DrinkDeep

New Blog

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:44:00 +0000

Thanks to everyone for checking this blog. From now on, I will only be posting to the blog at my church. You can take a look here.

Matthew 6:7-15 - Forgiven and Forgiving

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 02:38:00 +0000

The last thing we’re going to look at in this passage is the second ‘we’ petition in v.12, and the corresponding reiteration Jesus gives in vv.14-15. As mentioned briefly in the previous post, v.12 is an expression of dependence on God for forgiveness and the acknowledgment that God’s willingness to forgive us is contingent upon our forgiving those who sin against us: “And forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

The connection between our being forgiven and our being forgiving is so fundamental that Jesus returns to it and clarifies its importance in vv.14-15: “For if you forgive men their transgressions your heavenly Father also will forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.” Does this mean that our salvation is based upon works?

In a nutshell, no. The key here is to notice what word Jesus is using to refer to God. If you remember, I mentioned before that in Matthew, when Jesus is speaking to His disciples about God, He uses the word ‘Father’. When speaking to the larger crowd, He uses the word ‘God’. That the disciples can pray at all, and especially using the name ‘Father,’ is a result of God’s saving grace. When we are saved, we are forgiven by God as Judge and are brought into a right relationship with Him. However, we continue to sin, and need to be forgiven by Him as Father. This is why we are to continue to confess sin (1John 1:8-9).

Unrepentant sin in our lives interrupts our fellowship with our Father. Proverbs 28:9 reads, “He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, even his prayer is an abomination.”

Also, Psalm 66:18, “If I regard wickedness in my heart, The Lord will not hear.”

To refuse to forgive someone is itself sin, as is indicated by this very passage in Matt 6, and also in Matt 18:21-35. Therefore, when we come to God to ask for forgiveness while we are simultaneously withholding forgiveness from someone else, we have the unrepentant sin of unforgiveness in our lives, for which we cannot be forgiven. That is why Jesus is addressing this as part of His instruction on prayer. The sin of unforgiveness disrupts our fellowship with God, excludes our being forgiven by God for it, and hinders our ability to communicate with Him in prayer. Our asking for forgiveness provides the occasion to reflect on our own heart and look for any forgiveness that we are withholding from others.

So, does Jesus mean that if we don’t forgive someone we lose our salvation or that we were never saved to begin with? No. He is simply saying (and I believe this is the reason for returning to the theme in v.14 right after the last part of the model prayer) that if we are withholding forgiveness from someone, that represents sin in our own life that has not been confessed, we have not repented of it, and therefore we are not forgiven by God. We are still saved. God is still our Father (again, notice v.15, “if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions”). It’s just that our broken horizontal relationship with man has interrupted our perfect vertical relationship with our Father.

Some of you may be breathing a sigh of relief. That’s not a good sign. Short of hell, what could be worse than anything which deprives us of that precious and supremely fulfilling fellowship with the Father for which He killed His Son to provide us? Friends, let’s not take this lightly. If you’re holding a grudge against someone, you must deal with it, now. You must give up any right against that person. It does not matter how deeply you’ve been hurt or what that person did. This passage makes no exceptions.

If the person you need to forgive has already asked for your forgiveness, contact them and extend it. If that person hasn’t asked for forgiveness or doesn’t even know they’ve hurt you, simply forgive them without a word. You’ve been forgiven much, so you must also forgive.

I hope these last few posts have been helpful. I just want to reiterate what I believe is the main idea of this passage. The concern here is our posture of prayer. It should be one of reverence and submission to God in all things. We are not approaching Him to give Him information. We are humbly expressing dependence and deference. We seek His glory, His kingdom, His will, His sustenance, His forgiveness, and His divine protection. His. This kind of prayer is profoundly peaceful and profoundly God-centered.

May it be a hallmark of our lives.

Next time, Matthew 7:15-23. Drink deep.

Intermission

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:57:00 +0000

I realize it has been over two weeks since I posted – life is getting very busy for us. I want to let you know about some things going on with Shelby and me.

The most significant thing is that we are planting a new church in West Chester. It is a co-pastorate and my primary role will be preaching. The other pastor is Rick Jones, a gifted teacher and close friend. How we came to this point is a long story, but we are very excited about what the future holds. Our two families have been on very similar journeys the last few years and the Lord has burdened us separately, and now together, that the state of preaching in the evangelical church has deteriorated to the point that the body is in danger. We have been moved to plant a church committed to the verse-by-verse exposition of Truth.

What this means for me is another significant time commitment. In addition to loving my family, working, going to seminary, and home-schooling the kids, I will now be trying to scrape together another 15-20 hours a week to prepare to preach. Priorities have necessarily shifted and I’m afraid that blogging will fall close to the bottom. I will do my best to post here, but if something has to give, this is what it will be. However, Rick and I are considering doing a blog together as part of our pastoral care for the new flock. This will be much easier to maintain since two keyboards are better than one! It will most likely be a combination of the styles of the blogs both of us are currently writing. (You can see Rick’s here.) That is, there will be expositional content, as well as insight into issues in the culture, the media, threats to the body, and evangelicalism at-large.

Additionally, the Spring semester is now underway and it looks to be my most challenging, yet. I would greatly appreciate your prayers.

With all that said, I will do what I can, when I can, but at this point I don’t know with what frequency I’ll be able to post. I’d recommend subscribing to this blog by email or RSS feed (the links over on the right side of the screen). That way whenever I do post, you'll get it automatically without having to check this site all the time.

Thanks for reading. In the meantime, drink deep.

Matthew 6:7-15 - The "We" Petitions

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:49:00 +0000

Okay, the second part of the model prayer is commonly referred to as the ‘we’ petitions. They are never called the ‘I’ petitions, which is what my prayer life has historically looked like. Each of the petitions reflect two things: a corporate sense of identity and total dependence on God. These both serve to make prayer more God-centered, and less me-centered.

I don’t want to be found saying that it is improper to express a need to God using the first-person singular, ‘I’ or ‘me’. Certainly we find that very thing in Jesus’ prayers elsewhere. But because of the pronouns used here and the short nature of the prayer as a whole, I think the idea being communicated is not so much a formula for prayer, but the proper attitude and posture of prayer. It is about God, not me – submission to Him and dependence on Him. Again, this reflects what Jesus has said about prayer in vv. 7-8: don’t think that many words will make the difference – God already knows what you need. We don’t pray to inform Him. If this is the case, what else can Jesus be communicating but that prayer is a simple expression of submission to and dependence on God in every area of life?

Let’s look at the first ‘you’ petition in v.11, “Give us today our daily bread.” There is a wide range of interpretations of this verse. I think the most straightforward is the one to be desired. Lord, provide for our physical needs today. This is just a very simple expression of dependence on God for all of the things necessary for our survival and it follows the attitude and posture of the ‘You’ petitions. The simplicity and brevity of the request are a continuation of the reverence and submission seen in the first half of the prayer. Even though it asks for something we need, it is still God-centered.

This simple request takes away the need to make our case before God. I find myself often giving God as many reasons as I can come up with for Him to give me that for which I’m praying. Instead, when I pray, “Lord, please provide what I need today,” I am actually saying two things: 1) Lord I’m completely dependent upon you, and 2) Lord, You decide what it is that I need today. Do you see how such an attitude would serve to dissipate anxiety? This sort of prayer trusts the Lord’s answer.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be specific in what we pray for. Again, I think the point is our attitude.

The next petition in v.12, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,” I will discuss more thoroughly with vv.14-15 in the next post. I’ll just point out here that we see a continued dependence on God, this time for the forgiveness of sin.

The last petition is in v. 13, “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.” [The Greek text makes ‘evil one’ a more accurate translation than ‘evil.’] This verse holds huge theological significance. As the preceding verses have expressed dependence on God and His sovereignty, so this verse recognizes God’s sovereignty over temptation and the devil. Many people don’t like the idea that God controls evil. Most people, probably. But if we look back at chapter 4 at Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, we see clearly that God is in control. 4:1 reads, “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” The Spirit of God led Jesus into the wilderness for the purpose of being tempted. In other words, the Spirit led Jesus into temptation. I am not saying the Spirit tempted Him. The devil did. James 1:13 makes it clear that God tempts no one. But God does lead us into temptation. Matthew 4:1 clearly states this and Matthew 6:13 supports this idea. Why would Jesus teach the disciples to ask God not to do something that it was not in God’s nature to do?

We know from accounts all over the Bible that God indirectly controls evil. One of the most notable examples is in the book of Job. Why was Job afflicted? Was it because Satan wanted Him to be? No. Ultimately, it was because God allowed him to be. Lamentations 3:38 reads, “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?” God is sovereign over all things, good and evil.

I don’t want to get into a theological debate, but it is important to note that the model prayer teaches us to recognize that God is sovereign over temptation and the devil’s activities and that it is appropriate to ask God to shield us from those things. The proper attitude expressed by the prayer also indicates a submission to God’s will in this area and all others – “Your will be done,” in v.10.

So in all the ‘we’ petitions we continue to see a God-centered view of prayer just like in the ‘You’ petitions. Let’s not forget that this model prayer communicates first and foremost a posture of submission, dependence, and reverence for God, rather than a formula for effective prayer. The attitude from which we pray will be the fountain from which the actual words spring.

Before ending this post, there is a related issue in evangelicalism that I’d like to address. It is called contemplative prayer, or centering prayer. In a nut shell, this is a kind of “prayer” in which you empty your mind either through total stillness and silence or by repeating a single word over and over. The goal is to commune with God and perhaps hear Him speaking to you.

It is being promoted by many in the emerging church and purpose-driven community. I would encourage you to look it up online. There is a plethora of material from both proponents and opponents. Given the explanation from those who promote it, spend some time thinking about whether or not it is Scriptural. Does Scripture teach us to empty our minds? You might take a look at Psalm 119 as you ponder this – does the Psalmist speak of emptying his mind or filling it? With what does he desire to fill it? Does the passage we’ve just studied encourage us to be silent and listen?

Many who promote contemplative prayer cite Psalm 46:10, sometimes translated as, “Be still and know that I am God.” This is a grievous proof-text wrenched out of context. A more accurate translation is, “Cease striving, and know that I am God.” You might take a look at the context and see what you think. But without this verse, the contemplative prayer crowd is up a creek without a paddle when it comes to Scriptural justification.

I believe that Scripture is how God speaks to man. Prayer is how man speaks to God. Contemplative prayer seeks to create an alternative revelation of God outside of the Word. It should be noted that the people promoting this are the same people who do not uphold the inerrancy of Scripture.

For next time, think about the connection between prayer and forgiveness, our being forgiving and being forgiven.

Matthew 6:7-15 - The "You" Petitions

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:26:00 +0000

Okay, let’s look at the first petition in the prayer, v.9, “Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.” First, this is to be a model prayer, not something to be recited all the time. The Greek word houtos means ‘like this’ or ‘in this manner.’ So, Jesus is giving us an example, not something to memorize and recite.

Second, the reference to God as ‘Father’ is important. In the book of Matthew, whenever Jesus is addressing those outside His group of disciples, He refers to God as ‘God’. Whenever He is talking to the disciples, though, He refers to God as ‘Father’ and frequently, ‘Your Father.’ We see this quite a few times in the Sermon of the Mount. Another thing to note is the importance placed on the identity of one’s father in the Jewish culture. A person’s identity was tied up in who the father was. If your father was a fisherman, you would be a fisherman. If your father was a tax collector, you would be a tax collector. And famously, if your father was a carpenter, you would be a carpenter. So, here Jesus is pointing out the close relationship between the one praying and the One to Whom he is praying, and the idea that our identity is tied up in our Heavenly Father.

At the same time, He adds, “who is in heaven.” The idea is that God is near, ‘Our Father’, and at the same time far above us, ‘who is in heaven.’ Theologians refer to these to ideas as God’s immanence and transcendence, respectively. I think this shows again, as I mentioned in my last post, that we are able to come to God in prayer boldly since God is our Father, but we must also approach Him in reverence, knowing that He is far above us.

Third, what does ‘hallowed be Your name’ mean? A better translation would be, ‘let Your name be reverenced.’ The Greek word translated ‘hallowed’ could be defined as ‘treated as holy.’ So, here again we have the idea of reverence for God, deference to His holiness, assuming the proper posture of prayer. Another way that the translation ‘hallowed be your name’ fails is that it doesn’t bring across the fact that this is a petition to God asking Him to do something. “Father, let Your name be treated as holy. Make the world to reverence Your name. Take the honor due You.”

It is instructive that this is the first petition made in the prayer. I think this is significant. Our number one objective in everything, including our prayers, should be that God be glorified. Our number one desire should be that the name of God be reverenced and treated as holy in the world. Can you see how this prepares our heart and attitude to come before the Lord? When we come to Him saying, “First and foremost, God, be glorified,” every other concern that we bring to Him is put its proper perspective, that is, is takes its rightful place as secondary. When what we truly want most is for God to be reverenced, glorified, and honored, our hearts are prepared to accept and embrace whatever way God may respond to the rest of our prayer. Jesus is communicating the proper reverence and submission that should be present in our hearts and words during prayer.

