Spoken through the Son, not the Spirit

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 word.   Hebrews 2:3-4

Brief observations:

This passage is Trinitarian, though the fourth witness, the apostles, are placed second in rank to the testimony of the salvation. Jesus the Lord is first, then the apostles, then God the Father, then the Holy Spirit. This hierarchy does not rank these four in terms of innate importance, but rather in accordance with God’s will for the evangelism of this age: first to be considered is the testimony of Jesus himself, and then his apostles. Then come the testimony of God, who bore witness to Jesus only rarely, at crucial events (such as the baptism and the Passover celebration of John 12). Finally, of least importance are the miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit. All four witnesses are crucial to the will of God, yet there is an important emphasis on the testimony of Jesus and “those who heard” (the apostles and, by extension, the prophets). The witness of Scripture is of more importance than the miracles of the Holy Spirit, and those who reverse this hierarchy do so to their own destruction.

All this echoes and supports the first verse of Hebrews: God has spoken to us in these last days by his Son, not by his Spirit. The Spirit directs us to the words of the Son, and never preempts these words.

—
I’m becoming a cessationist. Where is the evidence of the perfect gifts of God the Holy Spirit? Who speaks in tongues in an orderly fashion, always with an interpreter? Who casts out demons, heals the sick, raises the dead? Drinks deadly poison? Shakes off serpents?

The Parable of the Lost Sheep: Context is Crucial

Jesus uses the same parable in Matthew 18 and Luke 15 to teach parallel truths: that God pursues his disobedient elect, and that he also pursues his disobedient elect. Wait a minute, that doesn’t sound so different when I write it out…

Maybe a quick run-through will illustrate the difference.

What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. (Matthew 18:12-14 ESV)

 

So he told them this parable: “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
(Luke 15:3-7 ESV)

Let’s nail down the similarities first. Both are written in the second person, and are basically extended rhetorical questions – “Who doesn’t do this?” The logic is: if you will do these things (though you are evil), how much more will God do them? Both end up with the shepherd rejoicing.

Now, the differences. Matthew’s sheep “wanders,” Luke’s sheep is “lost.” Matthew’s sheep are left “on the mountains,” Luke’s “in the open country.” Matthew’s shepherd rejoices “more” over the one than the ninety-nine, but Luke breaks the parable to give us this information, which takes place in heaven. Matthew gives us the will of the Father. Luke tells us that the shepherd puts the sheep on his shoulders, takes it home and throws a party with his friends and neighbors.

Oh, and the big difference: the C word, context. Context, context, context. Matthew’s parable is in the middle of Jesus’ 4th discourse, given to his disciples. Luke’s takes place amidst a gathering of tax collectors, prostitutes and Pharisees. As often happens with Jesus’ words, two different messages go forth from the same set of words. When Jesus speaks to his own, these are words of comfort; when he speaks to those he never knew, they are words of condemnation.

Notice the little differences, and their impact on meaning. The sheep who “wanders” is the wayward disciple. Active, willful disobedience. The “lost” sheep is the ignorant sinner, without knowledge of the shepherd. It is the lost sheep of John 10:16 – “I must bring them also.” Matthew keeps the comparative rejoicing within the parable. He’s going for a different conclusion. It would be easy to read Luke’s conclusion into Matthew here, but don’t be tempted: this isn’t about ignorant sinners, but hardened disciples. In 18:3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and maybe 10, Jesus threatens his disciples with the consequences of sin. This is no denial of eternal security, but a warning against apostasy, a prediction of the coming heresy of the Judaizers. Even among the disciples now, Judas was becoming Judas. In order to comfort them (comfort them through warning? Isn’t the fear of God our comfort and strength?), Jesus reminds them that when they stray, he will come and get them, and in this way none of the “little ones” (the elect) will be lost.

Luke continues his theme of out-rejoicing Matthew (Matt 5:12 v. Luke 6:23), by mentioning rejoicing three times, as opposed to Matthew’s one. Joy is, indeed, the point of Luke’s parable, as the Lost Coin and Prodigal Son illustrate – the Pharisees had none of it, and Jesus wanted to make the point that if they had rejoiced at the tax collectors and prostitutes coming to him, they would have joined in the rejoicing in heaven, so to speak. There is a direct link from earth to heaven in regards to loving repentance, is the point.

