Does God Care about Sports?

I want to start off by saying this is the kind of theological article I don’t like to write. I like to write things that have an unassailable proof from Scripture backing it up. That being said, I also like to write about  things that interest me, and this is certainly one of them. Feel free to comment if you disagree or want to discuss further.

I am a sports fan. I don’t watch or follow sports as much as I used to, but I still consider myself a fan. I grew up in southeast Missouri, where it seems the sun rises and sets on the St. Louis Cardinals. Some of my most treasured memories from my childhood involve sitting around the table with Grandpa or riding in the car with Dad listening to Jack Buck announcing the Cardinals games. Most of the time when I was a kid the Cardinals weren’t very good, but that didn’t seem to matter. It was more about sharing common bonds with family and people around you and spending time with a trusted friend. I can’t tell you how many times Jack Buck helped me with my homework, even in college, by saying just the right thing at the right time.

As a believer though, I (and all of us) have to ask myself if God cares about sports. Unfortunately in my experience this question usually arises from a well-meaning brother or sister in Christ who doesn’t like sports trying to criticize or demean those of us believers who do like sports. Most Christians I know have the idea that God does not care at all about sports. What happens in a particular game or season does not matter to God in any way. I think this thinking arose to keep people from praying for God to help their team win.

I think praying for your team to win is pretty much an exact definition of asking amiss that James warned us about in his epistIe. But I also think the idea that God never interferes in sports events is a flawed idea as well. I acknowledge that in the grand scheme of things as far as God is concerned, who wins or loses in a sporting event is very low on God’s priority list. But I want to propose to you that God can and does take an interest in sports when He can use them to build his Kingdom or bring joy to his people. I want to demonstrate this with a true story that happened 20 years ago today.

Tuesday, April 14, 1998, I was winding down my first year away at college. (I went to community college two years before.) It was a rough year for me. It was my first time being so far from home. By April I had been gone long enough that I had gotten over the raw emotions of being gone, but the feelings still nagged. April 14 happened to be a particularly rough day. I honestly don’t remember any particularly bad details - you’ll understand why in a moment - I just remember it as a bad day. I was really in a bad state of mind.

That night, I had the radio on, listening to the Cardinals game (so grateful for the massive signal of KMOX). Of course 1998 was the year that Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa broke the record for the most home runs in a season, but that was a long way into the future in April. I wasn’t paying very close attention to the game, but I did notice Mark McGwire hit a home run early in the game. Then later he hit another home run to give the Cardinals the lead, which made me happy.

By the eighth inning the game was a blowout, and the Cardinals certainly weren’t going to bat in the bottom of the ninth. So in the bottom of the eighth, McGwire came to bat one last time. I was listening pretty intently just to see if something would happen. Sure enough, a third homer for that night.

As I was quietly celebrating - I did have roommates after all, but they were used to me listening to baseball - celebrating the three home runs I heard a voice, clear as day, in my heart tell me, “That was for you.” To this day I believe that voice was from God. And why not? Looking at the box score for that game, the Cardinals were already up by 6 runs in the eighth when that third home run was hit. Would it really matter to God if the final score was 11-5 or 15-5? No. But do I matter to God? I am humbled and thankful that the answer is yes. And if the Lord knew he could raise my spirits by having that little ball go over the fence, why not give it a little extra breeze on the way out?

We evangelicals agree that God is in control of everything, don’t we? We agree that God works in big and small ways for our good and for the good of the church. Then why do some people think that the sports arena is so sacrosanct that God never gets involved? I think the people who think that God does not care are the ones who place sports on a higher pedestal than they should be. God can work in a myriad of other ways, but what happens on the sports field is always pure athleticism? Come on. Why do you limit God?

All I’m saying is this: when you’re watching your team lose a big game, it’s OK to be disappointed. But it might make you a little happier to know that in the opposing city there may be a dear old saint watching in a hospital bed surrounded by his family, and God is giving the family one last precious memory before he goes home to be with Jesus. Or maybe there is a genuine seeker in the stands who wants to know God is real. Or maybe it’s a thousand other scenarios.Those scenarios won’t get talked about the next morning on ESPN or in next week’s hometown newspaper, but I believe they are more real than the strategy points that people discuss.

God is at work in the big things and the tiny things in life all the time. He is bringing his Kingdom to fruition in more ways than we can imagine. God's sovereign power over the affairs of this world means he controls everything, including, as Jesus said, when a sparrow falls out of a tree. If God can bring something good into the lives of his people and even people who don't yet know him, through a sporting event, whether it is the Super Bowl or the local peewee football league, why wouldn't he? When we pretend these things don’t matter to God, all we really do is limit him in our own minds.

