unity and earthly unity?

The question stems from my talk on 'The Wider Body'.

This is best answered by seeing firstly what is this heavenly unity and secondly what is the earthly unity before turning to specifics.

Heavenly unity

The Bible describes Christians as people who are already gathered in heaven.

For example, Colossians 1:18

And he is the head of the body, the church

Ephesians 1:22

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over
everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills
everything in every way

It seems that when someone becomes a Christian they become part of the ever increasing body of Christ. They become part of that great multitude that no one can count on the last day; part of the group of the group gathered around the throne of God and 'the Lamb' giving them eternal praise, glory and honour.

This is what awaits us but there is also a sense in which this heavenly reality has begun.

Earthly unity

The Bible also describes Christians who gather in the here and now.

For example, 1 Thessalonians 1:1

Paul, Silas and Timothy. To the church of the Thessalonians in God the
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

This letter is addressed to those Christians who gather in the town of Thessalonica

See also 2 Thessalonians 1:4

Therefore among God's churches we boast about your perseverance and faith
in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring.

And Galatians 1:2

To the churches in Galatia

Whereas above there was only one church to belong to here it seems that there are lots of churches that exist.

It seems clear then that our gatherings have a heavenly and a future dimension to them. Perhaps it is best to suggest that the local churches are a manifestation of the heavenly assembly gathered around God and Christ. As one writer has said,

Men and women are called into membership of this one church of Christ, the
heavenly assembly, through the preaching of the gospel. Because of one's
membership of the heavenly assembly gathered around Christ, Christians ought to
assemble in local gatherings here on earth. Apparently this responsibility was
not immediately obvious to some of the early Christians since they still needed
to be exhorted not to forsake 'the assembling of themselves together' (Hebrews
10:25)

So, what is the difference between heavenly and earthly unity?

Well, we are already unified in Christ and our local and earthly meetings should strive to show people the unity we have in heaven. The challenge that stems from this is to look at our own churches that meet under the Norwest umbrella and ask ourselves whether unity is being pursued amongst them. It also means that there is a primacy for people to know each other in our specific church rather than complaining about not being connected to other people from other churches.

John

On Sunday night we began a new series on the book of John. One of the things I said but didn't justify was the centre of the prologue (John 1:1-18) is v12:

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the
right to become the children of God

Why is this the centre?
My answer is based around the structure of John 1:1-18. Many greater minds than mine (and that includes most!) see a chiastic structure to these verses. A chiasm is a literary device used to highlight a centre point of a piece of writing. For example, as my friend Tibbsy showed me, Hickory Dickory Dock is a chiasm.

1. Hickory Dickory Dock
2. The mouse ran up the clock
3. The clock struck one
2. The mouse ran down
1. Hickory Dickory Dock

The centre of this nursery rhyme is 'the clock struck one'. This same structure is seen in the opening 18 verses of John.

v1-2 (God coming into the world)
v3 (Through Jesus comes - creation)
v4-5 (Divine blessings)
v6-8 (John the Baptist)
v9-10 (God becoming a man)
v11 (Not about being a Jew)
v12 (Children of God)
v13 (Not about being a Jew)
v14 (God becoming a man)
v15 (John the Baptist)
v16 (Divine blessings)
v17 (Through Jesus comes - grace & truth)
v18 (God coming into the world)

So there you have it? This is the reason I chose to focus in on v12.

And it is a far cry from how he describes us later in 8:42ff (he is talking to the Jews but it applies to us as well):

If God were your Father, you would love me, for I cam from God and now am
here. I have not come on my own, he sent me. Why is my language not clear to
you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the
devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desire. He was a murderer from the
beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies,
he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

What a privilege it is to be changed from a child of the devil to a child of God:

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be
called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not
know us is that it did not know him
(1 John 3:1-2)

Denominations

Today I preached on the 'Wider Body' in our series on church. We looked at Eph 4:1-6 to see that we have a deep unity with other Christian believers all around the world. One of the implications was what to do with denominations? I skipped over this and said pretty much nothing, so as per Craig's request - here are some thoughts. (I was helpfully served by 3 Briefing articles by John Woodhouse on this topic)

So here goes....................
What was missing from the above list in Eph 4:1-6? It says nothing about denominations. So what does that mean for denominations?

