Anyone preaching or teaching on Jonah might appreciate a picture of the famous whale pulpit in Poland. My kids got a real kick out of this.
April 7, 2015 at 11:52 am (Uncategorized)
The day is growing slight,
The dark is close at hand.
Will we reach for the Light,
As we walk through dimmed land?
October 21, 2014 at 4:37 am (Uncategorized)
Posted by David Gadbois
I wanted to post a few brief points to follow up Lane’s post on the Christotelic hermeneutic and grammatical-historical exegesis.
1. The debate brought to mind these brief snippets from Dr. Poythress’ Understanding Dispensationalists regarding the relationship between typology and grammatical-historical exegesis. It strikes me that many of the errors of the hyper-Christotelic method are actually features of the dispensational hermeneutic method, even though this charge has been lobbed toward the critics of this method.
A Limit To Grammatical-Historical Interpretation
One more difficulty arises in relation to typology. As I argued in the previous chapter, the significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment. The type means a good deal at the time, but it is open-ended. One can anticipate in a vague, general way how fulfillment might come, but the details remain in obscurity. When the fulfillment does come, it throws additional light on the significance of the original symbolism.
In other words, one must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything. Such comparison, though it should not undermine or contradict grammatical-historical interpretation, goes beyond its bounds [emphasis-DG]. It takes account of information not available in the original historical and cultural context. Hence grammatical-historical interpretation is not enough. It is not all there is to interpretation. True, grammatical-historical interpretation exercises a vital role in bringing controls and refinements to our understanding of particular texts. But we must also undertake to relate those texts forward to further revelation that they anticipate and prepare for.
Perhaps even more forcefully, he says that the grammatical-historical method itself contains a built-in open-endedness that is amenable to the fulfillments that the NT teaches:
I claim that there is sound, solid, grammatical-historical ground for interpreting eschatological fulfillments of prophecy on a different basis than preeschatological fulfillments. The Israelites of Jeremiah’s day should have absorbed (albeit often unconsciously) the earthshaking, transformational character of the eschatological coming of God. It is therefore a move away from grammatical-historical interpretation to insist that (say) the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah” of Jeremiah 31:31 must with dogmatic certainty be interpreted in the most prosaic biological sense, a sense that an Israelite might be likely to apply as a rule of thumb in short-term prediction.
What I am calling for, then, is an increased sense for the fact that in the original (grammatical-historical) context, eschatologically oriented prophecy has built into it extra potential. With respect to eschatology, people in the Old Testament were not in the same position as they were for short-range prophecy. Eschatological prophecy had an open-ended suggestiveness. The exact manner of fulfillment frequently could not be pinned down until the fulfillment came.
2. One resource that I cannot recommend highly enough on this topic is the audio recording of the recent Christ the Center conference on the subject of Christotelism. In fact, I have benefited greatly from all of the Christ the Center podcasts. Lane Tipton, in particular, was not someone who was “on my radar” until I heard him speak on these podcasts, and I’m very glad that I’ve received exposure to his various insights, especially on this matter. You will note that he does not consider the “Christotelic” hermeneutic, per se, to be the problem. But, rather, the problem is when the Christotelic hermeneutic is not joined with a Christocentric hermeneutic. He argues that the bare Christotelic hermeneutic (what I would term the hyper-Christotelic hermeneutic) cannot account for the fact that Jesus and the Apostles held the Jews culpable for failing to identify Jesus as the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.
3. Robert Reymond, in his Systematic Theology, outlines 16 points (pgs. 528-535 in the 1st edition) in defense of the proposition that “the requisite condition for salvation is identical in both the Old and New Testaments; the elect were saved, are saved, and will be saved only by grace through faith in the (anticipated or accomplished) work of the Messiah.” The foil here is, again, the dispensational view. But I wonder how the hyper-Christotelic view can account for the passages that are marshaled in defense of the proposition that the object of faith of the Old Testament saints (i.e. the Messiah) is the same object of faith shared with the post-Incarnation saints. Another way of framing this argument is: does not the unity of the covenant of grace exclude the hyper-Christotelic hermeneutic? We can grant that the OT saints only knew a shadowy, incomplete, shrouded-in-the-mist-of-the-future Messiah. But if Jesus of Nazareth is merely something the NT authors project backward into the OT, how can it be said that the NT saints share the same Messiah, the same object of faith, as the OT saints?