Jesus vs. Paul?

Misunderstood Verses #2

Matthew 6:14-15: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. ~ Jesus

Ephesians 4:32: And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. ~ Paul

Recently I've become aware of a teaching that proposes that Jesus and Paul are at odds in these two statements. They say that Jesus says our forgiveness (which has to mean our salvation, since no one I'm aware of teaches one can be partially forgiven and go to heaven) is based on our forgiveness of others - that is our performance. Paul tells us that we forgive others because of how completely God has forgiven us.

The resolution they provide seems simple enough: Jesus was talking about a different era in God's redemptive history. Before the cross, before the resurrection, before Pentecost, whenever, God dealt with people on the basis of their performance. But now God deals with us based on Christ's all-sufficient work on the cross. It sounds plausible, because Hebrews tells us about the new and living way we have in Christ. But some (not all) who teach this are overzealous for the new and living way. In their exuberance they overlook a God who has always shown mankind mercy and grace.

If Jesus was saying that there was a time (obviously it had to include the time that Jesus was speaking) that God's forgiveness was conditional on our action, then that must mean no one from that era will be in heaven. I don't think I need to post any references to the fact that man can in no way earn God's favor, since if you've read this far you are interested enough in Scripture to understand that. God's grace has never been in this time or any other time based on man's performance.

To de-emphasize God's grace in previous times is to do injustice to our unchanging God and the great heroes of the Old Testament. Genesis 15:6 tells us, "He (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." Three times in the New Testament (here, here and here) this verse is quoted as an illustration of the way we all must come to God. I'm thankful for the more complete revelation we have in Christ, but all God ever required, requires now and will ever require is belief in him.

So if Jesus was not saying that forgiveness is based on our performance, what did he mean? And how are Jesus' and Paul's statements rectified? To me it seems simple, because the key is in another verse in Ephesians: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (2:10) If we as believers are ordained by God to walk in good works, is it not reasonable to assume that forgiveness will be one of those good works? And if so, then truly one who can never find it in their heart to forgive their fellow human knows nothing of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God.

We as believers will fail to forgive one another completely. If we wouldn't, why would Paul need to encourage us to forgive in the second verse above? We certainly deal with the works of the flesh in our hearts and lives. But we are just as certainly on the road to being the people God wants us to be. God promises to work in our lives to bring us farther on that road, but the journey won't be complete till we get to heaven.

The New F-Word?

This will be the first in a series of articles about verses that I think have been misapplied down through the years.

Misunderstood Verses #1

Matthew 5:22: And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

For most of my life, I've heard this verse explained to mean that Jesus does not want us to use the word "fool" to describe someone. I suppose that's not the best thing to say to a person, but I believe Jesus had a much deeper and more profound message than just that. If you think Jesus was adding another four-letter word to the list that nice people don't say, then you are missing the point.

I'm told the Aramaic (the dialect of Hebrew spoken in Palestine during Jesus' time) word "raca" means "empty-headed." Seems to me that's not much different than "fool." But you could be brought to the council for saying one and not the other. Why bring someone who uses one insult before the council and not another? The logical assumption is that "raca" was a profanity in Jesus' day.

Photo Credit

Every society has profanities - words, gestures, etc. They vary from culture to culture. My dad served a tour of duty in Vietnam with the Marines. He never did and still doesn't talk about very much of what he experienced there, but one thing I remember him talking about was the fact that an innocent-looking (to Americans) "come here" gesture was a vile profanity in Vietnam. One of the things they trained foreign soldiers before they arrived in Vietnam was to not use that particular gesture.

Profanities are a part of the human experience. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I'm not quite sure, but the fact remains every society has them. In Jesus' day, one of the worst things you could say was "raca." It was apparently so bad that even saying it in public would get you sent before the religious authorities. The religious authorities in Jesus' day had limited but real power. They couldn't criminally punish, but they could embarrass people in front of the community in a way that kept most people in line with Jewish customs.

What kind of words are so bad that Jesus would say they are worse than cuss words? Very simple: words that hurt and leave a lasting impression on their victims. It might not be pleasant, but think back: every one of us can remember something someone said that cut us to the core like a knife. Maybe it was a classmate or group of classmates at school. Maybe a coworker or a boss. Sadly for some folks it might be something a teacher or even their parents said. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to guess the person who said memorably hurtful things to you didn't use a string of four-letter words. Even if they did, it wasn't the cuss words that hurt you nearly as much as what they were saying beyond those words.