Aren’t we united by the fact we are all Anglicans?
The answer is a yes and no!

Firstly, a denomination can promote unity
A denomination is an association of some churches and does not include all churches.

Unity can be promoted by allowing a certain freedom of conscience in relation to matters that do not go against the unity of the Spirit. So things like:

• What we think of the saving work of Jesus and his resurrection


• Who we think God is and how he reveals himself to us

These things are matters of the utmost seriousness to us. We could not in good conscience have fellowship with people who denied these core things and there are churches around here that deny some of the central truths.

But those who did hold fast to the gospel core truths we would have freedom to allow them to express it their own way. And so we would have fellow believers who don’t believe in infant baptism but yet we are still united with them.

Unity can also be promoted through cooperation especially in the pooling of resources for a common task. Places that provide a link for fellowship between churches feed this cooperative spirit. I think of organisations like Anglicare or CMS.

Secondly, denominations can hinder unity
Denominations do not tell us who has been called to part of the body. To belong to the church does not equal belonging to your local Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian or Uniting church.
None of these are 'the' church. Denominations can bring dangerous false assurance. Belonging to the body is about faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Unity is also denied in Anglicanism when people love being Anglican more than they love God’s church. So much so they hang on to Anglicanism when there may be reason to break from it. Thankfully we are not in this situation in Sydney but for other people in the world it is a live issue.

There is heaps more to be said and as I am just about to head off on 3 weeks holidays I have rushed over stuff. I will blog in more depth about some of these things when I get back if there is interest, but if you want to keep reading then go to those articles mentioned above.

Big Questions

We are having three weeks in August answering some of the 'Big Questions' people ask about Christianity.

If one of these have ever been one of your questions why not come along and listen.

For those in the business of praying I would appreciate your prayers over the three weeks.

(I am speaking on the 16th & 23rd and Luke Thomson our Youth Minister is speaking on the 30th)

A 'fitting' for the bride of Christ

The Question: Dave & Chris, from the passage tonight, in verse 40, what does it mean by everything should be done in a fitting/decent way?

This question stems from our series called 'Lets get spiritual' from 1 Cor 12-14 and in particular ch 14. (You can listen to the talks here)

Paul has been speaking since v26 about what happens when the 'bride of Christ' gathers. And Paul is saying that there is an order in the gathering.

The structure of the passage is as follows:

1. Each person has something to bring - but for it to be spoken it must be edifying for all people

2. But then he goes on to tell various groups to be silent for the sake of order

Tongue speakers: only 2 or 3 if no interpreter then they are to be silent

Prophets: only 2 or 3 if a revelation comes to another then the first is to be silent

Women: While the prophesy is being weighed they are to remain silent

The two key verses in this section are v33

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace

And v40

But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way

God's nature is always to have order. Ever since he created the world his ordered nature has been on show. He has made creation in a certain way to work a certain way and this includes relationships between men and women.

The question is about fitting and orderly. Are these two words the same?

The word fitting is about doing things in a decent way; behaving in a way that depicts our respect for each other.

The word order is what helps us to achieve our proper behaviour.

So, the two words are very similar with only a small difference between them.

To sum up: 1 Corinthians 14 is all about what is 'fitting' for the bride of Christ when we gather together.

God's dwelling in our dwelling

The Question: Jesus' name means God saves. It says this in Matthew 1. It also says at the end of Matthew 1 that he shall be called Immanuel which means God with us. Please explain.

One of the great truths of heaven is stated in Revelation 21:3

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Now the dwelling of God
is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God
himself will be with them and be their God.