The last thing that Paul would have wanted anyone to believe is that his was a “new doctrine.” In light of these Old Testament examples it would have never dawned on Paul to say: “We know how the New Testament saint is saved-he is saved by grace through faith in Christ, but how was the Old Testament saint saved?” Instead he would have reversed the order of the sentence: “We know how the Old Testament saint was saved- he was saved by grace through faith in Messiah; we had better make sure that we are saved the same way, for there is no other way to be saved. pg. 528
No More of Man’s Ideas,
Instead Only Christ’s Rule!
by Reed DePace
My completing seminary included a move to a new denomination, the PCA. Coming from a denomination whose tradition was rooted in German pietism and Dispensationalism my understanding of how God works through church government was decidedly uninformed. My advisor, Dr. Richard Gaffin, thought it a kindness to recommend to a man just finished with all the hard reading of his seminary classes, a relatively easy work on this subject, James Bannerman’s two volumes: The Church of Christ: a treatise on the nature, powers, ordinances, discipline, and government of the Christian Church.
And yes, if you’ve had opportunity to consider Bannerman’s work, you know I am having a little fun. Sincerely though, I remain grateful for Dr. Gaffin’s recommendation. Working through Bannerman over the next two years was fundamental to my current understanding and security in my church government practices.
Yet, for many a reader, especially elders, Bannerman is just going to be a bit too much. So what to do? For a class I am taking this summer I just finished reading Guy Prentiss Waters’ How Jesus
How to Runs the Church. This IS the book you should read. Dr. Waters covers all the ground of Bannerman, if not in as much detail then certainly as effectively in greater simplicity.
The greatest thing about this book is how clearly Waters roots the points he makes in the Scriptures themselves. Rather than a technical book on church government, this reads like a theology book, explaining, well, exactly what the title declares, how Jesus (actually) runs the (His) Church. This Scripture-rooting strength means that applying what Waters teaches easily becomes an expression of faith. And it is only through faith that Jesus is present to superintend a church.
This book is going in our church’s officer training course. I am urging our present elders to read it. I urge you as well.
by Reed DePace
[I receive no remuneration for this recommendation.]
by Reed DePace
Last year after GA I made a post expressing concern about the apparent unwillingness to discuss differences. Here is a post from TE James Hakim making the same point in a gentle and peaceful way:
Wife: I’m so glad, because I have this list of concerns, based on our current situation
Husband: I’ve reviewed your list, and note that we addressed some of these things 37 years ago and others 15 years ago. Since we said the correct things at those times, it would be out of order for me to reaffirm similar things again. Besides, if we talk about it again, I might get into trouble for saying the wrong thing this time.
Wife: Oh… well… I’d really still like to talk about
Husband: [interrupting] I’m sorry, that discussion is out of order at this time
Wife: Well… there’s this other issue that matters much to me. There is a wrong decision that we have made that threatens our marriage entirely. Here’s my report on that…
Husband: I see. Yes, that might have been the wrong decision, but we made it in the right way.
Wife: Well, can we revisit it?
Husband: No, the right way of making decisions like this is to never revisit them.
Wife: I’d like to change what we call “the right way” of making decisions. Here is my proposal…
Husband: Even though this is something totally new, it incorporates one element of the way we used to make decisions, which I didn’t like back then. Besides, this would be very inconvenient.
Wife: But if doing things rightly in a way that saves our marriage is inconvenient, isn’t it worth a little inconvenience?
Husband: If we talk about this more we’ll be late for lunch. This part of the discussion is over.
Wife: It is? Well, could we thank God and pray together?
Husband: If we do that, you might think that I was approving what we were thanking God and praying for.
Wife: Is that bad?
Husband: Well, if we approve things that God approves of, but the people that hate Him disapprove of them, we might offend those people, and then they wouldn’t like us enough to stop hating God.
Wife: But… isn’t it the point that we thank God and pray to Him because He is the One who makes people stop hating Him, not they themselves?
Husband: No. It makes it hard to get a hearing from them.
Wife: Are you really against thanking God and praying to Him?