This, I believe, is the point Jesus was making here. The religious authorities of Jesus' day (and lots of people today) thought saying swear words was the worst sin you could commit with your mouth. As long as they didn't say those words, they thought they were doing pretty good. But Jesus said real sin goes a lot deeper than that. Words spoken in anger, pride and condescension can do lasting damage to people, regardless of whether there are cuss words thrown in or not.

I'm not saying you ought to go around cussing a blue streak. Jesus didn't say the council was wrong for punishing people who swore. What Jesus was warning against was the attitude that says as long as I'm not saying the words on somebody's naughty list then whatever I want to say is fine. It's not fine. Paul said that our words should "impart grace" to those who hear them. That should be the ideal that you and I should strive for: to be the kind of people whose words bring encouragement and grace to others.

TOMS: Hebrews 9

For an introduction to this series, click here.

November 13, 2007

The writer goes into detail here about the worship in the Tabernacle and how Christ's sacrifice fulfilled all of that. The chapter begins with a description of the items in the Tabernacle. Then the writer says: 
"These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age).[d] According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." (9:6-12)

The Old Testament system was never sufficient to take away the sins of the priests themselves, much less the people in general. Now don't get the idea that what they did was wrong or bad. They were obedient to God's command. They were doing what God had told them to do, and God was pleased with that. That is why His presence came down among them, and why you read in a few places that the people were filled with joy as they worshiped the Lord in the Old Testament. That was God's plan for that time. But now God has a new plan, and these converted Jews needed to put their old religion into proper perspective.

"For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." (9:13-14)

The Old Testament law was all about ceremony and symbols. There were lots of things people could do to be ceremonially unclean, and there were things people could do to become ceremonially clean. But in Christ, we are made permanently, spiritually clean once for all. And this is a motivation and encouragement for us to live for God, as the writer says.

"Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.' And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (9:18-22)

Blood signifies death. There was nothing magic in the blood of an animal, but it was the picture of the animal dying in the place of the people that was important. And it is the same with the Lord Jesus. There are a lot of people who claim there was some sort of magic or something divine in Christ's physical blood. But if He did not have human blood, how could He be our substitute? The fact that He died a substitutionary death is the important fact, not that He had special blood. If it was the shedding of His blood that was significant, and not His death, all Jesus would have had to have done was prick His finger to achieve salvation. In other words, if they had a bloodmobile back in Jesus' day, He could have donated. Whatever blood type it was, it was normal human blood. 

"For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (9:24-28, ESV)

TOMS: Hebrews 7

For an introduction to this series, click here.

November 10, 2007

In this chapter, the writer more fully explains what it means for Christ to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek:
"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever." (7:1-3)

The fact that we don't know much about Mel is exactly the point. He did not have a father or mother that we know of, yet Abraham looked to him as a priest. If anybody didn't need a priest, it was Abraham. Mel was also king of Jerusalem, which of course at that time was a Gentile city. We assume that he had children, because when Joshua came into the land some 500 years later, he met the king of Jerusalem- Adoni-zedek. There are some who believe Mel was an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. I obviously disagree with that idea.

"See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.." (7:4-10)

This may be a very fine point, but it's included in Scripture. Levi, of course was the tribe of the Jewish priests. Levi, through his great-grandfather Abraham, paid tithes to Mel. Therefore, Mel's priesthood is greater than that of Levi. The writer says this primarily to show them that Christ is offering something new and greater than the Jewish system. It had its time and its place, but God is doing a new work through a new leader: Jesus.

"For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,'You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.'" (7:14-17)

Jesus was not part of the priestly line from Aaron and Levi, but God had declared him a priest.

"For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: 'The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, You are a priest forever.’ This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant." (7:18-22)

This is an important passage to tell us that the Old Testament law has been abolished in Christ. We are not under any obligation to any part of it. Honestly, there is enough in the New Testament for us to obey that we can never do it. The Old Testament is a rich, wonderful book. And there are certainly principles and examples aplenty for us to learn from. But the Law in particular is not binding on us as Christians.

"The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." (7:23-25, ESV)

Here is the climax of this passage, and probably of the whole first half of the epistle. Our Priest, the Lord Jesus, will never die. He will never have to pass his position to another. Therefore He is a priest forever.