The “lost sheep” of Luke’s parable is the wayward sinner who sinned in ignorance and must be rescued. The emphasis is on the lostness rather than the wandering of Matthew’s sheep, which shifts perspective from the actions of the individual sinner to the state of all sinners, which in turn shifts the focus to the Savior. Characteristic to Matthew, he emphasizes the correct behavior of the elect man, especially in binary contrast to the incorrect behavior of the non-elect man: a Hebrew line of thought. Luke’s gospel is much more unilateral: here is the Son of Man come to save the world, look to him all you ends of the earth, and be saved.

A final note: is the “do not need to repent” of Luke 15:7 ironic? Consider Luke 5:32 – “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” The gate to life is narrow; make every effort.

Did we not cast out demons?

“John answered and said, ‘Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.’” – Luke 9:49-50 (NASB)

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’” – Matthew 7:21-23 (NASB)

How to square these two texts?

Assuming that the “many” in Matthew 7 are testifying truthfully about their deeds, it seems that Jesus contradicts himself. The statement, “he who is not against you is for you,” without futher qualification, is an absolute. Yet Matthew 7 is the clearer text, and Luke 9:50 is more proverbial. “He who is not against you” should be taken, therefore, as a generality, like the majority of Proverbs. “Train your child in the way he should go, and in his old age he will not depart from it,” for example, is not a universal promise, but a maxim of general wisdom. It applies in many circumstances, but not all.

In general, those who are not against Christians are for them. If someone is driving out demons in the name of Jesus, they are likely to be his followers. Likely, though not guaranteed, as Matthew 7 elucidates. And indeed, the two passages address very different questions.

The Luke passage answers the question, “How do we treat disciples of Christ who do not follow along with the Twelve?” The implication both in their question and in Jesus’ response is that the disciples were arrogantly parading their authority over demons as exclusively and inherently theirs, and not a gift of God to be distributed at his discretion. Jesus tells them not to hinder them, suggesting that this was the very action in the minds of the disciples – to oppose the casting out of demons among any non-apostolic groups. Jesus rightly discerns that the ministry of the apostles will be so divisive that it will be obvious who is for them and who is against them, and anyone helping them should be counted a fellow Christian.

The Matthew passage answers the question, “Is the mere claim of Jesus’ lordship enough to qualify one for salvation? Jesus responds by prophesying that many will fail to attain salvation who not only have claimed his lordship, but have performed mighty works in his name; thus eliminating any causal relationship between good works in the name of God (including claiming his lordship, which can be categorized as a good work) and salvation.

It is interesting that the casting out of demons in the name of the Lord is the thread that binds these two very different texts together, and it certainly is no accident. We are meant to contrast the opposite ends of the spectrum – the outcast Christian who casts out demons in the Lord’s name, and the outcast non-Christian who casts out demons in the Lord’s name. Both are alienated: the former by his fellow Christians and the latter by the Lord himself. By this contrast Jesus proves that the righteous will indeed be persecuted in this life, though finally accepted, whereas the unrighteous will be praised in this life, and finally rejected.

My last post was May 2010, and then life got very busy. My son, Josiah, was born in October 2010, and I’ve been through the valley of humiliation (health problems) with my Shepherd since last summer. We left Korea in March of 2011 and have spent six months in California resting and preparing for the next phase of life. Our ambition is to go to the Middle East, where there is the greatest need for the gospel of Jesus. To this end, I’m going to keep blogging my way through the Scriptures, and deal with some Islamic issues on the side.

It’s a lot easier for me to love Amillennialists when they talk like this.

From Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future

Dispensationalists commonly say that we amillennialists spiritualize prophecies of this kind by understanding them as being fulfilled either in the church of this present age or in heaven in the age to come. I believe, however, that prophecies of this sort refer neither primarily to the church of this age nor to heaven, but to the new earth. The concept of the new earth is therefore of great importance for the proper approach to Old Testament prophecy. All too often, unfortunately, amillennial exegetes fail to keep biblical teaching on the new earth in mind when interpreting Old Testament prophecy. It is an impoverishment of the meaning of these passages to make them apply only to the church or to heaven. But it is also an impoverishment to make them refer to a thousand-year period preceding the final state. They must be understood as inspired descriptions of the glorious new earth God is preparing for his people (205-06).