Husband: uh… er… ok, let’s do it real quick
Husband: I’m glad we could have such an irenic conversation. I feel great about how good our marriage is.
Disclaimer: any apparent resemblance to recent ecclesiastical events is intentional, but the author is grateful for any discrepancies between the analogy and the reality. In fact, the author hopes that there are many, many more of these discrepancies than he has so far been able to identify.
If the PCA says NO! to Child Sexual Abuse,
Why Not NO! to All Sexual Immorality?
by Reed DePace
The latest general assembly (GA) of my denomination, the PCA, passed an overture (no. 6) that: 1) resoundingly condemning child sexual abuse, and 2) urging member churches and denominational bodies to take this issue seriously and address it in their day to day practices. Given that this horrifying expression of the dominion of Satan is indeed sweeping our nation, I wholeheartedly support this condemnation and admonition.
Yet this same GA struggled to pass another overture, even more mildly worded, with less stringent condemnation and less sweeping advice. This overture, no. 43, addressed two additional satanic horrors capturing the hearts of our nation: abortion and same-sex marriage. It only offered one small and insignificant call to action: expressing prayerful thanks for those striving to bring the gospel to bear on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
The GA committee assigned to pre-review and advise on how to respond to overtures before GA, recommended that Overture 43 be declined (by a vote of 45-28). This is the same committee of men who recommended the GA approve the Overture no. 6 on child sexual abuse. It was only upon the significant efforts of a minority of this committee to bring an alternative recommendation (to affirm) that Overture 43 had opportunity for some consideration. (I’m pretty sure current assembly rules only allow for GA for an up or down vote, no debate, on the committee’s recommendation.) This substitute motion from the minority of the Overtures Committee reads:
“Be it resolved that the Presbyterian Church in America expresses its gratitude to the Lord for sustaining by His grace ministers of the gospel, chaplains, and Christians serving in the public sphere who are experiencing ostracism, penalties, and persecution for taking a Biblically faithful stand for the sanctity of human life and declining to participate in the cultural redefinition of marriage;
“Be it further resolved that the General Assembly pause and offer prayer to the Lord on behalf of such ministers of the gospel, chaplains, and Christians.”
And even then this rather mild expression passed only by a small majority.
If this leaves you scratching your head, I understand. Let me offer some explanation (informed by similar “decline” decisions of previous general assemblies).
The Overtures Committee (i.e., the majority) gave a list of four reasons for recommending to decline Overture 43. The first reason appears to be the most substantive:
“This overture is not needed. There is no lack of clarity regarding the PCA’s stand for the sanctity of marriage or the sanctity of life, biblically or constitutionally (WFC 24.1). Furthermore, we do not need an overture such as this to pray for, or encourage, those who suffer unjustly.”
This reason applies to the subject of Overture 6 as well. In fact, remove the words “sanctity of marriage or the sanctity of life” from the reason listed and substitute the words “child sexual abuse” and you can see what I mean. Indeed, the remaining three reasons given for declining Overture 43 could also be applied, with little tweaking, to Overture 6. So why was the latter easily passed and the former barely?
I expect the difference is to be seen in the application of a doctrine called the spirituality of the church to Overture 43 but not to Overture 6. While a sound and wise doctrine, it can be easily co-opted for use in denying the Church’s responsibility to speak prophetically to the nations in her witness of the gospel. “We’re not supposed to get involved in politics,” ends up becoming an excuse (even unintentionally) to defend an unwillingness to obey God in speaking as:
A watchman to the Church:
Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. (Ezk 3:17 ESV)
Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. (Col 1:28)
And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. (1Th 5:14)
And prophetically to a nation:
But if any nation will not listen, then I will utterly pluck it up and destroy it, declares the LORD.” (Jer 12:17)
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. (Jer 18:7-8)
You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything excepx to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.
You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. (Mt 5:13-16)
Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Ps 2:10-12)
I get not issuing political opinions. I agree completely that this is not only NOT the Church’s calling, to engage in it actually diminishes Her calling to proclaim the gospel.