This is such a rich book. I kind of feel like a lot of it speaks for itself, and that is why I am not going into a lot of detailed commentary. Hebrews is an indispensable book for us to know who Christ really is. He is more than just a great man. He is the eternal God, who became like us for a while, that we could be forever with Him.

TOMS: Hebrews 5

For an introduction to this series, click here.

November 8, 2007

I am going to start here with the last few verses of chapter 4.
"Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (4:14-16)

This passage begins a long section where the writer explains how Christ is the great High Priest for all the saints, fulfilling and superseding the Old Testament system of priests and sacrifice.

"For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people." (5:1-3)

In the Old Testament system, the priest offered a sacrifice for himself and for the people. He could identify with his people because he was human, but he was also a flawed, imperfect priest who had to make atonement for himself at the same time he made atonement for the people.

"So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you;' as he says also in another place, 'You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.' In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek." (5:5-10)

Without the book of Hebrews, we would have no idea what the passage in Psalms meant when it said that God had anointed someone as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. You may remember Mel. He was the priest to whom Abraham gave gifts after the rescue of Sodom. The writer will explain what this Melchizedekian priesthood means later in the book, but the most important thing we learn from this passage is that the passage from Psalm 110 is referring to Christ.

"About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." (5:11-14, ESV)

The writer interjects a terrible indictment here. It continues in the first part of chapter 6, but I decided to address it here. I understand that the writer is partially addressing non-believers here, people who were aware of the truth of Jesus but refused to believe it. But the passage seems primarily directed to the believing recipients. They were shallow in their belief as well.

I wonder how many people in our modern churches fit this description? I think it would be a high number, probably starting right here with me. I think the great failure of the 20th century American church is that we did not emphasize doctrine. We believed in "practical" teaching. "Just tell us what to do, pastor, don't bore us with the details of why," was and still remains the attitude of a lot of Christians. Thankfully it seems we are seeing a move away from that kind of didactism (is that a word?) in our conservative Baptist circles and more toward an expositional mode of teaching and preaching. Christians don't need to be talked down to, we need to hear the whole counsel of God proclaimed.

One other point that needs to be made here. The writer uses the metaphors of milk and meat, comparing them to shallow and deep doctrine. Yet when we read I Peter 2:2, Peter uses milk as a positive metaphor. We cannot assume that all metaphors are to be taken the same way throughout Scripture, especially when dealing with two different authors. Just because something is usually used negatively does not mean it cannot be used positively in another context. Another example is yeast, or leaven. Many times in Scripture it is used as a negative picture of sin. That was the picture of unleavened bread at Passover. But Jesus in Matthew 13 says, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven." Unless you think Jesus was saying the kingdom of heaven is sinful, then you have to conclude that leaven is used in a positive sense.

TOMS: Hebrews 2

For an introduction to this series, click here.

November 5, 2007

The writer of Hebrews continues his discussion of Jesus Christ being better than the angels: "Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." (2:1-4)

He says that if we are to pay attention to what the angels said in the Old Testament, how much more are we to pay attention to the words God Himself said when he walked among us? That was the purpose of the miracles Jesus did: to confirm His ministry. In fact that is the purpose of all Biblical miracles: to show a skeptic world that God is working through the person doing the miracles. This is a pet peeve of mine. You hear lots of people say that if they find some keys they lost, or something else like that, they say, "It was a miracle!" No it wasn't. It's not that God cannot help us or is incapable of doing something miraculous, but a miracle is something God does in public to prove that a person is a legitimate servant of God.

Sorry to go off on that. 

The phrase, "It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard," is one of the sure giveaways that Paul was not the author of Hebrews. Paul spends a large portion of Galatians insisting that his gospel came straight from Jesus Christ himself, not from the Apostles or anyone else. The writer of Hebrews admits that he heard the Gospel second-hand. Paul would never make such a statement.

"It has been testified somewhere,
'What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.'
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying,
'I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.'" (2:6-12)

Jesus became a man so that He could redeem us to Himself. Not one of the angels could do this. This is sort of a continuation of the argument from the first chapter. Jesus humbly accepted a temporary placement below the angels by becoming a man. By this He accomplished the work of becoming the "captain of salvation" for mankind. So now Christ is able to bring us together with Him. We understand most of this now, but the purpose of this passage is to show that even the Old Testament foresaw this happening, even though most Jews did not see it.

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." (2:14-18, ESV)

Jesus did not become an angel, higher than mankind. He became just like us. This is the basis of our salvation. We will look into this concept a lot deeper in the coming chapters.