Moving on to v.10, we see the second petition, “Let your kingdom come.” This touches on one of the hallmarks of Jesus’ preaching in the book of Matthew, the kingdom of God. It most likely denotes God’s kingly rule and the exercise of His power and authority. This petition then is that God’s rule might be manifested on the earth. It is completely forward looking, not focused on the here and now. It expresses a longing for God Himself above all other things. In my own life, my prayers are almost universally intent on the present or near future. Rarely have I prayed longing for the coming of the last days when God’s dominion will be completely manifested.

The focus on God continues with the third petition, “Let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” This one is closely tied to the second. It longs for lasting change on the earth, God’s moral will fully realized on earth as in heaven. It shows a complete submission to the Lord. Jesus prays this phrase verbatim in the Garden of Gethsemane in Matt 26:42.

These first three petitions are sometimes referred to as “You” petitions because they are all focused on God. Let Your name be reverenced, Your kingdom come, Your will be done. This model prayer is God-centered and it demonstrates for us the proper perspective of prayer. While we may come to the Lord with our own requests, our bottom-line concern in every prayer should be God’s reputation, God’s kingdom, and God’s will. “Not my will, but Thine.” There is no naming and claiming here. That idea is so grossly foreign to this prayer and it should be rejected.

What a dramatic impact there would be, not only on our prayer lives but also on our attitude and perspective in all things, if every time we came to the Lord in prayer we first aligned our motives and our desires with the Lord’s and sought the accomplishment of His will above all things.

We’ll see next time how even the next three petitions, sometimes called the “We” petitions, are also completely God-centered. Drink deep.

Matthew 6:7-15 - Babbling Prayer

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:26:00 +0000

This passage of Scripture will be a challenge to many of us. I know for me personally it really opened my eyes to what prayer is really all about. Prayer is my lining myself up with the purposes of God and acknowledging my utter dependence on Him for everything in my life. If you were to look at a transcript of my prayer life over the last ten years you would probably get the impression that prayer is primarily concerned with informing God about our needs and that this is best done by saying the same thing over and over, attempting to wear God down and get Him to do what we want. Matthew 6:7-15 shows us that this is precisely the opposite of what prayer should be.

First, let’s talk about how this passage fits into the context. In this section of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus addresses acts of piety, including alms-giving, prayer, and fasting, warning the disciples against doing these practices in order to be noticed by men. 6:1 is the key verse for this section, which ends in 6:18. This key verse reads, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.” Within this section, the passage at hand functions as an excursus, or parenthetical section, between the teachings on prayer and fasting. In vs. 5-6, Jesus has already commented on praying out of a desire to be seen as pious. Now he turns to the act of praying itself.

Verses 7-8 address the issue of thoughtless prayer. In v.7, Jesus warns us not to use meaningless repetition. It literally means, ‘do not babble.’ He compares this kind of prayer to the prayers of the Gentiles, who think that the more they say, the better chance they will be answered.

You may have noticed in your own life a tendency to do this. Sometimes I am guilty of saying the same thing in as many different ways as possible. The next day I say the same basic prayers just varying the vocabulary used. Then there are times when I pray and find my mind wandering and thinking about a dozen other things rather than about what I am saying to the Lord.

In v.8, Jesus exposes the false conception of prayer that leads to meaningless repetition. “So do not be like them [the Gentiles]; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.” We assume that we are telling God things He doesn’t know. But He does know what we need and it is therefore unnecessary for us to say the same thing over and over. We also, whether in theory or not – certainly in practice – assume that the bulk of prayer is our asking God to do things for us. Jesus will show in the following verses that this is not the case. Of course, God wants to hear our requests, but when that is the mainstay of our prayer lives, we are missing the point.

I think there are a couple of things we should take from these two verses. First, our requests should be to the point without saying the same thing over and over. God knows what is going on. Sure we should pray consistently and with persistence, but I don’t think we should spend a lot of time helping God to see all the reasons why it would behoove Him to come down on our side on this or that issue. As we’ll see in the model prayer, prayer is a mixture of request and submission, with submission being the higher priority.

So what does this mean for the model that Jesus sets for us as we see Him in the Gospels spending entire nights in prayer? Again, we assume based on our false conception of prayer that Jesus spent that whole time asking for things. We see in Jesus’ prayers not only requests for Himself, but supplication on the behalf of others, and the submission of Himself to the Father’s will.

Second, prayer should be characterized by reverence for God. When we approach the throne, we should feel the weight of that act. We are talking to Almighty God, the sovereign, omniscient Creator. An awareness of His infinite holiness should preclude any mindless, mechanical speech. It is irreverence that allows us to utter babbling prayers. If I had the opportunity to speak with the President, my head would undoubtedly be in the game. How much more should my thoughts be intent on the Lord when I approach Him in prayer.

Much of our reverence for God has been lost in the last several decades as we have become more concerned with pleasing men than pleasing the Lord. I lay the blame at the feet of pastors who have assumed a ‘do what works’ mentality in reference to ministry methodology. The attempt to look and act cool to the world has resulted in such a casual atmosphere in our churches that God is treated like He’s our kid brother or drinking buddy. A pastor who does not model reverence for the Lord from the pulpit by being careful with the Word, sets the tone for the church, which results in a congregation that is able to enter prayer feeling like they are talking to their next door neighbor.

Of course, God is our Father. He is not a God who is far away, but a God who has come near. That does not mean, however, that He has changed from the Holy God we see in Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4. Due to the sacrifice of the Son, we have the privilege of approaching the throne of grace with boldness, but we must do so with reverence. It is that reverence that puts us in a posture to do what Jesus shows us in His model prayer – align ourselves with His sovereign will and acknowledge our complete dependence on Him. When we approach Him with reverence, it is natural to say, “Your will be done” and “We need you, Lord.”

I have found it to be good for my spirit to pray on my knees. There is nothing super spiritual about it, but it helps me to remember who I am talking to and what a privilege it is to do so. It puts me in a reverent frame of mind and spirit.

Next time, we’ll look at the first half of the model prayer. Drink deep.

Matthew 5:38-42 - Detecting the Errors, Part 2

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:37:00 +0000

Okay, verse 41: “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”

I’ll remind you that in Bell’s mind this means that when a Roman soldier forces you to carry his stuff for one mile, which Bell says was the legal limit, you should continue to carry his stuff past the one mile marker and therefore put the soldier in a position of weakness. You will have forced him to treat you with respect because he needs you to give him back his stuff so that he won’t get in trouble with the government for having someone carry his stuff past the legal limit of one mile.

Two things jump out at me. First, Bell has built his whole interpretation of this passage on the fact that the Romans were an extremely violent culture and that the Jews needed a way to resist in a non-violent manner. But suddenly, when Bell gets to this verse, the Romans become pacifists. These brutes, whom Bell portrays in his interpretation of v.39 as having a penchant for beating Jews, have turned hippie for no apparent reason. Does it make any logical sense that a Roman soldier wouldn’t beat the hound out of a Jew who refused to give him his rightful belongings? Does it make any logical sense that a Roman would allow himself to be forced to say to a Jew, “Please, give me my stuff back”? No, it does not.

Second, how would a third party standing near the one mile marker know that it was the one mile marker? In other words, short of satellite surveillance, how would anyone know that this Jew had been carrying the Roman’s stuff for more than one mile? If a witness had been on the same road and gone the same distance and therefore knew when the one mile marker had been past, the witness would also see that the Jew refused to give the Roman his stuff and the violation was therefore not the Roman’s fault. In fact, it would be far more likely that the Jew would be charged with theft, rather than the Roman being charged with forced labor.

So, we’ve seen with each of the three examples Jesus gives illustrating the principle in v.39, “do not resist an evil person,” that the verses themselves do not allow Bell’s interpretation. But what about the context? I asked you last time to take a look at v.42. Every study I checked shows v.42 as a part of the passage we have been talking about. A cursory reading of the text also makes it clear that vv.38-42 are one passage. What does v.42 tell us?

"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.” Why would Bell leave this verse out of his message? I think the answer is obvious: it ruins his interpretation of the preceding verses. It simply does not fit the idea of asserting your rights against someone else. It runs opposite of Bell’s campaign to force the strong to treat the weak as equals.

Now let’s widen our context a little and look at the preceding sections. First, we have the opening section, the Beatitudes - things like, blessed are the meek, blessed are those who are persecuted, blessed are the peacemakers. That doesn’t sound anything like the spirit Bell proposes in his message, which says, “assert yourself and make people stop persecuting you.” Next, we have a series of sections beginning in v.21 in which Jesus gives an OT commandment and then proceeds to raise the bar, calling on the listener to pay closer attention to the heart issue involved in each commandment and not just the letter of the law. For example, in vv.21-22 we read, “You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

Does that sound like something that the people would be cheering about? If you are angry with your brother, you deserve the same punishment as a murderer – does that make you feel good? No? That’s because Jesus is raising the bar. What we find in the Sermon on the Mount, is Jesus saying a lot of harsh things. If you lust, you are an adulterer. If you marry a divorced woman, you are an adulterer. If your right eye causes you to stumble, tear it out. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. Love your enemies. Do not love the things of this world. Do not worry about any of your own needs. Do not judge. The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life. Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

To these Rob Bell would add: “Assert yourself and force your enemy to treat you as an equal." "Reclaim your own diginity." "Assume a position of power." "Take the initiative away from your enemy." His interpretation, when viewed from the context of the entire Sermon, sticks out like a sore thumb. It runs counter to everything else Jesus said. It is not just off - it is the exact opposite of what the verses are teaching. The Sermon has absolutely nothing to do with dignity, non-violent resistance, or asserting yourself. It is about selflessness, humility, discipleship, and suffering. But Bell is saying that in a Sermon full of sayings that would be very hard to hear, there are three verses which would really excite the listeners. It doesn't make sense.

What about Jesus’ example? Did He practice what Bell has proposed? No. Jesus consistently put others before Himself and the greatest picture of this is in the Passion. Isaiah 53:7 reads, “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.” Jesus was struck repeatedly, and yet He did not assert Himself and force His attackers to treat Him like an equal. His clothes were taken away, leaving Him naked before the world, and yet somehow the Jewish leaders were not shamed by it or forced to treat Him with respect.

Scripture never records Jesus living the interpretation that Bell gives. It shows Him doing the opposite. So, if Rob Bell is correct, Jesus is a hypocrite.

Now, how do we know what the right interpretation is? As I alluded to above, in the surrounding context, Jesus repeatedly uses the phrases, “You have heard it said...” and “But I say to you...” He uses these phrases to signal His main points. In the case of our passage, He says, “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, ‘Do not resist an evil person.’” That is the main idea - do not resist an evil person. Jesus then illustrates the point with the three examples in verses 39-41. There is no reason to try to find a meaning beneath the text of the three examples. Jesus has already told us what He means by the examples - do not resist an evil person. The best understanding of the examples is the straightforward meaning of the words. If someone hits you on your right cheek (whether this is a metaphor for an insult or not), let him hit your left cheek also. If someone sues you for your cloak, give him more than is required - give him your coat, too. If someone forces you to go a mile with him, do more than is required - go with him two. In other words, do not resist an evil person. Then in v.42 he recaps the idea of not resisting an evil person.

This is why it is dangerous to have a preacher who doesn’t preach all the way through a book of the bible. When he preaches a passage from one book one week and another the next week, he is out of touch with the context and can end up making big mistakes, even unintentionally.

I have couple of things to say to Rob Bell. If I ever have the opportunity to speak to him face to face I will say it then. But on the off chance that he may stumble upon this post, I’ll leave it here.

First, thank you, Rob, for providing us with the grossest, most outrageous abuse of a text that I have ever personally seen. You have given us a great training tool. You so thoroughly distorted the meaning of the words of these verses, that we were able to see from multiple angles what it looks like when someone has absolutely no regard for sound principles of interpretation. My prayer is that those who have looked at your view of this passage will have the discernment to recognize error in your more subtle counterparts.

Second, shame on you, Rob, for providing us with the grossest, most outrageous abuse of a text that I have ever personally seen. I fear for you that you may be a fulfillment of 2 Tim 4:3-4 and James 3:1. You are a danger to the body of Christ. I pray that the Lord, for His own glory, will either open your eyes or close your mouth.

For next time, Matthew 6:7-15. Drink deep.