In fact this has been God's promise ever since the beginning of creation ultimately finding its fulfilment in Jesus. Let's look at this truth and hopefully it will unpack and answer the above question.

In Genesis 1 & 2 we are given a great picture of God being with his people. However all goes 'belly up' in Genesis 3 when Adam & Eve disobey God's good word to them. They are then punished for their rebellion by being cast out from the Garden. God no longer dwells with his people.

The story from here on in is about reversing the effects of sin and therefore restoring the dwelling of God with man.

This theme is picked up again strongly in Exodus where Moses is told to build a tabernacle or temple. Interestingly the word tabernacle means 'dwelling place'. It is where God dwells with his people.

As the story of Israel progresses the tabernacle becomes permanently located by means of a temple in Jerusalem. But in Ezekiel 10 we see something disturbing - 'then the glory of the LORD departed from over the threshold of the temple and stopped over the cherubim' (v18). God's glory departs from the temple. Historically this is seen when the Babylonians come in and destroy, ransack and pillage the temple.

The exile is a terrible punishment upon God's people for their continued rebellion to his good word. God once again does not dwell with his people.

But God's promise to once again dwell with his people is seen in the prophets that are around post the exile. Take for example Haggai, this is what he says in chapter 2: 6-9

This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'In a little while I will once more
shake the heavens and earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all nations,
and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with
glory', says the LORD Almighty. 'The glory of this present house will
be greater than the glory of the former house,' says the LORD Almighty.
'And in this place I will grant peace,' declares the LORD Almighty.

Haggai says that this new temple will be of greater glory than the former and a place of peace. But he is not talking about mere bricks and mortar.

Fast forward a couple of hundred years - a bloke walks into the temple courts in Jerusalem. He upturns tables, scatters stuff everywhere and then says:

Get these out of here! How dare you turn by Father's house into a market!
His disciples remembered that it is written: 'Zeal for your house will consume
me'. Then the Jews demanded of him, 'What miraculous sign can you show us to
probe your authority to do all this?' Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple,
and I will raise it again in three days.' The Jews replied, 'It has taken 46
years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?' But
the temple he had spoken of was his body. (Jn 2:16-21)

Jesus becomes this new and greater temple promised long ago. He becomes God dwelling with us and among us. And so when you look at Matthew 1 and Jesus is called Immanuel (God with us) he is picking up upon promises made many years before and is saying they find fulfilment in me.

How does God see you?

The Question: What is a reference for God seeing us 'through' Christ vis - 2 Sam 22:@5? i.e. Christ's righteousness as ours.

On the surface this seems like an easy question but it is also one that has been and will continue to be embroiled in controversy over the years. The reason for this is because the question is one that touches on one of the cornerstone statements of faith, namely 'justification by faith' (JBF).

Let's briefly examine why this is such a central aspect to Christianity. The cross is the central point, the pivotal saving point; JBF is also at this point. To distort JBF is to distort salvation and
faith is the instrument of salvation.
a) Faith in Jesus Christ alone as presented in the gospels therefore we preach Christ in a JBF kind of way because there is no other way
b) Faith arises from the Holy Spirit in rebirth and so is evidence of regeneration, but not merely evidence, it is the means and instrument which we we grasp Christ and his benefits
c) Its effective in Jesus in dealing with sin on the cross, our righteous actions can’t acquit us. He totally bore sin and justifies the ungodly
d) Faith is ‘reckoned’ for righteousness (account something). Faith in Jesus Christ that is counted as righteous. Whose righteousness is it? God’s given by JC
e) Faith alone makes Jesus Christ Lord, but this makes faith never alone
f) Only faith makes Jesus Christ Lord, this is truly exalting Jesus
g) Faith alone gives us access to God (Ro 5:1-11): constitutes the ongoing basis of access to God.