Yet I fear we can become misguided in our efforts to apply this doctrine. I sincerely cannot quite fathom why the GA would speak clearly, “child sexual abuse is wrong!” and then hesitate to speak clearly, “abortion and same-sex marriage are wrong!” Neither is a statement of political policy. When intentionally connected to the gospel (something without which we should not speak), both are expressions consistent with the command that we love our neighbors as ourselves and warn them of judgment to come.
For the record, I’d be grateful to see some Presbytery propose an overture which simply:
- Identifies a laundry list of sexual immorality that is defining our national character,
- Affirms that the Scripxures are clear on the condemnation of these,
- Reminds that the only hope for the rescue from the deadliness of these soul honey-traps is the gospel,
- Acknowledges in repentance and faith that we ourselves are not without guilt save Christ in these sins,* and
- Admonishes our churches to prayerfully re-affirm our calling and commitment to go and rescue those trapped in sexual immorality through the ministry of the gospel.
For those who will admonish me, “but our standards ALREADY (in effect) say such things; there is no need to repeat ourselves,” my response will be a simple, “and where would you and I be if God did not repeatedly, page after page, remind and admonish us of our sin and need of Jesus Christ?” If God sees fit to repeat Himself, why should not His Church follow His example?
[*Edit: a friend in a comment below brought up the concern of the appearance of hypocrisy. Sexual sins are so potent in terms producing guilt and shame that speaking openly about them immediately provokes all in hearing to respond, in force. Unless one has a good grip on Jesus and His cleansing the tendency is to marshal one’s own fleshly resources to a defense marked by attack (often all out). It helps them if the Christian identifies his own culpability. Then they have hope you are not just a hypocrite, but one who does indeed love them.]
by Reed DePace
May 13, 2014 at 5:30 am (Uncategorized)
Posted by David Gadbois
Last year Peter Leithart posted an article, The End of Protestantism, over on the First Things web site and among other things asserted that we Protestants (including, of course, us confessional Presbyterian and Reformed folk) needed to adopt a more “Reformational Catholic” perspective and start to consider those in Roman Catholicism to be part of the same Christian family along with us. That is,
Some Protestants don’t view Roman Catholics as Christians, and won’t acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as a true church. A Reformational Catholic regards Catholics as brothers, and regrets the need to modify that brotherhood as “separated.”
The Torrey Honors Institute at BIOLA University and First Things organized a public discussion of the issues raised in Leithart’s article last month between Leithart, Sanders, and Carl Trueman. I assume Sanders recruited Trueman to represent the traditional (confessional) Reformed position. You can watch the whole discussion here, and you can read Leithart’s follow-up post here.
Unfortunately Trueman offered a timid and inadequate rebuttal to Leithart’s errors. I attended the public discussion on the campus of BIOLA University, and I felt both disappointed and aggravated that my own Reformed tradition was neither accurately nor forcefully represented before an audience of Bible college students who primarily hail from Baptist churches, EV Free churches, and various non-denominational evangelical churches.
Trueman is usually a reliable exponent of reformed and presbyterian theology, so I was surprised that the discussion turned out the way it did. The premise that cannot be granted Leithart is the assumption that Roman Catholics are our brothers and that Rome is a true church of Jesus Christ. If that is granted, then Leithart’s logic and conclusions must follow, and there can be no objection to his central thesis that we are all one family in Christ who need to learn to get along with each other. Trueman essentially granted this premise, and the only difficulty seemed to be some pesky logistical issues and pastoral concerns. All four men on the stage seemed to be on board with this faulty premise. But this represents a failure of basic pastoral discernment.
If my assessment seems harsh, click the video link and watch for yourself. I had a brief opportunity to challenge this point during the Q&A session toward the end of the night. I pointed out that as Reformed Christians we identified true churches according to the 3 Marks of the Church (see, for instance, the Belgic Confession). At least as early as the French Confession (1559) it was explicitly held that Rome failed this test:
In this belief we declare that, properly speaking, there can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments. Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in those acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ.
It will not do to hold up as a fig leaf the fact that Roman Catholic baptisms were accepted as valid and rebaptism was rejected. It is true that the rite ought to be considered as valid when administered in the name of the Triune God, but even granting this that would only make it a necessary, not sufficient, basis for a credible profession of Christian faith. And, as I pointed out during the Q&A, the Reformed barred Romanists from the Lord’s Table. Shouldn’t that be sufficient indication that this ecumenical attitude is out-of-step with our tradition’s earliest belief and practice? It is true that one can find exceptions to this traditional view (at least in some respects), but I have found most of such anecdotal examples to be quite late (e.g. Machen, Hodge) and certainly never rising to the level of a confessional standard (of which there are a great many).