Matthew 5:38-42 - Detecting the Errors, Part 1

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:12:00 +0000

There are two things that might make Rob Bell’s interpretation fascinating. First, no one has ever heard it before. That should always be a huge red flag. I've said it before, I'll keep saying it, what are the odds that in the 2000 year history of the church someone in Michigan c.2006 is the first person to have come up with the correct interpretation of this passage? It is as arrogant as it is crazy. In effect, to espouse such an innovative interpretation is to say that Augustine got it wrong. Athanasius got it wrong. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Schaeffer, Grudem, Sproul, MacArthur, Piper - all got it wrong! But not Rob Bell. Second, this interpretation is fascinating and attractive because it brings in all this extra-biblical information about 1st century Jewish culture. What we have to keep in mind with that kind of thing is that it doesn't matter if every history book in the world says the same thing, if a piece of historical information leads to an interpretation that simply is not allowed by the text, then the historical information is suspect, not the Holy Scriptures. And that is precisely what we have in this case. In order for Rob Bell's interpretation to be valid, the rest of the Sermon on the Mount must be either thrown out or rewritten. And actually, much of the rest of the NT becomes obsolete because what Bell has proposed here is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Scriptures.

I want to you to hear me very clearly once again: Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan is a false teacher. I may sound like a broken record, but somebody has to. There is a pervasive unwillingness in the pulpits of the modern church to call a spade a spade. I’ll not be found guilty of looking the other way as a wolf snatches and scatters the sheep. His handling of the passage we are looking at is indicative of his recklessness with the Word, a recklessness that has led him to espouse a host of heretical positions.

But, friends, stick to the text, be a slave to the text, and you will not fall prey to the false teachings of all the wolves on the prowl out there. Learn to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

So, let’s look at the specifics. There is so much to say here I almost don’t know where to begin. But we’ll start with the text itself, then look at the context. If you have not read my last post, now would be a good time to do that since most of what follows won’t make any sense otherwise.

Bell’s interpretation has problems from the very beginning – v.38: “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person.” Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. And yet, Bell’s interpretation could be summed up in the statement, “Here’s how to resist an evil person.” He has made this passage mean precisely the opposite of what it says. Here is a rule of thumb that should be so obvious it is ridiculous to even put it in writing: any time a teacher proposes an interpretation that flips the plain meaning of the text on its head, discount whatever he says.

Things don’t get better for Bell as we move forward – v.39b: “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” He claims that because it would be improper to use the bathroom hand (left hand) to slap someone, this first slap must be a backhand slap with the right hand. He further claims that the victim’s turning the other cheek to the attacker would force the attacker to hit him with a closed fist, and thereby treat the victim as an equal.

This logic has several holes. First, the attacker could simply give an open-handed slap with the palm to the left cheek. Second, since the Romans had such a disdain for the Jews, there is no reason to think that the Romans would have had any qualms about using their bathroom hands to slap the Jews. Third, if the Romans were so prone to gratuitous violence, it is not likely that they would have allowed a lowly Jew to force them to treat the Jews like equals. Fourth, Bell would have us believe that these masters of brutality have only two ways to hurt people: a backhand and a punch.

What does the text say? “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Couple that with the first half of the verse – “Do not resist an evil person” – and what do you have? You have a verse that tells you not to resist an evil person - when he strikes your right cheek, let him slap the other also. Just read the text, Rob.

Verse 40: "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Bell says that this verse is a command to get completely naked and thereby shame the oppressor into treating you like an equal. He sites Gen 9:20-25, where Noah’s son Ham sees him naked and is cursed. Bell extrapolates from this that it was more shameful in the Jewish culture to see someone naked than to be seen naked.

There are a couple of problems with this. Huge problems. First, the idea that nakedness was a shame to the viewer and not the naked person doesn't work with the whole counsel of Scripture. While it is true that it was definitely not a good thing to look at another person naked, there is even more biblical evidence that shame was more closely associated with one's own nakedness. Adam and Eve hid themselves from God because they were ashamed by their own nakedness. In Deut. 28:48, as God is outlining the consequences of disobedience, one of the things listed is slavery to the enemy in hunger, thirst, and nakedness; that is, nakedness would be a curse for their own sinfulness. Likewise, Is. 47:3 says 'your nakedness will be uncovered and your shame will be exposed.' There are numerous similar examples. To say that becoming nude in front of someone would put you in a position of power over them is just wrong. To become naked was not a power play but a cause for shame.

Second, Bell assumes that what was true of Jewish culture was also true of the Romans. But even a rudimentary knowledge of ancient Roman culture exposes this as ludicrous. This was a culture known for their manifold public bath houses in which men soaked together both nude and partially nude while discussing business. Also, the Romans, who perfected crucifixion, routinely crucified their victims completely nude on crosses positioned right along the major thoroughfares. And don’t forget the ancient Roman art rife with images of the naked body. These were people who had no problem whatsoever with nudity. But Rob Bell wants us to believe that a Jew could so shame a Roman by getting naked in front of them that the Roman would be forced to treat them as an equal? Please.

Again, what does the text say? “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Now jump back to v.39a: “Do not resist an evil person.” Put them together and what do you have? Do not resist an evil person – if he wants to take your shirt, give him your coat also. Friends, there are undoubtedly some things that Jesus said during His time here that are very difficult to understand, but these are not them. This is as straightforward as it gets.

There is still so much to cover and this post is getting pretty long, so I’m going to have to break this up. But keep looking at the passage. Check out v.41 and search for why Bell’s interpretation won’t work. Also, look at v.42, which Bell omitted, and determine why it was far more convenient for him to ignore it than to face it.

Look at the larger context, too – the Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7. Does Bell’s interpretation fit? And does Bell’s interpretation match the example set for us by Jesus?

Matthew 5:38-42 - A Case Study in Bad Interpretation

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:06:00 +0000

Okay, this wasn’t the passage I’d originally intended to do in chapter 5, but a couple of posts ago, I mentioned this passage as having been abused by a teacher. A friend suggested that I give a more detailed treatment of it. I realized that this would provide a great opportunity for everyone to look at an interpretation and try to determine why it is wrong.

So, in this post I’ll give the false interpretation. I’ve found the original source of this teaching, downloaded the message, and determined that the lesson I heard was taken almost verbatim from the original.

The original teacher is a guy named Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan. You may have heard of him. He’s written a few books. He does national tours teaching on different themes. He has also made a series of videos called NOOMA. His church is believed to be the fastest growing church in America and some have called him the next Billy Graham. He is quite well known.

And he’s a false teacher. I don’t say that lightly and I’m not saying he’s a false teacher just because he has so egregiously abused Matt 5:38-42. I feel a responsibility to warn you about anyone who denies essential components of the gospel. As I’ve mentioned before, the NT spends much time warning us about false teachers. I don’t intend to take the time here to make a case against Rob Bell. Others have done that far better than I could. (Two sites you may want to look at are: Truth is Truth – this one has a couple of good posts on Bell and is an overall good resource for commentary on a host of issues; Apprising Ministries – this site has a wealth of information on Bell. The tone is a little too sarcastic for my taste sometimes, but has good information.) I want this site to be about biblical interpretation, and since Bell has provided us here with a great case study in irresponsible interpretation, I don’t think it will be a bad thing to mention him.

So, in this post I’ll give you Bell’s interpretation, and in the next post we’ll look at how we can know that it is wrong, as well as how we can know what the correct interpretation is. This passage is so straightforward that finding the correct interpretation is as simple as just reading the verses. The main thing I’d like for you to do is try to determine why Bell’s interpretation is wrong.

Okay, here’s the Bell interpretation:

To understand what Jesus is really saying here, we need to know a little about the culture of that day. The Jews in the 1st century were a downtrodden people living in an extremely violent world, oppressed by the Roman empire. They were poor, overtaxed, and brutalized in every way.

So here comes Jesus with a message for these people – people who know that violence is wrong but who need some way to resist, reclaim their dignity, and assert their rights.

Let’s look at the first few lines: “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you, do not resist an evil person.” What Jesus is saying, is that the eye for an eye thing is out. You shouldn’t engage in violent resistance. So if someone hits you, you shouldn’t hit them back.

But Jesus offers another way to resist: “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Now there are some things we need to know about the culture. Back then people used their two hands for very different things. Your left hand was your bathroom hand and you didn’t use it for anything else. So if you were going to hit someone, you would use your right hand. Also, you would never use a closed fist to hit someone whom you thought was beneath you. You would slap them. It was a degrading gesture and the Jews were well accustomed to being slapped by the Romans.

So let’s think about this. If I slap someone – again, only using my right hand – and then they turn the other cheek for me to strike them again, they have put me in a very awkward position. [This is where the teacher I heard differed with Rob Bell. The teacher I heard portrayed the first slap as happening to the left cheek, which ignores what the passage says. When someone in the class called his attention to this, he basically brushed it off. Bell portrayed it as a backhand to the right cheek with the right hand.] Striking them on the other cheek would be impossible to do. I would be forced to use a closed fist. So what has that person done? That person has said, “No. You will not treat me this way anymore. You will treat me as your equal!”

Now the people listening to this would have been thinking, “This guy is a genius! This is awesome.” Jesus had just given them a way to reclaim their dignity, to assert themselves and stand up in a non-violent way. This is Non-Violent Resistance 101.

Jesus then gives another example: “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Now, back then people only wore two garments - an inner shirt and an outer coat. To sue someone for their shirt was a pretty low blow. You would be leaving them with only one garment.

Again, we need to know something about the culture at the time. Back then, to see someone naked was shameful. Remember when one of Noah’s sons saw him naked and then was cursed? Yes, it was more shameful to look at someone naked than to be naked. So, in this situation, if someone wants to take my shirt and I give them my coat also, I have just gotten naked in front of them and I have heaped shame on them. Now, they are in a position of weakness. Once again, non-violent resistance. Don’t allow someone to take the upper hand and treat you poorly – you turn the tables on them, and force them to treat you well.

Can you imagine what the people in the crowd must have been thinking? “I love this guy. This is great.”

But Jesus doesn’t stop there. He gives another example: “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.” Now, back then the Roman soldiers were permitted by law to force a Jew to carry their stuff for them for up to one mile. To have someone carry something more than a mile was a violation of the law. So what Jesus is advocating is to take the soldier’s stuff and when the one mile mark comes, just keep going. Now that soldier is in violation of the law and if his superiors see this, he’ll be in all kinds of trouble. Who is in a position of power then? Yes, the person carrying the stuff has put the soldier in a position of weakness, who is forced to say, “Hey, stop, stop, please give me my stuff.” So the Jew will have asserted himself, turned the tables, reclaimed his dignity, and forced the Roman to treat him with respect.

The people hearing this would have been pumped. “This guy is a genius!”

What does this mean to us? Whenever we are in a position where we are being victimized, rather than responding with violence on the one hand, and rather than just letting them walk all over us on the other hand, we should look for a third way. Look for a way to respond that will say, “No, you will not treat me like this. You will respect me and treat me like a human being.”
_________________________

Okay, now I’m Greg again. I want to assure you that I have not caricatured Bell’s message at all. This is a true synopsis of what he proposes.

I really want to challenge you to take some time and work on this. Look at the text. See if it supports this interpretation. As you do, here are some things to consider:

1. Does the plain reading of the text support this? Does Bell’s interpretation require these words to mean something other than what they say?

2. Does the immediate context support this? Look at the section before and after. What is Jesus trying to get across? I’ll point out that Bell did not include v.42 in his message. Why not?

3. Does the larger context support this? If you have time, read the entire Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7. See if this interpretation is consistent with the other things Jesus is saying.

4. Are Jesus’ own actions consistent with this interpretation? Is Jesus practicing what He preaches? Look especially at the Passion.

5. Does the NT as a whole support this? Can you find any clear teaching anywhere in the NT consistent with what Bell has proposed?

Alright, drink deep.

Matthew 4:1-11 - The Father Alone

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:05:00 +0000

Here in this third temptation, the tension is palpable. If you notice, each temptation has taken place at a higher level than the one before. The first temptation was in the wilderness, the second was at the pinnacle of the temple, and here the third takes place on an exceedingly high mountain. Let's remember that as this experience has progressed, Jesus has undoubtedly become more and more hungry and exhausted. In each of the previous two temptations, Satan has offered Jesus the easy way out of His suffering. Here on the high mountain comes the most difficult temptation of all.

It may seem counter-intuitive that this temptation would be a temptation at all. Worship the devil? But the temptation is never in the price, but in the perceived reward. As Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth and their glory, he is showing Jesus what has been promised to Jesus from ages past (Ps 2:7-8). If we look forward in the book of Matthew, we see that the theme of authority looms large over the narrative. Jesus proves that He has authority to forgive sins in ch.9. He gives His disciples authority to minister the same way He does in ch.10. But most importantly, what does Jesus say after the resurrection in ch.28 before giving the great commission. "All authority in heaven and on earth have been given to Me." Ephesians 1:22 tells us that when Jesus was raised God put all things in subjection under His feet. Jesus knew that everything He could see from that mountaintop was rightfully His, but He also knew that it was the Father's will for Him to go through the cross to get it.