Having seen the importance and centrality of justification by faith let's turn to the Scripture. There are many references that answer the initial question:

Rom 3:22

The righteousness of God through faith in/of Jesus Christ for all who believe

Rom 6

The whole idea of being united to Christ

I cannot stress just how important the idea of union with Christ is. Martin Luther in his famous treatise "On the freedom of a Christian" was expounding on what it means for us to be united with such a wonderful bride in Jesus. Listen and rejoice in Luther's words:

It is impossible now that her sins should destroy her, since they have been laid
upon Christ and swallowed up in Him, and since she has in her Husband Christ a
righteousness which she may claim as her own, and which she can set up with
confidence against all her sins, against death and hell

Union with Christ gives the Christian great assurance. Being united with Christ gives victory over sin and death. As Luther goes on to say;

Our sins are unable to destroy us, Christ the righteous husband, takes on
the needy and impious harlot and gives her all his good things

Those who belong to Christ have died with him to sin and death, and now live to God and to righteousness.

Rom 13:14

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Gal 3:27

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

It seems clear to me that when God sees us his perspective is that we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. And as a result of this he declares us to be righteous.

Is this how God sees you - if not, probably time to do something about it? Time to get some God given faith!!

Do we really love sin?

The Question:

"We love sin" - isn't it also just put down to the fact that we are sinful beings? I think we sometimes do it unwillingly just because we are sinful, rather than loving it...

I think both sides of the coin on this one are true, what do I mean? John Stott has some very helpful words to say from his commentary on Ephesians, he is commentating on 2:1 'And you he made alive, when you were dead through trespasses and sins in which you once walked'.

The death to which Paul refers is not a figure of speech, as in the parable of the Prodigal Son, 'This my son was dead'; it is a factual statement of everybody's spiritual condition outside Christ. And it is traced to their trespasses and sins. These two words seem to have been carefully chosen to give a comprehensive account of human evil. A 'trespass' is a false step, involving either crossing a know boundary or a deviation from the right path. A 'sin', however, means rather a missing of the mark, a falling short of a standard. Together the two words cover the positive and negative, or active and passive, aspects of human wrongdoing, that is to say, our sins of commision and of omission. Before God we are both rebels and failures (p71).

I only presented half the picture of sin, the half that crosses the known boundary. This type of sin is what I was talking about when I said, 'we love sin'. And I will stand by my words of us loving this type of sin in some way. If we really truly hated it we wouldn't do it, just like if you really truly hate brussell sprouts you don't eat them. It is what Ephesians 2:3 talks about when it says 'Gratifying the desires of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts'. Sometimes it is hard to look in the mirror and see ourselves for who we are as sinners and deserving of God's wrath. But don't forget the great BUT of v4-6!

But, there is the other side as Stott points out the one of being a failure which is more our falling short of God's standards, and this is the more passive aspect of our sin.

Both aspects of sin need to be held together to get a complete picture of our humanity.

Cracking the whip??

The Question: 2 Sam 7:14 'I will be his father , and he will be my son. When he (Jesus?) does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men'. 2 Samuel 7 is talking about Jesus isn't it - so when did Jesus sin?

2 Samuel 7 is definitely one of the great passages of Scripture. It talks of great and extravagant promises that are made to David. They particularly focus around building a house and the arrival of a son. These promises are initially founded in the surrounding chapters of 2 Samuel. Who will be this 'Son of David' who will fulfill the promises? The narrative from 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 King 1-2 is often called the succession narrative which is the search in some ways for this promised son. And we see God fulfilling his promise as he punishes the sons of David for the wrongdoing. You just have to look at Amnon and Absalom to see that this is true. When Solomon comes to the throne in 1 Kings the question is - could he be the promised one? But alas he fails us and is punished by God. This question remains until the arrival of Jesus.

Jesus does NOT sin. And so, on the one hand, he is unlike any of the other 'sons of David' and is not punished like them for God had no reason. But on the other hand he is punished by God even though he did no wrong, he did get punished by floggings and even death. For Isaiah says,

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and thought the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

(53:10)

Jesus was inflicted with punishment he did not deserve to pay the penalty for the sin of you and me.