Turning aside from the historical considerations, you will notice that this ecumenical premise of Leithart’s does not ground the brotherly or ecclesial unity he seeks in the Gospel, but only in baptism and a shared Trinitarian confession. In fact, did anyone even mention the Gospel by name in that entire discussion? I certainly don’t recall. Sure, there was talk of justification by faith and such but nowhere was our unity explicitly grounded in a shared Gospel of Jesus Christ. Leithart is, of course, aware that Rome rejects justification by faith alone, and trots out the old chestnut about it being possible for people to be saved by faith in Christ who don’t realize they are saved by faith in Christ. A critical thinker would observe that that is beside the point. There are many true believers who simply exercise extrospective trust in Christ, and nothing else, for their salvation and are not particularly self-reflective about the nature of their faith nor the precise mechanism God has used to unite them to Himself. The problem is that Rome explicitly denies that we are justified by faith alone and sets up false objects of faith that deny Christ’s completed and sufficient work. It is not a matter of simple ignorance but of essentially setting up false co-redeemers alongside Christ. As Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 30 reads:
Do those also believe in the only Savior Jesus, who seek their salvation and welfare from “saints,” themselves, or anywhere else?
No; although they make their boast of Him, yet in their deeds they deny the only Savior Jesus; for either Jesus is not a complete Savior, or they who by true faith receive this Savior, must have in Him all that is necessary to their salvation.
The Reformers saw in the errors of Rome a direct parallel with the Gospel-denying doctrines of the Judaizers that Paul anathematizes in Galatians, the core of which is the idea that some good work needs to be wrought in addition to the faith-received righteousness of Christ in order for the sinner to receive justification before God. “Faith” in Christ becomes nullified by competitors. In his commentary on Galatians Calvin writes:
[Paul’s] greatest severity of language is directed, as we shall see, against the false apostles. He charges them with turning aside, not only from his gospel, but from Christ; for it was impossible for them to retain their attachment to Christ, without acknowledging that he has graciously delivered us from the bondage of the law. But such a belief cannot be reconciled with those notions respecting the obligation of ceremonial observance which the false apostles inculcated. They were removed from Christ; not that they entirely rejected Christianity, but that the corruption of their doctrines was such as to leave them nothing more than an imaginary Christ.
Thus, in our own times, the Papists, choosing to have a divided and mangled Christ, have none, and are therefore “removed from Christ.” They are full of superstitions, which are directly at variance with the nature of Christ. Let it be carefully observed, that we are removed from Christ, when we fall into those views which are inconsistent with his mediatorial office; for light can have no fellowship with darkness.
The book of Galatians, in fact, furnishes for us the reason why rightly distinguishing between wayward brother and false teacher is a critical pastoral task. For the former we offer loving but firm rebuke and call to repentance as Paul has offered the Christians at the church at Galatia along with the Apostle Peter. The sin is temporary and the rebuke is met with repentance. It is like the discipline of a child or family member. But for the false teachers we are to follow the NT and regard them as pseudoadelphoi (false brothers), pseudoapostoloi (false apostles), dogs, serpents, and deceitful workers with whom we should not even eat nor wish godspeed. The attitude and orientation is entirely different for the impenitent apostate. It is our obligation to paint a clear and bright line between those in the covenant community and those outside of the visible church of Christ. And surely we compound our sin of cowardice if we also extend the false hope of eternal life to those who are in the state of impenitent apostacy, by telling them that they are simply misguided but still in Christ. That is simply partaking in a lie that leads to the damnation of souls rather than spurring saving repentance.