And yet, here it is right at His fingertips. He has the opportunity not just to end His current suffering, but to avoid the cross. Here is a way to circumvent the agony and go straight to the reward. This third temptation is different from the others in that it does not contain a command, but a promise. "I will give to you..." Jesus is not being tempted to put on any display of power as in the first two temptations, but rather to simply receive something. The verb used for "worship" by Satan is in the aorist tense, which is the most nondescript tense. The idea is that this act of worship would be just a simple act. In and out, no problem. Just this one bending of the knee and all the earth would be His.

Of course, Jesus responds again with Scripture, "Go away, Satan. For it has been written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and Him alone shall you serve." And again, His quotation, Deut 6:13, hearkens back to the Israelites’ failure in the wilderness. Exodus 32 records the fashioning of the golden calf and the blasphemous words, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt." The Israelites got tired of waiting for God to go ahead of them, so they made a god for themselves.

Jesus was tired, too. He may have felt alone. He may have wondered when the misery would end. But if He did, the Holy Spirit was not concerned that we know about it. All that is recorded is the rock solid faith in and devotion to His Father with which He repelled every temptation and passed every test. He fulfilled all righteousness and obeyed where Israel failed. For Jesus there was only one God, the Father, worthy of service and worship.

When the devil goes away, the angels come and minister to Jesus. The Greek word translated ministered means 'to meet the immediate needs of.' It carries the idea of all manners of sustenance, physical, emotional, and spiritual. These angels are almost certainly literally feeding Jesus, as well as comforting Him after His long ordeal. So what Satan offered Jesus in the first temptation, He is now receiving in the Lord's time and in the Lord's way. And what Satan proposed to Jesus in the second temptation, the company of angels, He is now receiving in the Lord's time and in the Lord's way.

What Satan offered Jesus in the third temptation, He will receive - but not until the cross. In a beautiful irony, Jesus' suffering in the wilderness has qualified Him for far greater suffering on Golgotha.

I may have said this before, but it bears repeating: everything was riding on this. When the writer of Hebrews writes that Jesus was tempted in every way as we are, yet, without sin, he was pointing back to the wilderness. Of course, there were other times of temptation in Jesus' life, but this account is the one the Holy Spirit has chosen to frame for us. All salvation history hinged on this battle. One falter and all would be lost. One failure and the book of Hebrews would never be written, nor would the rest of the NT Scriptures. All the saints who had gone before were undoubtedly anticipating with baited breath this milestone on the road to Calvary.

Everything was riding on this for Satan, too. Since Eden, the words of God had surely been buzzing in his ears, "He shall bruise you on the head..." As he plagued Israel throughout her history, I'm confident he looked forward with great anticipation to the opportunity to prove God wrong and to derail His plan to undo what had been done back in the Garden. How invigorated and surprised he must have been to see the Holy Spirit delivering up the Son in a weakened state into the devil's backyard. It was his shining opportunity. Everything was riding on this.

And as all watched - the saints of old, the heavenly host, the devil and his minions, and the First and Third Persons of the Trinity --

the Holy One of God fulfilled all righteousness.

When tempted to prematurely end His temptation and trial in the wilderness, He humbly trusted, obeyed, and worshiped the Father alone. This passage is not simply a how-to on using Scripture as spiritual mace for the devil. It shows us how Christ fulfilled all righteousness. We, too, when faced with trial and temptation must cling to the claim placed on our lives in the Scriptures, trusting God alone, submitting to God alone, and worshiping God alone, with Christ our Brother and Great High Priest sympathizing with us and offering mercy and help in our time of need. What a magnificent portion of Scripture this passage is. May the Lord be so gracious as to work it deeply into our hearts.

Next time, Matthew 5:38-42.

Matthew 4:1-11 - Testing God

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:36:00 +0000

I want to start out up front by saying that this particular temptation has been difficult for me to grasp. We know from v.1 that Jesus was truly tempted by these things. It was hard for me to envision how jumping off the temple would have been a true temptation. I wondered, what was the essence of this temptation? What was Jesus being asked to do? The answer may have jumped off the page at you, but I have really had to wrestle with the text, praying and meditating, exploring possibilities, and basically just going over and over it.

I'm thankful for difficult texts for several reasons. First, they remind me that I am only a man studying the words of an unfathomable God. For me to expect to easily understand all that He has said is foolish. Second, they sharpen my awareness of my need of the Holy Spirit's guidance whenever I study. Third, its just fun to dig and dig, and become buried in the words of His book. And fourth, this particular text will provide a great opportunity to explore how we should handle a passage that is difficult to interpret.

The main thing we want to keep in mind is that an obscure or difficult text does not provide a warrant for wild speculation. We're not interested in what it could mean - we want to know what it does mean. We have to let Scripture interpret Scripture. We need to be able to literally put our finger somewhere on the page of Scripture and say, "This is what leads me to my interpretation." If there are no textual markers that lead us to our interpretation, then we have taken gross liberty with the Word.

First, let's remember Jesus' physical condition. V.2 tells us that Jesus has been fasting for 40 days. He is hungry and exhausted and we know from v.3-4 that He has just repelled a temptation to make bread and thereby alleviate His own suffering. So He is still in a very fragile state.

Second, what is it that Satan is specifically asking Jesus to do? He wants Jesus to jump and he justifies this by quoting Scripture, reassuring Jesus that God will send angels to catch Him. If we just read the text for what it is, I really don't think we can say that Satan is trying to trick Jesus into killing Himself. Jesus is far smarter than that and Satan is too smart to think that it would work. Plus, Jesus' response also indicates that this is not a temptation to commit suicide - if it was, the Scripture He quoted would have been ill-suited for the situation. Further, Jesus is well aware of His authority to call for the assistance of angels (26:53), so there shouldn't be any fear in Jesus' mind that He would be in danger if He were to jump.

And that, I believe, is what makes this temptation so tempting. It is a huge stretch to believe that Jesus would ever be tempted to kill himself. But if this is not a temptation to jump to destruction, but rather to jump to safety (which is what Satan has explicitly asked Him to do), and to reassure Himself that God is there, then things start to make a little more sense.

Things will become clearer if we look at Jesus' response closely. After the devil has quoted Scripture, Jesus replies, "Again it has been written, 'You shall not test the Lord your God.'" He is quoting Deut 6:16, "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah."

What happened at Massah? If you have time, look at Exodus 17. There we find Israel grumbling to Moses about their thirst. Again, they are wishing they had never left Egypt, and God then reveals to Moses how He will provide water for them. The last verse of the account, 17:7 reads, "He named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested the LORD, saying, "Is the LORD among us, or not?"

"Is the Lord among us or not?" The testing of the Lord, that is, the asking of that question - "Is the Lord among us or not?" - is at the heart of Israel's failure in the wilderness. They have seen extraordinary things from Yahweh. The ten plagues. The parting of the Red Sea. The manna. Time after time, God has worked on their behalf and yet they demand water as a sign that the Lord is among them. The Psalmist revisits this in 95:8-9: "Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness, when your fathers tested Me, they tried Me, though they had seen My work." This failure, like the preceding failure when they grumbled for food, is essentially a failure to trust God. Their problem is a lack of faith. And in their demand for water, they are demanding that God prove Himself faithful.

Now, we know that Jesus is desiring to fulfill all righteousness, to obey where the Israelites disobeyed, to succeed were they failed. And in this case, we know from His use of Scripture and from the OT context of that Scripture, that He intends to trust the Father where Israel tested the Father. He assumes a position of subjection to God, rather than forcing God to act.

Like the first temptation, here Satan is tempting Jesus to use His prerogative as the Son of God to prematurely end His testing. To jump to safety would be to end the suffering. The desire to be rid of the wilderness testing parallels the Israelites' desire to be rid of their thirst. They failed by testing God's faithfulness in an attempt to end their suffering. Jesus succeeds by not testing God, but by trusting Him and His purpose in and through the suffering.

It is important for us to assume the same posture that Jesus did. God is God and we are His children. We must understand that it is God who tests us - we do not test Him. He leads us into temptation and testing, we do not lead Him. He holds us accountable, we do not hold Him accountable. He tests our faith, we do not test His faithfulness.

This whole thing reminds me of the name-it-and-claim-it phenomenon. You know, there are times, when the Lord wants me to be sick. There are times when the Lord wants me to suffer physically. There are times when He wants me to hurt and mourn. There are times when He wants me to be penniless and hungry. He has purpose in all those things, building my faith, teaching me to trust, and making me more like Him. How disrespectful it is for me to claim that He doesn't want me to experience that testing and to "claim" deliverance from it, to behave as if God is obligated to serve me, to make my will God's will.

"Is the Lord among us or not?" Israel assumed that because of their thirst, God was not among them. We make the same mistake. We assume that suffering means that God is not with us and we cry out for Him to deliver us from it and show Himself faithful. But to test God is to doubt Him. To doubt Him is to not trust Him. To not trust Him is sin.

But God is with us in the suffering. May we trust Him in it and submit to His purpose in it as Jesus did.

Matthew 4:1-11 - Satan, The Expositor

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:34:00 +0000

This second temptation is unique in that an unlikely figure quotes Scripture. That Satan would use the Word as a catalyst to sin should lead us to be very careful when listening to teaching and preaching. I suppose that most false teachers do not know that they are false teachers. Still, whether they know it or not, they are agents of the evil one and routinely distort the Word. It is troubling to me how lax pastors have become about teaching their flocks to rightly interpret the Bible. Without having to say a word, they are convincing their congregations that all you need in order to be the church is love. And they are setting the flock up to be ravaged by wolves. Of course, love is imperative, but it's not all. We also need discernment. 24 of the 27 NT books warn us about false teaching, and yet we hear very little about this from our pulpits. It is no wonder that the Emerging/Emergent folks are growing like wildfire - their pastors are all very engaging speakers, and for those Christians who have not been warned about false teaching and are unable or unwilling to rightly divide the Word of Truth, world-class oratory is all it takes to win them over. Is a shepherd really a shepherd if he does not protect his sheep from wolves?

My goal for these posts is to hopefully help you gain some understanding of how to be careful with the Word and interpret it accurately. Now, in this second temptation, we have two Scripture quotations, one from Satan and one from Jesus. One leading to error; one leading to truth. This post will concentrate on Satan's quotation. It will be very instructive to look at what Satan says, what interpretation he slaps on it, and how his interpretation fits with the verse in its context.

Matt 4:6 says, "and he said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'" (The words in caps are quoted from the OT.)

Satan is quoting Psalm 91:11-12. How do we know what his interpretation is? The answer can be found in what he is wanting Jesus to do in response to it. (And in Jesus' response, which we will look at next time.) He is telling Jesus that God has obligated Himself to save Jesus, therefore, it is okay to try Him.

Sounds logical, doesn't it? God has said He will do this thing, so why not try it out? If God wasn't willing to do it, He wouldn't have made this promise, right? Satan has Scripture to back it up, doesn't he?

Pretend for a second that this isn't Satan, but rather a blond-haired, blue-eyed man with an engaging tone showing not Jesus, but you, from Scripture that some random act is acceptable and encouraged. I'm afraid that many people wouldn't bat an eyelash. Why? Because he's using Scripture.

So how does Satan's interpretation fit with its original context? The first problem is that Satan omits an entire phrase from the quotation. Psalm 90:11-12: "11 For He will give His angels charge concerning you, To guard you in all your ways. 12 They will bear you up in their hands, That you do not strike your foot against a stone."

Why would Satan omit this? It is inconvenient for his purposes. This phrase implies a general protection over all of life. But Satan has presented it as a warrant for a specific act, taking a nosedive off the temple: if you jump, God has promised to have angels catch You. The phrase he has omitted doesn't lend itself that interpretation, so he leaves it out.

Second, the larger context of the Psalm 91, will not allow Satan's interpretation. I don't want to reproduce the whole chapter here, but I would encourage you to look at it. The gist of the chapter is that God is a shelter from danger. The writer mentions a number of things from which God will protect him: snares, pestilence, terror at night, arrows by day, lions, and cobras. All of these are dangers that bring themselves upon the writer. They are not dangerous situations into which the writer can throw himself and expect protection. This chapter is not an invitation to live recklessly or to test God. It is simply an assurance that God will shield from danger the one who trusts Him. It is certainly not a mandate to intentionally put oneself in danger, demanding that God come to the rescue.

That Satan quoted Scripture should be striking. It should be even more striking that he is using it to produce sin. It is sobering to think that what Satan has done here is something that happens in pulpits all over the place every Sunday. No, the intent is not the same, but the treatment of the Word is. Many preachers are doing through negligence what Satan did on purpose. Neglect the context. Point out only what makes your point; skip over what doesn't. Make it mean whatever you need it to mean. You set the agenda.