Dispensationalists accuse us amillenarians of “spiritualizing” prophecies of this sort so as to miss their real meaning. John F. Walvoord, for example, says, “The many promises made to Israel are given one two treatments [by Amillennialists]. By the traditional Augustinian amillennialism, these promise are transferred by spiritualized interpretation to the church. The church today is the true Israel and inherits the promise which Israel lost in rejecting Christ. The other, more modern type of amillennialism hold that the promises of righteousness, peace and security are poetic pictures of heaven and fulfilled in heaven, not on earth.” On a later page, after quoting and referring to a number of prophetic passages about the future of the earth, Walvoord goes on to say, “By no theological alchemy should these and countless other references to earth as the sphere of Christ’ millennial reign be spiritualized to become the equivalent of heaven, the eternal sate, or the church as amillenarians have done.

To the above we may reply that prophecies of this sort should not be interpreted as referring either to the church of the present time of to heaven, if by heaven is meant a realm somewhere off in space, far away from earth. Prophecies of this nature should be understood as descriptions – in figurate language, to be sure – of the new earth which God will bring into existence after Christ comes again – a new earth which will last, not just for a thousand years, but forever. … There will be a future fulfillment of these prophecies, not in the millennium, but on the new earth. … It is, however, not correct to say that referring these prophecies to the new earth is to engage in a process of “spiritualization” (275-76).

If they can accept that the prophecies of the OT are to be interpreted literally regarding the new Earth, then all you need to do is open to Isaiah 65 and point out the intermediate state (the millennial kingdom):

“Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.” (Isaiah 65:20)

This is not the new Earth, since death is banished from the new Earth (Revelation 21:4). This is the millennial kingdom that all the Jews after the Davidic covenant waited eagerly for. It will exist on the earth, after the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming, for 1000 years (Rev.20). And according to Isaiah, it will be composed mostly of people who die.

But wait – a few verses before, in Isaiah 65:17, establishes the context of the new heavens and earth.

Like all prophecy, this takes wisdom to understand. If the new earth is in view in v.20, then v.20 contradicts Revelation 21:4 outright. We have to understand, then, that like most Bible prophecy, this passage is layered. The idea of “new earth” here contains the millennium and the eternal state. The millennial earth is a new earth, but not the final new earth – so the idea is encompassing all the “newness” that comes in increasing measure with the governance of Jesus and his people until the eternal state is ushered in.

So v.20 is in the right context, the creation of the new heavens and earth that begins with the Second Coming. The only way to understand v.20-25 (including v.23, which mentions bearing children, something that Jesus said is non-existent in the eternal state) is to interpret Rev. 20 literally. There will be a thousand years of Jesus-ruled peace on the earth before the eternal state.

Biblically, it fits into the narrative as a whole (and the symmetrical nature of Hebrew literature). Just as after paradise there was a (roughly) 1000-year period of degeneration, so there will be a 1000-year period of regeneration before paradise.

Luke 21 – “The Times of the Gentiles”

It’s not about AD 70.

Not completely, anyway. There are two questions the disciples ask, but they’re roughly the same. I’ve heard a wild theory that Jesus interprets the first question as AD 70 and the second as his second coming. Don’t buy it.

The disciples don’t realize that the “times of the Gentiles” (v.24) has to be thousands of years, mainly because they don’t realize how many Gentiles there are on the planet. With satellites and modern anthropology and the Joshua Project we’ve just in the last few decades been able to count the unreached people groups (a phrase which was coined by Ralph Winter at the Lausanne Conference in 1974). It’s a very recent development that we’ve been able to see the unfinished task in its entirety – now we only need missionaries!

The times of the Gentiles began in 586 BC with the last king of Judah, Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar deported to Babylon, “trampling” on Jerusalem. The kingdom was destroyed, and no king has ever been allowed to sit on David’s throne since, although the last king of Israel came to his city (Luke 19:28-44)  exactly 483 years after the return to Israel, as Daniel prophesied (Daniel 9:25).