TOMS: Hebrews 1

For an introduction to this series, click here.

November 4, 2007

The writer of Hebrews doesn't mess with greetings or any sort of introduction (Very unlike Paul or Luke). He jumps right into the message, and it is a powerful message on the deity and the uniqueness of Christ: 
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." (1:1-4)

The writer tells us that God has given us a much better revelation than the testimony of angels or prophecies given to men of old, and that revelation is Jesus Christ.

"For to which of the angels did God ever say,
'You are my Son, today I have begotten you?'
Or again,
'I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?'
And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
'Let all God's angels worship him.'
Of the angels he says,
'He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
But of the Son he says,
'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.'
And,
'You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.'" (1:5-12, ESV)

This is an incredible series of quotations. The writer, who was intensely familiar with the Old Testament, takes several different passages about God and ascribes them to Jesus Christ. Most of these verses would have been very familiar to the recipients of this book. Probably they never made the connection between Jesus and these descriptors they knew about God. 

The writer here is very insistent that it was Jesus who created the world. Even though it is taught in the Old Testament, most Jews then (and certainly all who follow Judaism now) did not recognize the Trinity. They emphasized passages such as "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." 

When you combine this with the fact that the epistle is addressed to a mixed audience of both Christian and non-Christian Jews, this becomes an important introduction. Many of these Jews, perhaps even those who claimed to believe in Christ, still hung on to the idea of God being one exalted Father. One of the main purposes of Hebrews, especially this passage, is to prove to them that Jesus was more than a special prophet. He was the eternal God who lived among men.

TOMS: Philippians 2, Part 1

For an introduction to this series, click here.

September 25, 2007

This is one of the richest chapters in all the Bible. We will see if I have to divide this into two. (I know it is not very long, but there is so much here.)

"So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from participation in the Spirit, any love, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (2:1-11, ESV)

There is no way I can cover everything in this passage here. First of all I want you to notice that Paul is telling us that Christ is our example of humility and love for each other. It is so easy to get our minds off of the Lord Jesus and on our neighbors. We want to prove that we are somehow better than them as if everyone is ranking one another on some other sort of competition or comparison. Thankfully Jesus did not come to earth with that kind of attitude. It is also important to note that late in Chapter 1 Paul talks about those who preached the Gospel out of spite. Paul said earlier that he rejoiced that the Gospel was being preached, but here he says that it is still wrong to do things to stir up strife or to lift ourselves up in pride.

The last section, which tells us about the humility of Christ, is probably an early Christian hymn that Paul immortalized forever in the Bible. Some people twist this passage, saying that the fact that Jesus did not "count equality with God a thing to be grasped" means that He was not really God. But of course these arguments only work on those who do not read for themselves. When you look at this passage in context, it is clear this phrase means that He did not hang on to His privileges as God, but humbled Himself to become a man. 

Now I always wonder what it meant to be God and man at the same time. I don't think we will ever fully comprehend what Jesus went through, and there really is no reason we should, but it has always been fascinating to me: how Jesus could be all-knowing and all-powerful and yet be a man. I guess Jesus kind of got used to it and was able to put it out of His mind and concentrate on the moment. We know that Jesus told Nathaniel that He saw him under the fig tree, so that means He must have been just as aware of an Indian huddled over a campfire on the banks of the Missouri River. Seems like that would be a lot of background noise that Jesus had to put behind Him in order to function.

Oh well. I have a lot I want to say about the next section, so I guess I will save that for tomorrow.

TOMS: Romans 15

For an introduction to this series, click here.

July 18, 2007




This chapter is kind of a wrap-up of some more important things Paul wanted to say. In the first part of the chapter he appeals to the example of Jesus Christ: "We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.  Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, 'The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.'" (15:1-3) 

This is obviously an important concept by itself, but when you consider the subject matter of Chapter 14, this becomes even more significant. That Paul would cite Jesus as an example of bearing with the weaknesses of others is interesting, because when you read the Gospels it doesn't appear that Jesus took any consideration at all for the feelings of others, particularly those in authority. I hadn't really realized it before, but I guess this is kind of a confirmation of what I said yesterday. Jesus had no patience whatsoever with the pompous Pharisees, but He had infinite patience with those who did not take on airs, like when He sent Peter out to catch a fish with money in its mouth so that "We would not offend" the tax collector.