Why does it matter? I recently heard a guy teaching from Matthew 5:39-41. This is the passage about turning the other cheek when someone strikes you, giving someone your coat when they ask for your shirt, and going 2 miles with someone when they ask you to go one. The teacher proposed that the theme of the verses was that we are to reclaim our dignity when attacked by someone else, that we are to assert ourselves when someone tries to put us in a position of weakness. He said that we should turn the tables on the other person and assume a position of strength, making that person treat us with respect. Time will not allow me to explain to you how he got that from these verses, but it was preposterous. He showed an utter disregard for the context as well as the verses themselves, deliberately ignoring certain phrases that did not fit his interpretation. He made the passage mean the exact opposite of what it said.

And it was so well received that the people in the class were asking for more resources on it.

Doubly disturbing is that this was a second generation poisoning. This teacher did not come up with it himself, but had bought it hook, line, and sinker from a sermon preached by a prominent leader of the Emergent Movement. So here we have the Emergent guy abusing the Word, a teacher who adopted that interpretation without studying to confirm its validity, and a class who adopted it eagerly.

Friends, if the people in that class act on what they learned in that lesson, they will have sinned. They will have done the opposite of what Jesus commanded in those verses in Matt 5. Because they didn't know the Word. Did the teacher intend to deceive like Satan did? Of course not. But the end result was still deception and potential sin.

If Satan had the audacity to use Scripture to try to deceive the Son of God, what on earth makes us think that he will not try the same thing on us, especially now when biblical literacy is so scarce in the pews as well as the pulpits? And yet, the average church member will accept anything with a Scripture reference under it.

If you are in a church where the messages preached do not have a central text from which the message is taken, but rather follow an outline created by the preacher and supported with random verses from all over the Bible, you are in a breeding ground for error. I would encourage you to take one sermon outline, take each verse quoted, and study each verse in its context to see if the pastor's usage was faithful to the passage. Ask yourself, is the pastor using the Bible or is the Bible using the pastor? If it is the former, the message you are hearing is the pastor's. If it is the latter, the message you are hearing is the Lord's.

Satan used Scripture to tempt. May we never be so naive as to think he has given this up.

Matthew 4:1-11 - Turning Stones Into Bread

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:21:00 +0000

Okay, it's time for the first temptation. First, lets look at Satan's words, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." The opening phrase, "if you are the Son of God," is classified in Greek as a 1st class condition. Basically, Greek classifies different kinds of conditional sentences in a way that allows us to understand what is meant by it. In other words, what does he mean by "if". You will frequently hear this stuff abused in preaching and teaching, with people reading stuff into it. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone say that a 1st class conditional "if" actually means "since." That is not the right idea, especially here in these verses.

Instead, a first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. So here, Satan is not saying, "Since you are the Son of God, make bread." Rather, he is saying, "If you are the Son of God - and let us assume that this is true for the sake of argument - then command that these stones become bread." Ultimately, Satan is wanting Jesus to prove his sonship.

(We'll see this phrase two more times in Matthew, one more time in this passage, and once in Matt 27:40. In 27:40, it is interesting that the people passing by as Jesus was crucified were using these words verbatim. "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." I think this temptation in the wilderness, where Jesus is focused on fulfilling all righteousness, was preparing Him for the cross. He is both proving His worthiness to bear the sins of men and being prepared to bear the sins of men.)

I don't want to beat a dead horse and rehash the last post, but do you think this would have been a legitimate temptation? My dad always says, hunger is a strong motivator. Jesus had had no food for forty days. He's hungry, thirsty, and exhausted. And yet, He has all the omnipotence of His heavenly Father right there - the ability to take care of His own needs immediately. I think it would have been very tempting.

So how does Jesus respond? His response will give a clear picture of His own understanding of what this temptation means and what His objective is. He says, "It has been written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word proceeding from the mouth of God,'" a quotation of Deut 8:3.

When interpreting any passage, we want to pay close attention to any OT quotations. The fact that this quotation is coming from Jesus should draw our attention even more. So we should look at the context of Deut 8:3. There Moses is recalling the period of the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness detailed in Exodus 16. That means that we should back up even further and look at Exodus. In Exodus 16 we find the Israelites overcome with hunger and grumbling about their lot, wishing that they had stayed in Egypt, and having such a short memory and so little faith that they do not believe that the God who parted the Red Sea could provide food for them. They have a faith problem. God provides for them anyway.

Fast forward to Deut 8. To get more of the context, lets start in verse 1 and go through verse 6:

"All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your forefathers. 2 "You shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 "He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. 4 "Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years. 5 "Thus you are to know in your heart that the LORD your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son. 6 "Therefore, you shall keep the commandments of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him."

If we take a step back and look again at the parallels in Matthew between Jesus' life and the history of Israel, Jesus' quotation here makes total sense. He is in a situation just like the Israelites were. Hunger and exhaustion. Yet, where Israel failed, Jesus did not. He is fulfilling all righteousness, obeying where Israel did not, keeping the commandments Israel broke. He is trusting His Father where Israel did not.

Satan is offering Jesus the easy way out. If you are the Son of God, why should you suffer? Use your power to provide for yourself. But what was Israel's failure in the wilderness? They did not trust Yahweh to provide for them. So what must Jesus do to obey where Israel did not? He must trust Yahweh to provide for Him. He must live on every word proceeding from the mouth of God - be totally dependent on His Father for all things, not only for physical sustenance, but in every other way as well. He must fulfill all righteousness.

Let's think now about the Hebrews passage I referred to last time:

Hebrews 4:14-16 "Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

How effective a high priest would He be if He used supernatural means to deal with temptation? Would He be able to "sympathize with our weaknesses" if He had chosen to just turn the stones into bread? Notice also the "therefore" in v.16. The fact that Jesus was tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin, is the basis on which we may draw near with confidence to Him so that we may receive mercy and find grace when are in need. It was necessary for Jesus to resist this temptation for two reasons: 1) we cannot supernaturally meet our own needs, therefore to sympathize with our weakness He needed to endure temptation as we do; and 2) it would have signaled a lack of faith in His heavenly Father to provide for Him.

I think we need to step back from this very familiar passage and meditate on the depth of the love of Christ for us, His covenant brothers and sisters. In His hour of hunger and weakness with His body undoubtedly crying out for Him to follow the tempter's advice and take care of His own need, He chose to trust His Father, fulfill all righteousness, prepare Himself for the cross, qualify Himself to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins, and experience the full weight of temptation that He might serve as our great high priest, able to sympathize with our weakness and grant us mercy and grace. Oh, how deep is the love of Christ...

So, what are we called to do here? We are called to do what Jesus did - trust in our heavenly Father to provide for us. There are a myriad of ways that we could be tempted to meet our own needs outside of the plan of God. Whatever the temptation, the key is to be totally focused on God as our Great Provider and Christ as our Great High Priest. We must ask Him for grace and mercy in our time of need. We must draw near to the throne of grace and call on our High Priest, who has been tempted in every way as we are, for the strength to persevere and obey until the Father meets our need.

How do we draw near? By meditating on the Word and by prayer, all our attention on Him. Trusting Him.

For next time, look at the second temptation. Try to find the OT verse Jesus quotes and the verse Satan quotes. What light does this shine on the NT narrative?

And thank the Savior for fulfilling all righteousness so that He might become our Great High Priest. Drink Deep.

Matthew 4:1-11 - Getting Started

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:57:00 +0000

I've been looking forward to this particular post since we started this thing. The big picture element is breathtaking to me and I'm eager to get started.

We've all heard sermons on this passage. I've heard many - some very good, some not so good. But one thing that each sermon has had in common is the main emphasis of the passage: Jesus has shown us in the wilderness how to deal with temptation using Scripture. That is a fine thing. That truth is definitely present. But there is something much bigger here than Jesus showing the importance of knowing Scripture.

Before we launch into this, I want to say something about "new" interpretations. The big picture interpretation I'm going to propose may be something you've never heard before. Whenever I hear someone teaching on a familiar passage and they give an interpretation that I've never heard before, red flags start going off all over the place for me. I ask myself, what are the odds that in the 2,000 year history of the church this person is the first one to get the right interpretation of this passage? I then do my own study to determine if that person was being faithful to the text.

If my interpretation of this passage strikes you that way, please do your homework. Get into the habit of not being spoon fed. Those who swallow whatever they are given are far more likely to be poisoned!

I will just let you know that I have checked a number of commentaries and I am not the first person in the history of the church to have seen this interpretation. However, don't let that prevent you from doing your own investigation. I think the reason I have never heard this interpretation preached is because of how shallow our study and preaching has become. May the Lord lead us to turn that tide.

Last time, I asked you to look at the last part of chapter 3 for the reason that Jesus gives to John for His being baptized. He tells John, "It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." So, Jesus is concerned about fulfilling all righteousness. We will have a better idea of what that means as we progress in chapter 4. We just want to keep it in mind as we go.

Alright, let's talk big picture. If we take a bird's eye view of the first four chapters of Matthew, we will see in Jesus' life allusions to events in the OT, especially those surrounding the Exodus. In the book of Exodus, Israel went from the promise land into Egypt where they had to stay for a period of time. Then they left Egypt and went through a body of water (Red Sea) and went into the wilderness for testing for 40 years. In Matthew 2, we see Jesus going from the promise land into Egypt where he had to stay for a period of time, then coming out of Egypt back into the promise land. In Matthew 3, we see Jesus going through a body of water. In Matthew 4, he goes into the wilderness for testing for 40 days.

So, as we look at the temptations in the wilderness, we should keep in mind this parallel with Israel's history as well as the concept of fulfilling all righteousness.

So, let's go. First, verse 1 indicates the divine purpose behind this event. "Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil." We know from James 1:13 that God tempts no one. We also know from Job 1 that no temptation happens outside of the sovereign will of God. Jesus himself indicates in the Lord's prayer that God is sovereign over what temptations are allowed to come our way. So, He tempts no one but no temptation occurs without being ordained by God. And everything He does has purpose. So Jesus' time in the wilderness has massive big picture significance.

Next, Matthew tells us that Jesus fasted 40 days and nights and he was hungry. I believe that this information in v.2 and what we read in v.11 serve to make sure we understand that this experience was a serious trial for Jesus. He was hungry (v.2) and he was ministered to by angels (v.11). These verses indicate that this wasn't a game of charades where Jesus acted like he was being tempted and tried. He wasn't just pretending.

There is a move in many circles of the church to lean toward the idea that Jesus didn't experience real temptation. Some are afraid that if we say that Jesus was genuinely tempted, then He must have been capable of sinning, which is out of the question. They think that you can't have both a truly tempted Jesus and an unable-to-sin Jesus. This is a false dichotomy, however.

First of all, it is important to realize what is at stake here. If we say that Jesus was not truly tempted, we make a liar out of the writer of Hebrews:

Hebrews 2:18 - For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews teaches us that Jesus' ability to serve as our high priest hinges on the fact that he was tempted as we are.

If Jesus was not tempted, then He did not truly assume a human nature. And if that is true, we are dead in our sin. The atonement is predicated on the full humanity of Christ. If He was not fully human, He was not our true representative, the second Adam, and we still owe a debt we can never pay.

So, our whole faith rests on this.

What then do we say to the charge that we can't have a Jesus unable to sin and a Jesus who was really tempted? I'll share an illustration from one of my professors.

There was a long distance swimmer who decided to swim the English channel. As he was swimming, his coach was following in a boat a short distance behind him just in case he had a muscle cramp or became exhausted. The boat was there so that he could not drown. At the end of the successful swim, someone asked the swimmer why he didn't drown. What do you think his answer was? He said, "Because I swam." Imagine how upset the swimmer would have been if someone had said, "The only reason you didn't drown was because you had a rescue boat behind you." The fact that the swimmer could not drown did not mean that he didn't pump his arms and kick his feet and propel himself from shore to shore. He swam the English channel just as he would have if he had been alone.

Jesus couldn't sin. But that doesn't mean that He didn't feel the full weight of temptation. He did. He bore it all. He fulfilled all righteousness.

So as we look forward to this first temptation, let's resist our temptation to minimize what Jesus was experiencing. He was hungry. He was weak. He was exhausted. He needed. And it was into this situation that the Holy Spirit led Him in order to be tempted.

For next time, concentrate on the first temptation. If you have time find out what Scripture Jesus is quoting. Look at the context and see if you can find a connection between the OT situation from which the quotation came and Jesus' situation in the wilderness. Remember that Jesus is concerned with fulfilling all righteousness.

Let's also thank Him for His perseverance under temptation so that He could be our great high priest, perfectly able to sympathize with us in our weakness.

Matthew 3:1-12 - Big Picture

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:56:00 +0000

There are a couple of things I want cover in this post. First, let's talk about how this passage is functioning in Matthew's theme of the New People of God. Second, I'd like to touch on some present day implications for the Church.

As we've talked about before, Matthew will over the course of the book show the Jews separating from Jesus and Jesus building a New People of God out of believing Gentiles and Jews. This chapter is very in-your-face, in that we see that the first time that the Kingdom is preached in this gospel it results in a confrontation between the truth and the Jewish leaders. The huge verse behind this idea is verse 9. Right after telling the Pharisees and Sadducees to bear fruit in keeping with repentance, John says, "Do not presume to say among yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones."