But the times of the Gentiles are winding down. Although we can’t know the hour, day, month or year of Christ’s coming, we can know the season. Jesus rebukes the Jews in Luke 12:54-56 for being able to interpret signs in the earth and sky -  the coming of storms, droughts, etc. – and not being able to interpret the “present time.” And how would they interpret the present time? Through Scripture and especially through the signs preceding the first coming of Messiah – the coming of ‘Elijah,’ the prophecy of Daniel 9.

The prophecy of Daniel 9! Gabriel counted it out to the day, and they wouldn’t understand. How many prophecy scholars are mocked today for attempting to discern the season!

But they crucified their king, instead, because they would not understand. They couldn’t be bothered. Disinterest in Biblical eschatology is Satanic.

A few more scriptures regarding this “mystery”:

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you – even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.” Acts 3:19-21

The prophets testify to a time of restoration, and Peter testifies with Jesus that Jesus will remain in heaven until that time. AD 70 was not Christ “coming,” because he remained in heaven and he didn’t restore anything. Luke 21:28 uses the word “redemption” – this is the kingdom of God coming to earth to reign for 1000 years before the eternal state.

“I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.’” Romans 11:25-27

The last sentence evokes Daniel 9 – when Messiah comes, he will put an end to Israel’s sin and bring in eternal righteousness. Paul equates this spiritual event to the physical event – Israel will be spiritually softened (Zech. 12:10-13:6) when the time of the Gentiles is finished. Then their king will come to his city, they will look on the one they’ve pierced and mourn for him as for a firstborn son, and will say “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Then the government will be on his shoulders, and he will reign forever.

A Few More One-Line Truths From Luke

Prayer does not influence God’s justice, nor his mercy in salvation. Prayer is the means by which God exercises his justice and mercy. Those who “cry out” are already chosen (Luke 18:7).

The “one thing” that the rich ruler “lacked” was actually many things that he possessed, and loved (Luke 18:18-22).

Jesus didn’t always speak in parables. He could be speaking the truth as plainly and descriptively as possible – if you don’t have ears to hear, you won’t understand (Luke 18:31-34)

Repentance is restitution (Luke 19:1-9).

The king’s lazy servant will be treated like the king’s ungrateful subjects. Christians who don’t obey the Lord do so because they don’t know his true character, and are no more Christians than those who outrightly hate him (Luke 19:11-27).

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” is utter nonsense without the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave them a knot that only he could untie (Luke 20:25).

Luke 15 – The Prodigal Son, or The Loving Father

The Prodigal Son parable is not about the prodigal son. The son’s leaving and return is the context for the point, it’s the husk to the kernel. The point of the story is the father’s love of both sons, despite their wickedness.

Both sons have a false understanding of who their father is – the younger son (the prodigal) leaves home because he thinks his father and his father’s home are less valuable than the “distant country.” The older son stays at home because he thinks his “slaving” will ensure his inheritance. Both sons are ingrates, who wickedly assume that their father doesn’t love them. They act like the wicked servant of Matthew 25:24, who “knew” his master wrongly. Both of their sins are crimes of willful ignorance – they’ve been with the father and seen his love, but have hardened themselves against it.

But that’s not the emphasis – the point is the Father.

The Prodigal Son has been interpreted by some Arminians as an example of the exercise of free will, or agency, or whatever term you like to suggest that the son has control over his actions regarding salvation. He chooses to leave the father, and he chooses to return.

That interpretation is set up to fail, for at least one major reason. If you interpret the father as God, then the staying or leaving of his sons in the house can be nothing other than salvation – to be in God’s house is to be saved, and to be outside is to be damned. And if the father is God, then you must admit that God doesn’t have control over the main motivating event in the son’s return, which is the famine. So the metaphor carries the meaning that God presides over the house, but everything outside of that is beyond his dominion, and he’s waiting eagerly at his property line, biting his nails for the lost son to return home.

Even the boldest bible-believing Arminian wouldn’t venture this close to open theism – would they? To put it simply, if the point of the story is the prodigal son’s free agency in accepting or rejecting his father, then the father certainly doesn’t have any more control over the climate than he does his son.

What sort of weak god is this?