Paul says that when we look at the example of Christ and the Old Testament saints, we will learn to live with each other: "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (15:4-6) There is a lot in the Scriptures about unity, and nothing kills unity like squabbles over insignificant things.

Paul finishes this chapter with a personal message: "And thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation, but as it is written, 'Those who have never been told of him will see, and those who have never heard will understand.' This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you. But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you, I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while. At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. When therefore I have completed this and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will leave for Spain by way of you. I know that when I come to you I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ. I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints, so that by God's will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company. May the God of peace be with you all. Amen." (15:20-33, ESV)

TOMS: Acts 20

For an introduction to this series, click here.

June 22, 2007

Here we have more of Paul's adventures. There was a plot against Paul's life in Macedonia, and he had to leave. While on his way back to Antioch, he made several stops along the way. One was at Troas, where Paul raised a man from the dead: "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, 'Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.' And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted." (20:7-12)

I can identify with Eutychus. Whenever I stop and sit down, I often go to sleep, especially in church. It's something I've struggled with most of my life. It's really embarrassing, but I can't really do a whole lot about it. It has more to do with the assumptions people make about you, or at least you feel they make about you, when you are asleep like that. Eutychus, of course, had a little bit more dangerous seat than you'll find in most of our churches today. He was sitting in a third story window. We don't know whether he fell backwards out the window or if he fell forward into the crowd. That of course would have been more dramatic.

The rest of this chapter is Paul's farewell message to the church at Ephesus. As a side note, this is the only recorded sermon in the book of Acts that is exclusively to believers. This must have been a very emotional time for Paul. You can feel the emotion as you read Luke's account of what Paul said. Paul spent more than two years in Ephesus establishing the church there. There is so much in this passage to discuss, but honestly a lot of it is like so much other of Paul's statements in Acts and his epistles it is hard to come up with a unique comment. But I do want to mention one thing Paul said that we all know but I want to say something a little bit different about it. This is how Paul wrapped up his remarks to the Ephesian elders: "In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" (20:35, ESV)

First of all, this statement by Jesus is nowhere to be found in the Gospels. It is only recorded here. It must have been a memorable statement, because Paul certainly would not have heard it firsthand while Jesus was here on earth. This would have been passed down from the Apostles who actually heard Jesus say this. 

Secondly, why would this be such an important statement from Jesus to remember? Surely there are more inspiring words, like Paul told Timothy in II Timothy, which was written just before Paul died, about keeping the faith, preaching the word, and maintaining the doctrines that were passed down. I think it is important because we don't think that way naturally. We think it is more blessed to receive than give. It's certainly more exciting.

Finally, it is important to realize exactly what Jesus was saying. This is hard for me, because I am really a tightwad and besides I am broke most of the time. Those of you who know my financial situation understand why. But I need to give as much as I can, whenever I can. Of course giving is more than money, but it is a big part of it. This is really convicting. Of course the word "blessed" has deeper implications than "happy." It has more to do with being blessed and obtaining favor from the Lord than any kind of good feeling. The Lord pours out His blessings on those who give.

TOMS: John 21

For an introduction to this series, click here.

May 21, 2007

This chapter is kind of an epilogue to John's Gospel. John is the only one who mentions this story. The disciples were sitting around, and Peter said, "I am going fishing." And the rest of them say, "We will go with you." Now a lot of people make a big deal out of the fact that Peter and the disciples go fishing. They say the disciples were abandoning Jesus. I don't think that's necessarily the case. After all, this is after Jesus had appeared to them at least twice. More likely they were just bored, since Jesus apparently wasn't around all the time, and they were looking for something to do. Also, they were probably broke. When they were with Jesus, they lived off the contributions people gave, and they may have had some of their own money as well. But now, Jesus wasn't doing His regular ministry, and they needed to make some money.

Anyway, they were out all night fishing, and caught nothing. They see a man on the shore asking if they have caught anything. They were probably used to people coming in the morning and asking if they caught anything. Then Jesus says "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some." (21:6) John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," first recognizes that it's Jesus. Peter jumps out of the boat and swims to the shore to meet Jesus. That's not the reaction of someone that had abandoned Jesus in disappointment.

After they have breakfast, then comes the confrontation between Peter and Jesus. Jesus asks, "Do you love me more than these?" and then twice asks "Do you love me?" Lots and lots of people make a huge deal out of the fact that Jesus uses the word "agape" for love in the first two questions, and then Peter responds with the word "phileo." The last question, Jesus uses the word "phileo." If you've heard sermons on this passage I'm sure it's been explained to you, but just in case, agape is an unconditional love, and phileo is a fraternal love between friends or family.