I can almost hear the collective gasp that must have resounded in the crowd as John dared to say such things to the religious elite. These were the leaders of God's chosen people, defined by their posterity, their circumcision, and their law. To be a son of Abraham was to be among the people of God. This was an exclusive party. If you were a Jew you were in. If not, you were out.

And here, John the Baptist says, "That is all but meaningless. You must bear fruit that is the evidence of repentance." This is the beginning of the tension between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Jewish leaders. A totally mind-blowing new paradigm is arriving in this Kingdom and the Jews simply will not be able to handle it.

John continues with more tough words. He returns to the fruit theme, "Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees; therefore every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and cast into fire." The ax is here. The time has come. Fruit will determine which tree lives and which one is removed.

In verse 11, John gets very specific. Up until this point, the chapter was focused on John. Now John shifts the focus to Jesus, on whom it will stay until the end of the Gospel. He tells of One who is coming who is qualitatively different from John. John baptizes in water. This One will baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire.

Let me stop and say that there is so much here, we could spend weeks looking just at this. The issue of the connection between baptism and repentance could be a whole series in itself and would require going all over the Bible. For the sake of time, I'll give you my two cents and encourage you to investigate it for yourself. There are three ways this could be taken: 1) baptism effects repentance, 2) baptism demands or summons repentance, or 3) baptism presupposes and expresses repentance. I think these are the only ways the grammar of the Greek here could be read. However, in the context of the whole of Scripture, #3 is the only plausible option. If you want to talk more about it let me know.

Then what about baptism by the Spirit and fire? This is an extremely difficult phrase to interpret. Again, I don't want to write a book. Some think that both things are referring to salvation. Some think that both are referring to judgment. Some think that the Spirit refers to salvation and the fire refers to judgment. Personally, just looking at the flow of the passage, I lean towards judgment. Matthew uses the word 'fire' three times, one right after another in verses 10-12. The first and third times it is clearly referring to judgment. Given Matthew's affinity for triads (which we will see all through the book, including the next chapter) I think he is giving a triple warning of judgment. The Spirit? Well, both the Greek and Hebrew words for spirit also mean wind or breath. There are numerous places in the OT where wind and fire are part of a picture of judgment.

I'm not certain and I would never argue with anyone about it. But I didn't want to ignore it. So there you go.

But what is the predominant picture painted here of the Coming One? This man will be a Judge like no other. He is no passive, sissy hippy. He means business and He will separate the wheat from the chaff.

And the chaff are doomed.

Who are the chaff? The several references to repentance and fruit in the preceding verses tell us that the wheat are the people who bear fruit. The chaff are the people who don't bear fruit. This kind of stark separation will be seen later on using the imagery of sheep and goats. There is no ambiguity. There are no borderline cases, no reviews, no appeals - you either bear fruit or you don't. And woe to all those who don't.

Alright, how about present day implications. Think for a second about the fact that the first preaching about the Kingdom was a sermon about judgment. Consider also that Jesus in His preaching had far more to say about hell than heaven.

But it has become quite uncommon to hear this kind of preaching today. The prevailing idea is that it is unloving to preach about hell and judgment - we should love people to repentance. How strange to think that the preaching of Jesus and John the Baptist would be considered harsh and pessimistic today.

If you only hear one line in this whole post, hear this one: it is the most loving thing you can possibly do to tell someone that if they do not repent and give themselves without qualification to Christ, a terrible expectation of judgment awaits them. Literal hell. Literal fire. I think most people are afraid of being rejected for speaking this truth. Don't worry - you will be rejected. (Just wait for chapter 10.) Jesus and John were both killed for speaking the truth. The wheat will hear and heed, and the chaff will hear and reject - you can bank on it. But at the end of the day this does not excuse us from delivering the truth in love. I believe that judgment is an indispensable part of the gospel. Grace is not grace outside the context of God's wrath over man's sin. People must know what they are being saved from.

Repent. Bear fruit. Or face judgment. That is the message of this passage.

Take a look at the end of chapter 3 on your own. There is an important key there that we'll need before we look at our next passage. John objects to baptizing Jesus. Jesus gives him a reason why it is necessary. Find it and chew on it. Our next passage is Matthew 4:1-11. Wonderful things await us. Spend some time in it before the next post. Drink deep.

Matthew 3:1-12 - Metanoeite!

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:29:00 +0000

That's meta-noy-ate-uh. It's the Greek verb for "repent." This one word encapsulates John's message.

But first, let's take a look at a few ways that John is a forerunner of Jesus.
1. The first words we hear him say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," give us the content of his message, but also, if we look further in the book, we'll see that Jesus begins his ministry with these exact words in 4:17.
2. In 3:7, John addresses the Pharisees and Sadducees as "you brood of vipers." Who else addresses them this way? Jesus does in 12:34 and 23:33. In 3:8, John admonishes them to "bear fruit in keeping with repentance." Fruit bearing is one of Jesus' favorite metaphors; he uses it in chapters 7, 12, 13, and 21.
3. John says that his own baptism is of water, but that Jesus will baptize with the Spirit and fire. 4. Later, John's death at the hands of Herod precedes Jesus death at the hands of Pilate.

So we see that John is serving as a forerunner in a bunch of little ways.

But what is the main way in which John is the forerunner of Jesus? His whole purpose is tied up in that greek word above. Metanoeite. The command to repent. This the bulk of his message in this passage. Verse 2 is the key: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

As we saw in chapter 2, there are two camps here. One camp is responding favorably to John's message. One camp is not. The people of Judea have heard the message of repentance and have come to confess their sins and be baptized. The Pharisees and Sadducees have not come for this purpose. How do we know? Because of how John welcomes them to the scene: "You, brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? [In other words, 'it's not like you to humbly confess sin'] Therefore, bear fruit in keeping with repentance."

He goes on to cut them off at the knees: "Do not presume to say among yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones." John is saying here that salvation is not a matter of paternity but of repentance and faith. In other words, being a descendant of Abraham is of no help to you without the fruit of repentance. Paul says in Galatians 3:7, "it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham."

Paternity is not the precursor for inclusion in the people of God. Repentance is. This is John's purpose - to issue a call to repentance as salvation draws near.

How does John know that the Jewish leaders have not repented? They have not born evidence of it, the fruit of repentance. They think that they have heaven in the bag because they are Jewish. The reality is that they are doomed to hell because they have not repented as manifested in the bearing of fruit.

So, John's message is, "Repent - someone else is coming after me who will separate those who have not repented from those who have." That One coming after John is going to separate the wheat from the chaff. We'll look at this more closely in the next post.

Now, what should we chew on here? One huge thing is that people who have repented show signs of it. Church membership is meaningless here. Having said a prayer won't cut it either. True repentance and faith is the only way.

I'm afraid that many people in our churches are damned because they have been convinced by someone or have convinced themselves that all they needed to do was say a prayer. We all know people who claim to be Christians but who show absolutely no signs of fruit.

My older sister said a prayer when she was a kid and spent all her adolescent years and early adulthood believing that she was saved. A few years ago, in her late twenties, she was studying Hebrews and through that study was led to turn away from her sinfulness and give herself completely to Him. Some time later, as she reflected back on her life and the lack of fruit that characterized it prior to her study of Hebrews, she realized that she was not saved when she prayed that prayer as a kid. She realized that it was in the Hebrews study that she had actually repented and given herself to the Lord.

Let me testify today that I know that my sister is redeemed, and I know when it happened. The rest of our family would say the same thing. Her life prior to that study was virtually devoid of fruit, joyless and miserable, lived according to the course of this world. She is today a new creation. The old has passed away. She has repented and given herself to the Lord. He has taken away the heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh that beats only to please her Master. I do not personally know of another person in whom the Lord has worked such a dramatic change. She is literally the kindest, sweetest person I know. She has borne fruit in keeping with repentance.

Repentance results in fruit. Period. My goal is not to make everyone doubt their salvation. But it is my goal to make some of you doubt your salvation. If you made some kind of public display, prayed a prayer, walked an aisle, got baptized, joined a church, preached a sermon, or had the hair on your neck stand up when you sang a hymn, but you do not have any fruit providing evidence that you have repented of your sin and become a new creation - it is very likely that you are the chaff and not the wheat. And right now you have a horrible expectation of judgment.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Pray that the Lord will grant you repentance. Turn from your sin. Surrender to the Savior. Pledge to Him everything that you are. And trust Him to save you. All those who truly desire Him and do this will be saved.

For those of you who have repented, may the Holy Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are an adopted child of God. For those of you who have not, may the Holy Spirit lead you to profound grief over your sin and utter dependence upon God to save you from His own wrath.

Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Matthew 3:1-12 - John the Baptist

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:22:00 +0000

Can you believe it? We've moved on to a different chapter! I'm going to make a concerted effort to move quicker. There was just a lot of background to cover in chapter 2. From here on out we won't camp out for so long.

Okay, I mentioned a while back that the verb tenses make a shift between chapter 2 and chapter 3. In chapters 1 & 2, the tenses were primarily aorist (you don't have to know what that means). In chapter 3, they are primarily present tense. Basically, we could think of the first couple of chapters as backgrounding and now we are in the foreground. Its like a wideangle shot in a movie then zooming in for a closeup. We are about to be introduced to Jesus. But before that, the suspense builds with this first part of chapter 3, as John the Baptist, the forerunner, predicts Jesus' intro.

By way of reminder, when we look for the main point of a text, we want to pay special attention to any "authoritative speakers" we find. We have one in this passage, of course - John. The first 6 verses serve to establish him as such a speaker, telling us why what he says is important. In the second half of the passage we see that all the dialogue comes from him. So, we get his resume, so to speak, in the first part of the passage, so that we will pay close attention to what he says in the second part of the passage. Everything is moving toward the dialogue, so it is the dialogue that will hold the key to our interpretation.

Today we'll take some time to look at this first part, why we should pay attention to this guy. The most obvious reason is the OT quotation from Isaiah 40:3. As in the previous 2 chapters, Matthew is not being subtle here. John the Baptist is the one about whom Isaiah prophesied.

It is helpful to understand the context of the OT verse being quoted. In Isaiah 39, Isaiah has told Hezekiah of the coming Babylonian exile. Chapter 40 opens with, "Comfort, O comfort My people," says your God. "Speak kindly to Jerusalem; and call out to her, that her warfare has ended, that her iniquity has been removed, that she has received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins." A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. "Let every valley be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; and let the rough ground become a plain, and the rugged terrain a broad valley; Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all flesh will see it together; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

Let me say something real quick about a concept called multiple fulfillment. Frequently, in the Bible we find prophecies that have a near future fulfillment and a distant future fulfillment. That is, the prophecy is fulfilled multiple times. That is the case here. The coming of John the Baptist as the forerunner for Jesus is the distant future fulfillment.

Thus, the Lord is sending a message of comfort promising salvation from the LORD. This idea is prominent in the prophets and throughout the OT. The book of Judges is especially helpful in terms of God sending salvation following God’s judgment for the sins of His people. In each ‘cycle’ of sin and salvation in Judges, God raises up a redeemer. This text in Isaiah trumpets the ultimate redeemer, God Himself and calls on a forerunner to prepare the way. So, what does this tell us about John? His words are to be heeded - he is preparing the way for salvation.

There is something else very cool here lending credibility to John that our modern culture would never pick up on a casual reading. What's the deal with the clothes? Well, John's description in the greek text is an almost verbatim copy of the description of Elijah in 2Kings 1:8 LXX (LXX is the 'Septuagint'; it is the greek Old Testament used by most Jews during this time period.) In Matthew 11:14, Jesus confirms that John is a prophet and says that John is Elijah.

What about the diet? Later, Jesus tells us that John 'came neither eating nor drinking' (11:18). This just means that he didn't eat meat or drink wine, which is what this passage is implying. He was set apart, consecrated to the Lord.

All of this says, "John is an authoritative speaker. Listen to John."

Now, what does it mean for John to be a forerunner?

We'll talk about that next time. If you can, read the second half of this passage several times and think about what John is doing to prepare the way for Jesus. And what does that mean for us as we tell people about Jesus?

Matthew 2:1-12 - Big Picture

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:15:00 +0000

Before you read this post, be sure to check out the comment by Rick Jones on the last post. Rick had some great insights on why Jerusalem was troubled by the birth of the King. Anyone else who would like to make comments, just click 'comments' under the post. On the comments page you'll have an opportunity to register. Pretty simple.

Alright, it's big picture time. I think the main idea here is something we've already talked about. This narrative is serving to show that Jesus is the Messiah, giving his 'credentials'. There are several things that point us in this direction.