Amazing Love

The Question: Why did Jesus descend/experience hell when he did nothing wrong?

Firstly, we must understand sin. Sin is our rebellion against God. It manifests itself in every one of our lives in so many different ways - pride, lust, envy, theft, etc. God must be just in this situation and therefore every sin must be dealt with. The punishment set for sin is death.

So, why does he care? Why doesn't he leave us in our sinful state?

This question drives at motivation.

The answer that the New Testament drives at over and over again is love. And it is a love for his creation that springs forth from Gen 1 & 2. We belong to God. He is grieved, angry in fact, over our rebellion and loves drives him to do something about it.

Rom 5:8
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Eph 2:4-6
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ- by grace you have been saved- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

1 Tim 1:14
and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

Titus 3:4
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,

1 Jn 3:16

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.

And the list could go on.....

So, then Jesus experienced hell on the cross for us. That is the just anger of God needed to be satisfied and he himself provided the sacrifice. God was not angry with Jesus. God was pouring out his wrath and just judgment on our sin but the beauty, joy and sheer scandal of the gospel is that we were not there - Jesus was!! He provided his one and only Son. As we sing "In Christ Alone"

And on that cross as Jesus died

The wrath of God was satisfied

That Son, Jesus Christ, bore on the cross everything that was coming to me - his just anger which should result in death and exclusion from his kingdom.

BUT WHY? Why would he do something like that?

God was driven by his great love as we see in those earlier verses.

And again: Gal 2:20

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Song of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

What person wouldn't want to believe this??

How to motivate your prayer life

This question came in after last weeks talk.

"Dave I would say 'we should' pray and that we 'must' is legalism rather than 'we should' statement. Thoughts?"

This is a great question and one I thought A LOT about before giving the sermon (2 Sam 6 & 7) so as you'd imagine I have a few of thoughts:

1. The nature of communication
Communication is a funny thing. What you say is not always what is heard. So when I say we should then it could easily be heard as you must. So on that basis happy to say the perceived lighter thing, in that we can prayer, rather than command it just made more sense to me.

2. Motivation by grace not by command
I still have the outline of my talk on my whiteboard and I written next to the section on prayer - motivate by grace. I think I could have easily said you must - you must - you must but rather I wanted to have the motivation that we can and see prayer as a wonderful thing that we can now do because of Jesus' work. So in light of this I really wanted to steer away from laying a burden upon people. One of the really great things this week at preaching conference was seeing how Paul motivated people towards obedience to Christ, he doesn't command but rather appeals to people on the basis of Christ's work.

For example Rom 12:1

'Therefore, I appeal to you in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices.....' And again in Philemon 8-9,

'Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do I appeal to you on the basis of love.'

So, my goal is to get people to pray - how do you do it? By a command or an appeal on the basis of Christ's work? I chose to make it an appeal on the basis of Jesus has done and his grace and this I think is the vibe of the New Testament.

3. Prayer is not necessary for salvation.
Praying is an outworking of our faith so therefore it is not a should or a must. And since as I said already the language of should and must is not always heard as distinct people may hear you saying what you don't want to say about praying and salvation. When we are converted it is solely through the work of Jesus - not by praying a prayer at the end of a talk but by faith. Once we are saved we have the opportunity to bring things to him in prayer

A step by step guide to winning friends with your money!

Well it's not actually, this question came in ....

What is Luke 16:1-13 on about? Especially that stuff around v8 about commending dishonesty?.

Luke talks a great deal about money, wealth and how to use it. Luke 16 falls into Jesus’ teaching on this topic. The point of Luke 16 is easy to discern. Be generous and responsible with your resources.

Some initial observations
The parable is about a steward who is accused in v1:
There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions.

This idea of wasting his money is like that of the previous story of the Prodigal Son who wastes his Father’s inheritance. It is clear that this type of mismanagement of money requires a response. It can’t be left unchecked.