First of all, throughout his writings John interchanges "agape" and "phileo." Secondly, and I admit this is not that great an argument, Jesus and Peter would not have spoken Greek to each other. They would have spoken Aramaic. But anyway, I think it is more significant that Jesus asks Peter three times, the same number of times Peter denied. John mentions that "Peter was grieved" (21:17) when Jesus asked him the third time. Jesus then gives a prophecy about Peter's life: "'Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.' (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.)" (21:18-19) "Stretch out" was a term for crucifixion among 1st century Jews. Christian tradition tells us that Peter was crucified in Rome upside down. Jesus' words here seem to confirm that.

Then Peter gets busy to change the subject. He points to John and says, "Lord, what about this man?" (21:21) Jesus doesn't humor Peter that much: "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!" (21:22, ESV) It is easy to be jealous of others. We think God is being unfair to us when something good happens to someone else. But God has an individual plan for each of our lives. Instead of trying to right the world, we need to just follow God's plan and do what He wants us to do. God will set things right in the end. He doesn't need our help or advice. If we believe God is loving, sovereign and just, we will trust Him to bring the right circumstances in our lives.

TOMS: John 20

For an introduction to this series, click here.

May 19, 2007

This chapter tells the story of the Resurrection. John repeats a certain phrase, which must have struck him as being very important: "So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead." (20:3-9)

This passage gives us the best insight as to how the Resurrection actually happened. Jesus' did not have to unwrap Himself, the cloth was still there, intact. And the cloth was not gone, as it would have been if someone had stolen the body. Jesus apparently just passed through the cloth as if it were nothing.

You should notice what John says about himself and the other disciples. They did not understand what was happening. They had no clue Jesus was going to rise from the dead. Also notice another reason I say John was probably a teenager. He outran Peter, who we know was already married, to the tomb.

I think you know the basic story, but Thomas is always intriguing. Thomas was not there when the disciples saw Jesus, probably on Sunday night after the Resurrection. John is the only one who mentions this story, by the way. Jesus does not criticize Thomas. He tells him, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." (20:27) Thomas does not need to feel. He has seen enough. He says, "My Lord and my God!" (20:28) Of course, Jesus pronounces a blessing on all who follow: "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (20:29) Of course Jesus is talking about us, those who follow in the footsteps of the disciples.

Finally, John gives us the purpose of his book: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (20:30-21, ESV) John is never shy about telling people they need to believe. That's why I say John has the most editorial content of the Gospels. John is writing this book with a specific purpose in mind: these people saw Jesus say and do these things, and they believed; you need to believe, too.

TOMS: John 19

For an introduction to this series, click here.

May 18, 2007

This chapter tells the story of the Crucifixion. There's not a whole lot that can be said that hasn't already been said about the most important event in human history. And of course I have already commented on it three times.

I have always been struck by the irony of verse 12: "From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, 'If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.'" The Jews hated the Romans, and the Romans hated the Jews. The only reason the Romans were there was because Palestine was a strategic link between Asia Minor and Egypt, which were much more important priorities for Rome. For the Romans, Palestine was a dreadful place filled with delusional people. That's why about 40 years later the Romans got tired of them and destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews all over the empire. The only time the Jews were interested in being a friend to Caesar was right here.

Another detail that John gives us, because he was there, is this tidbit: "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home." (19:26-27) This is rather shocking to me. We assume Joseph, Jesus' earthly father, was dead, since he is never mentioned in any of the Gospels during Jesus' adult life. But Jesus had at least three half-brothers who are mentioned in the Bible. Why didn't they look after their mother?  

I don't know, but this could explain why John is not mentioned much in the book of Acts. He would have been taking care of Mary (and presumably raising his own family) during the years that Peter and Paul were doing great exploits. It wasn't until much later, when John became the elder statesman and the last of the apostles that he writes his Gospel, epistles and of course the Revelation.

Another thing John mentions that no one else mentions is the role of Nicodemus in Jesus' burial: "After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight." (19:38-39, ESV)

This passage is the main reason I think Nicodemus was born again, either during his conversation with Jesus, part of which is recorded in John 3, or at some other time before this. Someone who is truly born again will eventually show some fruit, and here is Nicodemus, coming in at a time when even His disciples had forsaken Him, and buying spices to bury the body of Jesus.

TOMS: John 18

For an introduction to this series, click here.