1) There are the Gentile magi who travel from the east to worship the King of the Jews, having received special revelation regarding the child's location and identity. vv.1-2.
2) There is the Jewish madman Herod, who believes so strongly that the baby is the Christ that he tries to hunt the baby down, and finally kills all the male babies two years old and younger in Bethlehem on the off chance that one of them is the baby King. vv.3, 8, 16.
3) God appears to the magi in a dream and warns them not to divulge to Herod where the child is. God, through supernatural revelation is protecting this baby. v.12.
4) An angel appears to Joseph in a dream telling him to take the baby and Mary to Egypt. Again, God, through supernatural revelation is protecting the baby. vv.13-14.
5) The Lord appears to Joseph in a dream in Egypt telling him it is safe to take the child back into Israel. He later steers Joseph to settle in Galilee to stay away from danger in Judea. Again, supernatural revelation...vv.19-20, 22-23.
6) The biggest thing: four OT quotation/allusions showing that all of this was a fulfillment of Scripture. These are Messianic prophecies - Jesus fulfills them all.

These things so convince the listener that Jesus is the Messiah, that by the time we actually hear from him in chapter 3, we accept what he says. In everyday life, before I accept or believe something that someone says, I want to know who that person is. Same thing here.

Another somewhat latent theme, as I've written before, is the providence of God in all of these things. The OT quotations as well as the other supernatural things that happen show us that this is all going according to plan. The fulfilled prophecy doesn't just tell us that God foresaw what was going to happen, and that now the events are happening just as He foresaw. Rather it tells us what God determined would happen and that now He is working all these things according to His plan. If we believe that prophecy is simply God foreseeing things rather than divulging His plans, we must also believe that God is the luckiest being conceivable. Imagine the absurdity of thinking that all the things in this chapter happened according to chance and yet somehow worked out in God's best interest. And our best interest, for that matter. If we fast-forward to the cross, and believe that God has only foreseen things rather than planned them, then the cross is simply what Pilate gave Him to work with. Therefore, the cross was handed to God, rather than God handing it to Jesus. Scripture will not allow such a view (Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28; Eph 1:11).

Rather, we should cherish this birdseye view of God's providential care in the securing of our salvation. He has orchestrated every piece of the puzzle and this chapter shows Him bringing it together.

Also, a huge theme in the book that we will see over and over is the rejection of the Jews and the inclusion of the Gentiles. This chapter gives a small picture of this in that the Jewish figures reject the baby and the Gentile figures seek him and worship him. Jesus' ministry will begin focused exclusively with the Jews. As the tension builds between Jesus and the Jews because of their unbelief, Jesus then makes a decided change in his ministry and teaching. He will begin to build the new people of God, the Church. We'll see this change very clearly. God's providence is evident throughout, showing that the Church was not plan B. It was plan A (Rom 9-11; Eph 2-3).

So what is the application? Beyond just pondering the beauty of this portion of salvation history, we should look at the two camps in the story. We see people making choices. Some choose to seek the Messiah and worship him. Others reject him and even try to destroy him. Black and white. Yes or no. Christ presents every human being with a choice. Worship or reject. As we will see later in this book, he divides the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, the believers from the unbelievers. He is the Great Divider. (He is also the great Uniter as he unites believing Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ, Eph 2-3.)

Our preaching, teaching, and evangelism should highlight this choice. I'm afraid for many pastors Jesus has become an I'm-okay-you're-okay cosmic hippy/genie who just wants to make everyone feel good. If we are telling people that Jesus is the answer to their heartache and loneliness, we are not presenting him as the choice that he is. If he is Tylenol for the broken heart, one might think, 'That's a nice option. I'll keep that in mind.' But if he is presented in stark terms, that he must be embraced or rejected, and that this one decision has eternal ramifications, heaven or hell - now, that's a decision that demands attention.

Please understand, I am not saying that as we share we must frame Jesus as a choice. I'm saying that he IS a choice and that if we do not present him as he IS, we have not presented him at all. John the Baptist will be doing some hardcore preaching on this very subject in our next passage.

Have you made the choice yet? Still thinking about it? There are only two sides of the line. To be undecided is to be decided against him.

For next time, Matthew 3:1-12. Read it if you can. Several times would even be better.

Drink deep and I'll talk to you soon,
Greg

Matthew 2:1-12 - Herod & All Jerusalem

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:44:00 +0000

Alright, before we go on to Herod and Jerusalem, I want to say something about intended meaning. As I mentioned last time, I don't think that providence is the main point of the passage, but it is in there. In fact, God's providence over all things is a clear theme throughout the bible. The thing to keep in mind as we go along is that there are layers of meaning in most texts, especially in Matthew. What do I mean by layers of meaning? There is truth that can be gleaned by the novice student, kind of like a surface meaning. Then there are things that can be seen by people with a little broader knowledge of the Scriptures. Then there are things, huge things, which can be found by those completely eaten up with the Word. To illustrate, the first time I watched Star Wars with my son Jackson, we were watching Episode 1. He was two. He loved it. It was the only thing on the planet that could make him sit still for two solid hours. (I was so proud.) He could see what was going on. He learned the characters, which ones were good, which ones were bad, and the sequence of events. He was seeing the movie as it was, but at a very surface level. He had never seen the original trilogy. So when we would watch the movie together, we were seeing things at very different levels. I had seen the original trilogy 1.53million times. So I was picking up things that he couldn't have because he was not familiar with the original movies. I was making connections all over the place, seeing the significance of certain lines, noticing the development of different characters, picking up on the irony of several relationships, noticing repeated themes and phrases, and basically enjoying the movie on a much deeper level. Jackson's interpretation of what he was seeing was not wrong. He just wasn't seeing as much as I was.

It is the same way with the Scriptures. John MacArthur has a bit better grasp on the Bible than I do. When we study the same book, we'll come up with different levels of stuff. He will see and understand far more than I will.

I say this simply so that as I'm pointing to a number of different things going on you won't freak out. My goal is to hit things on the surface and things a little deeper - like close-up shots and big picture shots. So far, in chapter 2 we've seen that Matthew is establishing Jesus' credibility as the Messiah. That's a big picture thing. We've also seen the Magi and their journey and the significance of what they did and said. That's more of a close-up thing. We're about to look at Herod and Jerusalem, another close-up thing. Finally, we'll look at a couple of big picture things to finish up this passage. It's the big picture stuff that you might not pick up on the surface.

Okay. Herod. We'll try to follow roughly the same pattern we saw with the Magi. What he knows, where he is, and what he does about it. What he knows: Well, he knows what the Magi told him - they were led there by a star, a Jewish king has been born, and that the baby is to be worshiped. It should be striking that a group of Magi from the other part of the known world are the ones filling Herod in on this. Which brings us to Where he is: he is in Jerusalem, in Israel. He is in the best place in the world stay up to speed on things like this. But he didn't have a clue. And he freaks out. And he's not alone: v.3 "When Herod heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." (This is pointing to one of the major big picture things that we'll talk about later. But I'll force myself to wait.)

Why would Herod be bothered by the birth of a baby King of the Jews? It's obvious - job security. But it's most likely deeper - he doesn't want anyone to be king over him. Why would Jerusalem be bothered, too? Honestly, I don't know. If you have any ideas let me know. I have a big picture answer, but on a human level I'm not sure. Maybe they were afraid of a revolution. Maybe they preferred to not rock the boat. I don't know. One thing is certain, they were the most likely people on the planet to seek Him out and worship Him. Paul referred to the Jews as the "Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all..." (Rom. 9:4-5; By the way, take a look at Romans 9-11, if you have time, for a hint about the big picture of Matthew.) They were in the perfect position to accept Him and worship.

What he did: what the Jews did with what they knew will be seen through the rest of the book. This chapter, though, tells us clearly what Herod did with what he knew. He brought in the experts to find out where to look for the boy. Notice that their response not only tells him where to look, but it confirms to him who the child is. So he knows that this is the Christ, but he proceeds with his plan anyway. He lies to the Magi, telling them that he wants to worship the child, too, so that they will find the boy for him. Later in the chapter, he will do the unthinkable in his attempt to destroy the boy. What did Herod do with what he knew?

This is a huge question. It's the most important question for every person who ever lived. What have you done with what you know? Romans 1 indicates that the knowledge of God's creation alone is sufficient revelation to make us culpable before God. His creation alone tells us that He is and that He is to be worshiped. To fail to do that is to be condemned. So, no one will be able to stand before God and say, "but I didn't know."

But those of us to whom much has been revealed will be all the more culpable. Jesus says to the Jews in Matthew 11:21-22 "...if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you." For Herod and the Jews, who knew who Jesus was and rejected Him, hell will be all the more unspeakable.

Speaking about the issue of what one does with what one knows, the writer of Hebrews wrote:
"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Heb 10:26-29)

What have you done with what you know?

Alright, next time - big picture things.

Until then, drink deep.
Greg

Mathew 2:1-12 - The Magi

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:57:00 +0000

Praise the Lord - my paper is done and I feel a hundred pounds lighter . . . and thrilled to be writing this post.

Did you look at the two groups of people (Magi and Herod/Jerusalem) and their behavior and words in this passage? This chapter has several of the typical markers that lead us to the main point.

First, what about the Magi (I capitalize their name because I like them)? Verse 2 screams out. Here we find what they know, where they're from, and why they've come. This verse is covered with God's providence. What they know: The Magi know that the baby is the King of the Jews. They were basically astrologers, which is why they would notice a strange star. But how can a new star tell you something as specific as 'there is a new baby born over in the west and he happens to be the King of the Jews'? These guys are getting far more revelation than a star can give. God has chosen to reveal the baby to them. So God's providence is attached to the fact that they know he's there. Where they are from: they are from the east coming to see a Jewish baby. No one would do this on their own. At this point in time, the Jews were of absolutely no consequence to the rest of the world. They were viewed as dogs, passed around from conqueror to conqueror for hundreds of years. For someone to travel any distance to see a Jewish baby would be insane. Yet they are doing it. Providence. Why they've come: They have come ... from the east ... to see a Jewish baby ... and worship him. These things don't happen on their own. Do you see the absurdity? Astrologers have traveled who knows how far to see a baby born in the most inconsequential place on the planet for the purpose of worshiping him.

I love this kind of absurdity. The absurdity of the gospel. It simply cannot be explained by any other means than the providence of God. He takes the most unlikely folks imaginable and draws them to himself. Magi? What they know, where they're from (or more appropriately, where they've come to), and why they've come - that is, that they are willing to worship a baby Jew - all of this was designed. Make no mistake about it, God chose these fellows.

But I digress...

No, I don't think providence is the main point of the passage, but I still see it in every verse of the book.

Let's recall that these guys are Gentiles. They have chosen to trek across the middle east to worship that baby. They've heard the truth and they've responded to it.

Okay, I changed my mind - we're back at providence. Look at verse 9. The star went ahead of them to where the baby was and stopped above where the baby was. I don't know what translation you're using, but the greek makes it clear that the star moved and then the star stopped moving. They weren't just navigating by the stars; they were following a moving star. Providence.

What did they do when they saw the star? They rejoiced. What did they do when they saw Jesus? They fell down and worshiped him. They worshiped him.

Put yourself in their shoes. They've gone through a crazy series of occurences, traveled a long way, seen miraculous things, and finally, in the end, they have been providentially led to the Messiah.

What was your journey like? Did you set the whole thing in motion? Or did He? I didn't have a star to lead me and I didn't have to travel across the world. But I knew what I knew because He revealed it to me. And I went where I went because He led me there. And I worshiped because He put the desire in me.

"Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God - How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways..."

Next time, Herod and all Jerusalem.

Drink deep.

Intermission

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:11:00 +0000

Hey folks,
Sorry about the delay. I'm laboring on a term paper. Hope to have something on here by the end of the week. Hope all is well.

Talk to you soon,
Greg

Matthew 2:1-12 - Background

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:31:00 +0000

Alright, let's tackle a question or two I posed last time. If this is the first post you are reading, it will be helpful if you read the first Matthew post first and work your way to this one.

First, in what way is this chapter (and chapter 1) background for the rest of the book? At the beginning here, I want to make clear that I'm not saying that the first couple of chapters are not necessary, like the preface most people skip at the beginning of any book. Rather, these chapters are laying the foundation for the rest of the book. How? In these first chapters, we see different people/groups saying heavy things about Jesus. Matthew himself traces Jesus' genealogy back to David and Abraham . . . this is in no way ambiguous fluff! Matthew is telling us that Jesus is the seed of Abraham and the heir to David's thone, that is, the Messiah. Then we have an angel, someone 'in the know' with major credibility saying that this baby Jesus is conceived by the HS, and will save his people from their sins. This is no ordinary baby. He is Immanuel, which means . . . GOD WITH US. After hearing this news, Joseph is also on board, testifying with his actions that the baby is the real deal. Again, Matthew isn't being subtle or veiled. In chapter 1, Matthew clearly wants to make the point, "this is the Messiah."