Other matters could be discussed at length that I will only mention briefly. The idolatry of the mass was shamefully glossed over in the discussion, even though Heidelberg Q&A 80 calls it “nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.” It is also unfortunate that Trueman did not mention the fact that the errors in Leithart’s essay should come as no surprise, inasmuch as he is a primary leader in the heretical Federal Vision movement within the Reformed and Presbyterian landscape. Many (most?) of both the systemic and particular errors of the FV movement and Leithart in particular are errors shared with Rome. So it naturally follows that he would have a rather ecunemenical spirit toward Rome. It should have been mentioned that this movement has been unanimously condemned by confessional Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. It should have also been mentioned that, while Leithart’s presbytery acquitted him of heresy charges, a good many people in his denomination (the PCA) are outraged by the acquittal and would like to see him out of the denomination. Obviously these matters have been documented and discussed at length on this blog, but I doubt that more than a handful of people in the room at BIOLA that night were aware of this crucial background knowledge.
I do find a bit of irony in the fact that Leithart mentioned the practice of praying the imprecatory psalms against the enemies of the church. In a qualified way I can agree with that practice, but one has to at least be able to identify friend from foe to do so. We are only a few decades away from the 500th anniversary of the Council of Trent, wherein Rome anathematized the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and since has done nothing but dig into her errors while ignoring the calls by Reformational Christians to repent. There ought not be any debate or mystery amongst educated believers over what we are dealing with here.
by Reed DePace
Others have said more and better about this new book from Kevin DeYoung, but I wanted to give it a brief plug as well.
This is not a simplistic book, but it is simple. This is not a scholarly book, but it is studied. In short on this short book, this is one of the best books on the doctrine of Scripture available. Inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, sufficiency, perspicuity, authority and necessity, DeYoung covers all the essential components.
He does so in his relaxed apologetic style. He offers not simply an easy explanation of the Bible’s teaching on each of these topics. He does so with a gentle and persuasive expression of why we need these characteristics in the Bible.
I think everyone who cares to confront the resurging denial of the Bible as God’s own word needs to have multiple copies of this book on hand. This is not for their own reading necessarily (as most will care because they’ve already done some study on the doctrine of Scripture), but for giving out to others. This book is great for young converts and immature believers, for those who find a post-modern approach to life appealing or alarming, for those who never quite learned this subject, or who worry about some loved ones who appear to be jettisoning this essential subject to the ministry of the gospel.
Pick up a few copies and give them away. You will be glad you did.
by Reed DePace
Why I’m NOT Seeing the Movie Son Of God
by Reed DePace
Yeah, expect some will disagree with this. Follow this argument with me:
- Is Jesus God?
- If you say “yes”, does the 2nd Commandment (Ex 20:4) apply to Jesus?
- If you say, “yes”, nuff said – you better not go see the movie.
If you say, ‘yeah but” … A common objection to my argument is the idea that the context of the 2nd commandment is about images of God for purposes of worship. I.e., as long as the image made is not for worship (e.g., teaching), its ok. Well, let’s follow that argument:
- What is the only proper, biblical response to God?
- Worship (Dt 10:12; Ps 99; Mt 22:37)
- If Jesus is God (Joh 1:1-5),
- Then what is the only proper, the biblical response to Him?
- Uh, worship.
Think about the response on the Mt of Transfiguration (Mt 17:1, ff.) – worship. Think about John’s response on Patmos Island (Rev 1:17) – worship. Think about the response of Doubting Thomas (Jh 20:28) – worship. Think about what Paul says is the proper response to Jesus in light of His great salvation (Rom 12:1)– worship. It is only when folks DO NOT recognize Jesus as God that they give a wrong response (Mt 4:9; 11:31; Mk 6:51; Jh 12:37) – NOT worship.
Think about the response of the 24 elders in heaven, responding to Jesus (Rev 5:8-14) – they worship the ascended, enthroned Jesus. Who are they attempting to picture in the movie Son of God? The ascended, enthroned Jesus!
Even the producers of the movie hope for a worship response to their portrayal of Jesus:
Mark Burnett: “The disciples, they don’t know they’re in the Bible. They’re following their charismatic leader. They later realize it’s the son of God. It’s God on earth. So they fall in love.” (I.e., they worship!)
Roma Downey: [In seeing the movie] “And you get an opportunity to fall in love with him [Jesus], I think. You understand who he is and what he was doing and that he came and did that for us. I think it’s very humbling.” (I.e., worship!)