May 17, 2007

This chapter tells how Jesus was betrayed and arrested. John gives us more details than the other three Gospels. John is the only one who mentions that Jesus asked the crowd that arrested Him, "Whom do you seek?" They replied, "Jesus of Nazareth." When Jesus said, "I am he," they fell backward to the ground. John also records the name of the man whose ear Peter cut off: Malchus.

Honestly, my theory of Judas' reaction and my theory of Peter's reaction are similar. Peter and probably all the disciples were thrilled with the Triumphal Entry. Here it was the Passover, and all Israel was in Jerusalem. And here comes the moment they have been waiting for: the Messiah coming to set up the kingdom. When it became obvious that Jesus was not going to claim the kingdom, Peter and the disciples want to claim it for Him. But Jesus tells him, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?" (18:11)

And of course we have the story of Peter denying Jesus. I really like Michael Card's take on Peter's denial. It's not that Peter was afraid or ashamed; it's that Peter was disappointed in Jesus. They were so convinced that Jesus was going to set up the kingdom, and now here He is offering no resistance as He is being arrested. Peter was saying, "I don't even know the man anymore."

Whatever the motivation, it should be said that Peter's denial is not in the same league as Judas' betrayal. Judas' denial was premeditated, pre-planned and coldly calculated to inflict the most damage upon Jesus. Peter was caught in a moment of weakness. He certainly had no plan to deny Jesus - in fact, a few hours before he had been boasting that he would follow Jesus even to death. It is instructive, I think, that all four Gospels mention Peter's betrayal. It is a comfort to all who fall short in their faith in a moment of weakness or persecution. Peter was restored, and we can be too.

After Jesus was questioned by the Sanhedrin, He was taken before Pilate. Here John gives us a detail that Mel Gibson missed in his movie and the irony is so rich that it should have been mentioned in the movie: "Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover." (18:28) As I remember it (and I admit it's been quite a while), the movie shows the Jews, including the council members right in the courtyard of Pilate's house. Here is the irony: they were busy committing the greatest crime of all time, and they were worried about keeping clean for the Passover. So they all congregated in the street outside Pilate's house. Pilate had to go out, probably to a balcony facing the street, to where he could talk to them.

In Pilate's house, Jesus does nothing. He talks about His kingdom not being of this world and bearing witness to the truth. Pilate seems amused by this and asks the rhetorical question, "What is truth?" (18:38, ESV) It's not that Pilate did or did not believe Him. It's just that most people don't deal in truth. Jesus did, but truth is not very well defined. Politicians like Pilate certainly did not deal in truth. Politicians deal in consensus and compromise. Here was this man spouting all these things about truth and a spiritual kingdom as he is being arrested (I'm talking from Pilate's perspective here) what else would you say?

TOMS: John 17

For an introduction to this series, click here.

May 16, 2007

This chapter is one of the deepest passages in all the Bible. I have always wondered how John heard this. I understand he was inspired, but like we wrote about earlier, inspiration does not necessarily imply that God spoke to the person and told them what to write (of course there are exceptions, such as much of the material in the prophetic books). In most cases, it means God guided them as they wrote to make sure everything they wrote was true and was what God wanted. So was John eavesdropping on what Jesus was praying? Or did he receive this by special revelation? We don't know for sure, but we can be sure of its inspiration.

Anyway, this is the true Lord's Prayer. This is Jesus longing to be home with the Father and praying for His disciples and for all who would follow them.

This is so rich it's really hard just to pick out a few quotes and comment on them. The theme of the first section is the glory of Christ and the glory of the Father. He knows the end is about to happen, and He is longing to return to the Father.

The next theme is who the disciples are. Read the quote very carefully. I know it's long: "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one." (17:9-15) Notice that Jesus is saying that the disciples belong to the Father, and the Father gave them to Jesus. Jesus says that He is going to be busy for a while, and that the Father needs to take care of them. He says the Father should not take them out of the world, but that He should keep them from the power of Satan. That's really a neat passage.

The overarching theme of the prayer, however, is unity. "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (17:20-21, ESV) When we look at the world around us, it is obvious the church is not one in outward form. It's the situation we have to live with. Two thousand years of church history has resulted in a fractured visible body.

But in a larger sense, the church is not divided. There is still one body of saints in Christ. Christ's prayer has been answered. Yes, there are times when members of the body are in sin. There are times when they are hateful toward one another. But thankfully Christ is still at work to build His church, against which the gates of hell have never and will never prevail.