In chapter 2, Matthew strengthens his case by showing other groups who also recognize who this boy is. There are the magi from the east, and Herod and 'all Jerusalem' in the west. Be sure to catch that - Gentiles and Jews alike recognize that this child is significant. This Jew and Gentile thing is huge for the whole book - we'll be coming back to it again and again - and it is no coincidence that Matthew points this out here. (Where can we see the Jew/Gentile idea in chapter 1? Look at the genealogy.) And all along the way in these two chapters, Matthew is pointing out how all of this is fulfilling OT Scripture. So to recap, we have Jesus' bloodline, the testimony of angels, the determination of Joseph, the passion of the Magi, and the fear of Herod and Jerusalem all saying the same thing, "We have the Messiah here."

So to get back to the question - how are these chapters background? They are giving us Jesus' pedigree, his resume so-to-speak, establishing for us the reason we should listen to the rest of the book: Jesus is the Messiah. His identity and authority need not be questioned. His words simply must be heard, his sermons pondered, his compassion witnessed, his example followed, his Passion treasured, his resurrection celebrated, and his gospel preached. These two chapters establish who he is so that we can reject or embrace what he does. If we reject him, we're left with no excuses. If we embrace him, we're left with no doubts.

So where are you? Adding your voice to the other voices in these chapters, testifying to the identity of Christ?

For next time, look at the Magi and Herod/Jerusalem and their respective responses to the Child. What's the point?

Until then, drink deep.

Matthew 2:1-12 - Preliminary Questions

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:39:00 +0000

Okay, this isn't working. I'm obviously having trouble finding enough time to put everything together in one posting, so I'm going to do it a little at a time. I'll try to get something up here every day or every other day. By chopping it up into smaller pieces, we'll get more continuity and stay more engaged. Also, it will be benificial to all for you to share your own comments as we go.

Okay, there are a couple of preliminary things I'd like to show you. Something quite helpful that you won't pick up in an English translation is how the verb tenses are functioning in this chapter. In Greek, verb tenses have more functions than they do in English. In English, verb tense primarily communicates the time of an action - past, present, or future. But with Greek, the verb tense can communicate time, duration, prominence, and foregrounding/backgrounding. I'll explain some of this as we go.

In this chapter, the tenses are predominantly aorist, which only in a very rudimentary sense indicates past time. Since Matthew is in large part a record of historical events, you would expect almost all of the verbs to be aorist/past time verbs. However, this is not the case. Looking at the Greek text, one can see a noticeable shift in tenses from chapter 2 going into chapter 3. In my own study, I like to highlight aorist tense verbs in red, present tense verbs in blue, future tense verbs in yellow, etc. When I look at my notes on these two chapters (2&3), I see mostly red in chapter 2 and mostly blue in chapter 3. What on earth does this mean?

The verb tenses in chapter 2 are giving us the background that prepares us for the foreground in chapter 3. What on earth does that mean? Matthew, as the author of this book (under the inspiration of the HS, of course) is preparing the hearer to receive the message that is coming in the next chapters. The aorist tense is signaling background information. (By the way, chapter 1 used predominantly aorist tenses, too, linking it with chapter 2 as the background of the book.) Here are a few questions to think about as you look at this passage (2:1-12):
1. In what way are the first couple of chapters background information?
2. How might they be preparing us for what is ahead?
3. In everyday life, what might I want to know about someone before I accept what they have to say?
4. What are chapters 1&2 telling us about Jesus?

In a nutshell, we want to see what is the function of this chapter in the book. Matthew is not throwing any of this in on a whim. This is one of the most methodical books in the NT. There is purpose in everything.

Next, take some time to look at the main people in 2:1-12. Who are they? What is their ethnic background? What is said about them and what do they say?

Until next time, drink deep.

Matthew 1:18-25

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:45:00 +0000

Okay...once every one or two weeks.

My aim for each of these postings will be two-fold: 1) to highlight the main point of the text; and 2) to show you how we got there. The big question we should always seek to answer is why did Matthew include this narrative or discourse in the book (and we are looking for something more specific than 'because God said to'). What purpose does it serve?

Several kinds of clues will help us to find the main point of any biblical historical narrative:

1. CONTEXT
Contest is king!! Any individual narrative should be interpreted in light of the whole account. The whole account should also be interpreted in light of the individual narrative. It is a constant process of looking at the big picture then zooming in on the details then back out to the big picture, etc.
2. AUTHORIAL/ EDITORIAL/ NARRATOR COMMENTS
The author or narrator gives clues to his reader of how to interpret a text. Sometimes these are almost parenthetical, but very important.
3. THEMATIC STATEMENTS:
The author or narrator sometimes provides a thematic statement which reveals the theme of his work. Have you seen anything like this in your reading of today's passage?
4. REPETITION
Anytime an author uses a phrase over and over is important and must be investigated.
5. AUTHORITATIVE SPEAKERS
The author places key dialogues in the mouths of various speakers. Authoritative speakers can be good or evil. In Mark, the demons know what they are talking about when they identify Jesus as the Son of God - thus what they say about him is important. In our passage for today, there is a very important speaker. Who do you think it is?
6. DIALOGUE OR DIRECT DISCOURSE
When indirect discourse turns to direct discourse this is a clue that careful attention should be paid to what is being said.
7. OT QUOTATIONS
These are not always used to prove a point but to add emotive punch. One thing is certain - they are not there for no reason. Pay close attention to them.

So here we go.

First, lets look at the context. The context of the book of Matthew affirms that one of Matthew’s purposes in writing this passage as well as the entire Gospel was to hold up Jesus as the promised Messiah. The main features of the context which support this understanding are the genealogy in chapter 1 and the numerous references to fulfilled Old Testament prophecies found throughout the book.

The genealogy at the beginning of the book opens with the words, “The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Here at the outset Matthew immediately refers to Jesus as the Messiah, a key clue as to the theme of the book. The following two phrases, ‘the son of David, the son of Abraham,’ lend strong support to this idea. It was prophesied in Jeremiah 23:5 that the Lord would raise up an heir to David who would be called ‘the LORD our righteousness.’ Also, God promised Abraham that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen 12:3); Matthew holds here that Jesus is the promised seed of Abraham. Thus, Matthew shows that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises to both David and Abraham.

Additionally, we see in the book of Matthew at least twelve times that he points out Old Testament prophecies which were fulfilled in Christ. “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet . . .” (2:15). “Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled . . .” (2:17). “This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet . . .” (4:14). “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet . . .” (13:35). Time after time Matthew methodically shows that it is Jesus who fulfills the Messianic prophecies. It is Jesus who is the Messiah.

These references to fulfilled Old Testament prophecies are helpful in determining the key verse in 1:18-25, since this passage itself contains such a reference. The key verse is verse 22, “Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” If our goal is to determine why Matthew included this narrative, statements like this are pure gold. This verse quite plainly states the reason for the inclusion of this particular story: this event fulfills Scripture which prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

Verse 22 sheds light on the whole passage and answers the questions that naturally arise from the text such as: 1) Why was Mary with child by the Holy Spirit? 2) Why was Mary found to be pregnant before she and Joseph had come together? 3) Why did the angel of the Lord appear to Joseph in a dream telling him to take Mary as his wife? 4) Why was Joseph told that Jesus would save His people from their sins? 5) Why did Joseph marry Mary and keep her a virgin until she had given birth? The answer to all these questions is found in verses 22-23: “Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us.’”

Why is this important? Matthew is writing to a predominantly Jewish audience. They are familiar with the OT Scriptures. They know the Messianic prophecies of the OT. Matthew is saying, "What we have here is the Messiah."

Additionally, we have a prominent authoritative speaker in this passage. Yes, the angel. Any time an angel says something in Scripture it can be trusted. This angel explains the whole thing to Joseph. This child has been conceived of the Holy Spirit. He will save His people from their sins.

So, we have both an angel and the OT Scriptures testifying to who Jesus is. The list of those making the same testimony will grow in the coming chapters, so watch for it.

Matthew’s intended meaning in 1:18-25 is that Jesus is Immanuel, 'God with Us', the Messiah, born of a virgin, the One who was promised in Scripture.

Application? The application of a text should flow from the intended meaning of that text. There is not always going to be a clear imperative. Many times the application is simply to meditate on the truth revealed in the passage. I believe that is the case in this passage.

When was the last time you meditated on the incarnation - God becoming man? This act of love was prophesied long before the Holy Spirit placed that Holy Seed in the womb of Mary. God's provision for the sins of His people was not a last minute idea. It was not plan B. It wasn't contingent upon any other plan not working. It was the only way, the only plan, the one glorious act of God ordained before time began, before creation, before the fall. As God breathed life into the nostrils of Adam, He knew that He would place His Son in the womb of Mary. And here, as Joseph hears the truth about Mary and her child, God is keeping the greatest promise ever made, by sending His son in the form of a human baby. He will save His people from their sins.

Through the end of the chapter and through chapter 2, Joseph never looks back but is a man on a mission, preserving the child from those who would destroy Him. Undoubtedly, those words perpetually echo in his head, "He will save His people from their sins."

Let all the trivial things clamoring for our attention right now be silenced. Let us quiet ourselves. God is with us. He has kept His promise. He has saved His people from their sins.

Take some time to ponder these things. Our next passage will be Matthew 2:1-12.

The Gospel of Matthew - Intro

greg@providencebiblefellowship.com (Greg Birdwell) — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:22:00 +0000

I've been studying Matthew recently and I thought it might be enjoyable to share some things with you.

This first post will be a short overview of the book. Then in each subsequent blog I will look at one passage in one chapter. For example, in the next post we'll be looking at Matthew 1:18-25, the next post after that we'll look at 2:1-12, and so on. Why not look at every verse in every chapter? There are a couple of reasons, the first of which is that I'd love for our discussions here to pique your interest in the book and inspire you to study some passages on your own. Second, I simply don't have the time - my goal is to post something at least once a week. At that pace it would take us the rest of our lives to go through the whole book. But don't worry - we'll be paying such close attention to the context in the passages we do look at that you will still have a good feel for the whole book.

So, each week I'll post. At the end of each post, I will give you the passage for the next week. I encourage you to read the whole chapter, though, so that you will be familiar with the context. It would be better still if you could read the chapter several times. If you are even more ambitious, make notes of your own observations of the passage and then compare them to my comments. You'll undoubtedly pick up things I missed and I would be thrilled to hear your insights. Just post a comment at the bottom of my post.

Okay, let's get started. There are a number of key themes in Matthew that we want to be aware of as we read. See if you can identify elements of these as we go through each subsequent passage.

1. The Identity of Christ - Matthew will take great care in establishing who Jesus is. The first several chapters are key. It will be clear that he wants us to be aware of Jesus' credentials before we ever hear a word of Jesus' teaching. Of course, Jesus' identity has everything to do with the significance of what He does at the end of the book.

2. The Kingdom - Matthew puts more emphasis on the kingdom than any of the other Gospels. Watch for the phrase 'kingdom of heaven' as you read and note what we learn about the kingdom from what is written.

3. Fulfillment of the Old Testament (OT)/Old Covenant - Matthew vigorously uses the OT, presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of all that has come before. It will be a very interesting exercise to look at Matthew's OT quotations and then look those verses up where they actually occur in the OT. Most Bibles will have Matthew's OT quotes in all caps and then note the OT reference in the margin. If your bible does not, you can look at the passage in the NetBible.

4. "...to the Jew first and also to the Greek..." - Matthew gives a clear representation of this Romans 1:16 phrase. We will see very intentional comments in Matthew about Christ's exclusive mission to the Jews. By the end of the book we'll see an obvious shift in the gospel's focus and also get an idea of when the focus shifted.

5. The Authority of Christ - We'll be able to trace this theme throughout the book, seeing from where His authority came, what it's purpose was, and what He did with it. And what it means for us.

It will be important to be aware of the structure of the book, as well. Here is a quick blue print:

Ch. 1-4 /Narrative/ Intro: main character introduced
Ch. 5-7 /Discourse/ Jesus’ demands upon Israel
Ch. 8-9 /Narrative/ Jesus’ deeds within and for Israel
Ch. 10 /Discourse/ Ministry through others’ words and deeds
Ch. 11-12 /Narrative/ Israel’s negative response
ch. 13 /Discourse/ Explanation of Israel’s negative response
Ch. 14-17 /Narrative/ Founding of the Church
Ch. 18 /Discourse/ Teaching for the Church
Ch. 19-23 /Narrative/ Commencement of the Passion
Ch. 24-25 /Discourse/ The future: judgment and salvation
Ch. 26-28 /Narrative/ Conclusion: passion and resurrection

Don't want to give away any more than this. Next time we'll be looking at Matthew 1:18-25, but don't forget to read the whole chapter. The questions we want to answer are, 'what is the point of this passage? why is it in the book of Matthew?' Also, pay close attention to the genealogy at the beginning of the chapter. Why is it there? (And why doesn't it agree with the genealogy in Luke?!)

Drink deep and I'll talk to you soon. Ephesians 1:15-17.