The Calvinist Prodigal Son goes like this – assuming that we can rework this parable to discuss the process of salvation and not God’s love:

There was a man who had two sons. The man put words into the younger son’s mouth: “Father, give me my share of the estate.” So he divided his property between them.

Not long after that, the man made the younger son get together all he had, set off for a distant country, and there squander the man’s wealth in wild living, which the man allowed (the man even set up the parties). After he had spent all the man’s money, there was a severe famine in that whole country, because the man could control the weather and made it stop raining. So the son went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, to whom the man had given land. The man called the citizen and told him to put his son to work in his fields (which were actually the man’s) feeding pigs (which were also the man’s.) The son longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything, because the man told them not to.

When the man changed the son’s mind and made the son come to his senses, the son said, “How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death, because my father is starving me! If he lets me, I will set out and go back to my father and ask him to put the words in my mouth to say: ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son, make me like one of your hired men.’

Since the man could hear everything, so he heard the son’s words in the distant country. But actually, it’s more accurate to say that since the man could hear everything and cause people to say things, which is why the son said “put the words in my mouth.” So the man heard his son and put words in his mouth. And even more accurately, since the man knew all things, including the future and could hear all things and could put words in people’s mouths, he had always intended for all of these things to happen, and for his son at that moment to say what he said, so really he just is.

So the man made the son get up and come back to himself, because he is.

And you get the point. If this story were an accurate model of the sovereignty of God in salvation, it would be really weird.

Luke 15 – The “Lost” Parables

It seems to me that the Prodigal Son parable explains the previous two – I have two puzzles to solve in this chapter.

1. Jesus phrases the question in the first two parables as a negative. Does the man with 99 sheep not go searching for his 1 lost sheep? Does the woman with 9 coins not go searching for her 1 lost coin? The answer I have to both of these is a very weak “no.”

It isn’t obvious that a man who loses 1% of his sheep go looking for that 1%. If it’s going to cost him more time than it’s worth to write off the sheep, he writes it off. So it’s not business that’s going on here.

The woman who loses the coin strikes closer to the heart of the metaphor. These aren’t just items of business, like sheep, but personal possessions. Still… I can’t get excited about money. Nor do I think money is the best metaphor for the relationship between God and sinful humanity.

So Jesus uses those two to create a tension before the big parable. He wants to highlight the principle of importance, because, strangely enough, he needs to show that the Prodigal Son is valuable.

The Pharisees and teachers can understand the value of sheep and coins, but not an ingrate son. Jesus prefaces the Prodigal Son with the Sheep and Coin to lead the Pharisees’ line of thought: God values sinners the way people value possessions, because they are his.

The point of the Prodigal Son is the older brother – the Pharisee. He was always with the father, and everything the father had was his – so why didn’t he act like the father? Why didn’t he rejoice, knowing that all good things were his, even the love of the father.

So that solves the second puzzle, which is

2. Why does he rejoice?

The Father rejoices in the very ownership of his creation. He has made all things, and all things good, despite the curse. He is able to look on even the most reprobate sinner with the eyes of a father, and rejoice when that sinner repents, and mourn when that sinner perishes.

Some beautiful one-line truths from Luke.

God wants control over every part of your life. The Jews had to tithe everything, from their herds to their spice racks.

“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.” (Luke 11:42, emphasis mine)

Jesus accepts the hospitality of a Pharisee, then proceeds to insult him. He wasn’t going to sell himself for a meal, like Esau. (Luke 11:37-54)

Demons love the self-righteous. They practically run them like hotels. (Luke 11:24-26)

Stress is biblical. Worry is not. (Luke 12:50)

False Christians will have it worse in hell than unbelievers. This may be the world’s largest mission field. Those who have heard the gospel preached and have rejected it will suffer more than those who have only known of the Creator (Romans 1) and rejected him. (Luke 12:47-48)

Jesus is eager for the judgment day. None of this “God is angry and Jesus is begging him to relax” nonsense. The Father and the Son are one, in patience and in eager anticipation of judging sinners. (Luke 12:49)

We can’t know the hour, day, month or season of Christ’s return, but we can know the “time.” (Luke 12:54-56, Matthew 24:33)