Respectfully, I’d ask those who allow themselves this exception, “Images of Jesus for non-worship purposes are not violations of the 2nd Commandment” to re-think their understanding of their relationship with Jesus. Do you really think that even once in the New Heavens/New Earth you will ever respond to Jesus with something less than worship? “Yo! Jesus Dude, hey Baby, how’s it, er, oops, sorry God.”
Do you think there is some exception in the Already/Not-Yet of our present relationship with Jesus? When you preach, teach or witness to people, do you want them to think of Jesus as anything less than God to whom they owe all the love of their heart-soul-mind-strength? I.e., do you want them to not worship Him?
So, no, I’m not going to see this movie. But I don’t think this is not a matter of mere private conviction. I am very concerned that I live amidst a Church in America that thinks so little of the 2nd Commandment that the argument I just made is not even worthy of consideration. “Legalism!” and with a sweeping gesture, the issue is ignored.
In recent preparation for a sermon on Jeroboam II I ran across a comment (can’t find where now) in which the person observed that the reason this king, great in many ways, was still considered evil, was because he followed his namesake in violating the 2nd Commandment (2Ki 14:24). Why is that so bad? Why is it wrong to image God? Because if you get the image of God wrong, you get your understanding of God wrong. If you don’t understand God, who He is, His nature, there is no hope. Remember, true wisdom begins in fear of the Lord. (Pro 1:7) Getting God’s image right requires submission to His own self-description. Nothing is more foundational to this than His command – don’t image God!
I.O.W., blowing the 2nd Commandment results in worshiping God according to your own understanding. Need we be reminded that left to ourselves we worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator? (Rom 1:25, read the context!)
- So, if Jesus’ self-description is that He is God (Joh 10:58-59), and
- The only proper response to God is worship (Ps 99; Rom 12:1), and
- God judges getting His image wrong as an evil worthy of His highest condemnation (Rom 1:18-32),
What might we expect to see in a Church that willy-nilly ignores Jesus at this point of command?
The Church in America is already experiencing the discipline of generations of getting the gospel wrong (the essence of Jesus’ self-description). Could it be that one factor in the Church’s failure is her eagerness to support portraying Jesus on film? Since the first movie went on the reel, one estimate is that there have been over 1,000 movies made about Jesus (IMDB listing, top 30). Over a dozen actors have portrayed Jesus. If putting Jesus on film is so valuable, such a great tool for the Church, why is the Church in America so sick?
Numerous “leading” pastors are actively supporting this movie, seeing it as a great tool for the support of the Jesus they preach and teach (bit.ly/Pastors4SofGmovie). Among them is a man who denies the Trinity. Another teaches the prosperity-gospel heresy. Others are hardly stalwarts in proclaiming the Jesus imaged in the Bible.
Seriously, this is going to be another Passion of the Christ (2004). That movie was so great that a wave of remorse and repentance swept our land; abortion was ended, no fault divorce was reversed, and sexual immorality was reigned in. Oh, wait, um …
God is not mocked. We are reaping what we’ve sown. Even if this movie followed the gospel accounts word for word, it would still violate the 2nd Commandment. Yes, God can draw lines with crooked sticks. But He does that in mercy. He certainly does not use crooked sticks who celebrate their crookedness, and flaunt it as a strength to be used to achieve God’s will.
Think about what Jesus said to Thomas, who would not believe and worship until he saw with his own eyes, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have NOT seen and yet have believed.” (Joh 20:29)
Don’t put Jesus to the test on this one. Don’t go see this movie. You’ll find He more than strengthens your faith!
by Reed DePace
November 20, 2013 at 9:09 pm (Uncategorized)
Too good to be true? No, it has worked for me five times. No gimmicks, just the straight stuff. In fact, in spite of the way it seems, it is a righteous and self-sacrificing thing to do. What is this amazing way? Many of you will have guessed already. It is, of course, giving birth. Just think of the advantages – you get to eat lots of food for months leading up the the one day instant diet, you get an adorable baby afterward to love and enjoy, and there’s no sit-ups involved (though there might be afterward!) So there it is, folks, my best diet tip. Enjoy:)
Please note that my wife actually wrote this post, thinking she was doing it on her blog, when she accidentally put it on my blog (she’s very new the whole blogging thing).