I guess this shows us our first lesson. We need to be good stewards of our money. Money is a tool. When used properly it is an excellent resource. It can also be a great danger and like all good things that God gives us we can use it serve our own needs and desires.

So, what exactly is the steward doing when he ‘wastes’ the money?
Is the steward inept in his management, just a bad manager or is he siphoning off funds for his own consumption from transactions made? The answer to this question will help make sense of v8:
The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness.

Is his dishonesty what he does in v5-7, letting people pay him back less than what they owe him? Or is his dishonesty siphoning off funds?

V3 tells us of the manager’s pickle – he can’t do anything else but be a manager. So his plan is seen in v4:
I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.

His plan is to counter cultural for any banks or governments – he introduces a deflationary scheme: a 50% & 20% reduction in bills.

There are 3 options to consider what is going on here;
1. The steward just lowers the price and therefore the master later praises the steward for his shrewdness and recognises his dishonesty. This view says that v8 is about v5-7 not v1. View 3 challenges this position.
2. The steward removes the interest charged from the debt in line with Mosaic Law. This doesn’t really hold up though because of the different rates of reduction
3. The steward removes his own commission. This would make the most sense of the master’s commendation in v8. Who is going to commend someone who has actually just cheated them? The steward has reduced what is owed to him and at the same time been faithful to his master as well as making his master look good. Jesus also commends the steward for his behaviour and he would not commend immoral behaviour. This would that the dishonesty mentioned in v1 is about him siphoning off stuff for himself – that is the reason for his subsequent sacking.

Some applications of this text:
The steward sacrificed what he could have taken now and has given it to others so that he can receive gain later. The moral about the use of resources is exactly the application Jesus makes in v8-9
For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings

Jesus’ point is that the people of this ‘age’ give thought to how they use their resources – even if they misuse it they think about it! They think about the short and long term benefits of what they acquire.

We, as well as his disciples should honour and serve God with our resources thinking through the short and long term benefits of our actions. So to gain friends by means of money is to use money in a way that others appreciate you for your exercise of stewardship, your kindness and generosity.

1 Peter

We have been studying 1 Peter for 1st term of 2009. There has been a lot of work that has gone into producing a booklet, bible studies and recording of the talks.

You can access them all for free here

Do we need to rethink men's ministry?

A website that I check fairly regularly to see what is happening with current trends and thinking especially for Gen X & Y is McCrindle Research
I came across his study of Australian Men
Lots of interesting stuff:

• We take better care and more interest in our appearance


• We don't meet at the pub anymore - it is at a cafe or restaurant


• Competitive sport is second to going to the gym or Pilate's


• We wear speedos at the beach


• Women don't know what to think of the change


• The typical Aussie male is under threat

We have a deep need to reclaim what it means to be a man. If only we had the designers plan, we could ask him or better yet he could reveal it!

If you have a spare hour then listen to Driscoll on being a Biblical Man. I promise you it will be worthwhile - he says some really good stuff.

But it did get me thinking about reaching men - are men's breakfasts done and dusted? Are even the meat crazed evenings of St Augustine's still living in the past? How do we best reach those Aussie blokes based on this information? What are you doing to reach men?

In the hands of a potter God

Question: My husband and I were reading Romans 9. In v22, it speaks of some being created for destruction. Is this non-Christians or Pharaoh or Judas, etc who God puts in those positions to bring glory through their wickedness?

In order to answer this question properly we need to delve into the argument that Paul is mounting in Romans 9. Paul begins by expressing his deep anguish that many Jews have turned their backs on Jesus Christ. But this does not mean Israel has no place or that God has been unfaithful in anyway. To be a Jew does not automatically make you part of the people of God. He uses the example of Esau and Jacob, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated' (v13). The call of God was never because of something we had done but his sovereign choice before the creation of the world. God will show mercy on whom he wishes in order that there will never be a reason for us to boast and no human will or effort will ever thwart or distract from his purposes. But if this is true, how can humans be blamed for anything? It is the context of this question that v20-23 fall.

Here is Rom 9:20-23 (from the ESV) in case you don't have it handy.
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-

Paul tells us quite clearly that human beings have no right to question the sovereignty of God. Like the potter has authority over the clay so to God has authority over us. Indeed God has even ordained some to be vessels of destruction so that his glory may be made known. So, is this all non-Christians? Or just a select few?

A couple of things to note about the 'vessels of destruction'. Firstly, he has endured them with much patience. Secondly, unless you believe in annihilationism (which I don't) then the destruction of here is about 'eternal exclusion'. God doesn't make something just to destroy it. And, thirdly, God prepares them for destruction (it is a passive verb) they don't prepare themselves. In light of this I think these vessels of wrath are the unresponsive Jews.

But it is also true to say that Paul is picking up on v17

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Yes, it is Pharaoh, it is Judas and it is the unresponsiveness of the Jews and their may be some non-Christians who particularly fit this case. But in all of this we need to remember it is God's sovereign choice and we are nothing but clay.

That he chooses some at all shows his mercy and his love.

Made for destruction?

Question: Why did Jesus pick Judas as a disciple knowing how he would end up? It seems like all the other disciples went into ministry until death.

There a couple of things to say in response to this question that draw out the tension.

Firstly, we should not doubt the sincerity of the call of the Lord Jesus. Jesus views him as a follower and a disciple. You see this in Mark 3: 13-20 as Jesus names his 12 disciples. So, we can say that yes Jesus did pick Judas, he called him to follow him.

Secondly, Judas fell from apostleship. He was lost because he was never saved. Some people draw attention to the fact he never called Jesus Lord only 'Rabbi' (Matt 26:25). And so he leaves the gospel story a doomed and damned man as that is what he chose and God confirmed him in that dreadful choice. And we can also say then, that even though he was called he did not follow because he chose not to.

Both of these things need to be held even though they feel contradictory!

Does that make the call of Jesus in some way ineffective? I keep having Hebrews run around in the back of my head and the warnings it lays down for Christian people. Ch 6 especially talks about those who have 'been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of this coming age'. Surely these people are Christians yet it talks about them falling away. So, we know that it is not once a Christian always a Christian.

But this doesn't rob us of assurance either. Hebrew 6: 19

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure.

Interestingly, this verse comes straight after the writer talking about falling away. We can have assurance of our salvation. We can confidently say that we are chosen by God if we confess that Jesus Christ is LORD. But to begin the race is good to finish the race is even better and only those who are chosen will finish. Those chosen will continue to heed the warnings of Scripture to love God and obey him.

The exhortation in Hebrews 6 is that,

'we want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure'.

We can only go on what people tell us, we need as JC ryle (I think) said, gracious assumption.

Can we stop saying 'Catholic'

Question: Why do we say we believe in the Catholic church during the Apostle's Creed?

For those not versed in the Apostle's Creed
It says;
I believe in the Holy Spirit;
The holy catholic church;

This is a common question. When we say the word Catholic we don't mean Roman Catholic.
But rather it just means universal. So, when we say it in the Creed then we are saying that we believe in the universal church of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately people today say Catholic to refer to the Roman Catholic church these days and so it becomes confusing for people. My personal opinion is rather than fight to reclaim the word Catholic we should change it to say:
I believe in the Holy Spirit;
The holy universal church.

Out with the old and in with the new

Yes, yes I know this blog has been severely neglected for the last 10months. Partly it lacked purpose. Thanks to Mr Purpose himself, Tom!

BUT I have been thinking about how to revamp it in a helpful way.

And it starts tonight!!!

Part of what we do at Sunday at 6 (http://www.norwestanglican.org.au/) is fill in a communication card. And I encourage people to write questions they have from the talk or questions about things they have been reading either from the Bible or from a Christian book.

So, when people write a question - I will answer their question/s here.

This is my plan and it is my plan to stick to my new plan ... it's not an evil plan to take over the world but maybe, just maybe......