More on Colossians 3

I thought that I would post as a main entry my response to a very good question regarding my sermon summary on Colossians 3.5-7. The question was great (to view the question click on "comments" at the end of the last post...this post might not make much sense without viewing the question). I hope my answer is at least half-way adequate. Here is my response to Bobby:

Bobby,

You have touched upon a very thorny issue in theology. Your question is highly relevant, and important.

First, I think it is helpful for me to clarify my comments. When we are given a new nature in Christ it is true that we will desire to be like God in every way. However, I would add that we will desire to be like God in every way that He has ordained (or we could say intended) for mortal man whom He created in His image. Obviously, we cannot be like God in exactly every way. That was never God’s intention. Created in His image at creation, man was not an exact carbon copy of God. Rather, he represented God better than all of the rest of creation. When man fell into sin through Adam’s transgression in the Garden, that image was marred (not destroyed though!). That image begins to be restored only through the atoning work of Christ. Furthermore, it does not all happen in one shot. When man is restored to fellowship with God through Christ, that image is in process of being restored. This is what theologians refer to as sanctification. And in Colossians 3.5-7, Paul is speaking about sanctification even though he does not use the word.

Second, it might be helpful to identify two categories that theologians often discuss that relate to your question (s). The first category is what is known as the “communicable attributes” of God. The communicable attributes of God are simply attributes of God that are more shared with us by God. Communicable attributes include things like wisdom, truthfulness, love, mercy, grace, and patience. The second category is referred to as the “incommunicable attributes”. This category includes attributes such as the unchangeableness of God, the eternity of God, the omnipresence of God. These are attributes that are less shared with us by God. It must be stated that these are not perfect categories because we cannot completely understand God’s character. In addition, there is some overlap between these categories. But most theologians think these distinct categories are at a least a good start in understanding this thorny issue.

Now I think that everything I have mentioned will help to answer your question. Let me try and put it all together. Here it goes…. Anger and wrath in and of themselves are not bad qualities. As you pointed out, there is a real sense in which God possesses both. The difference is that God is holy, thus when He demonstrates anger or wrath it is always a righteous and praiseworthy act. However, when sinful man (even man restored to God through Christ) demonstrates anger or wrath the result is not always the same. That is why Paul can tell the Christians to put off anger and wrath. We do not have the proper filter that enables us to demonstrate righteous anger and wrath exactly like God. Simply put, we are not holy and perfect.

Your last question- “…are those in Christ NEVER justified in their anger?” is a somewhat different issue. I am assuming that when you placed the word “never” in all caps you were emphasizing “no exceptions whatsoever” (?). If I am wrong let me know. But if that is what you were getting at, then I think I can answer your question with some degree of confidence. I would say that there are actually instances where if a Christian does not have some degree of anger, then it is sinful. Let me illustrate. If a child smarts off to his mother, and the father hears it, he is obligated to communicate to that child that that type of behavior will not be tolerated. One of the ways to communicate this to a young child would be to give a 50-minute exposition of the command “Honor your father and mother”. Although, this would not be a bad idea, it’s probably not the most effective method. The father might mention the command, and indeed he should. But he will also communicate to the child that he is angry because his wife has been slandered. The child must see that the father’s first priority is his relationship with the child’s mother. The child must see the seriousness of the offense. In other words, it would be unnatural for a Christian father to not possess some degree of anger if his wife is slandered. Indeed, it would reveal that he does not value and love his wife. He is obligated to teach the child respect for his parents, respect for authority in general, and respect for God ultimately. The seriousness of it will be communicated through the demonstration of controlled anger on the part of the father. Now let’s say that instead of talking to the child in this manner he opts to slap his kid across the face in a fit of rage. Well, that is not righteous anger! Right? Or, let’s say one Sunday the preacher preaches on the rapture (in support of it). And let’s say that you disagree with him. As you are leaving the preacher suspends his hand for you to shake it. Instead of shaking his hand, however, you punch him in the face. Your anger smoldered the whole sermon, and now you gave the preacher what he deserved. I think we can clearly say that is not righteous anger either (and I’m not just saying that because I am a preacher)! That is the type of action that Paul is telling Christians to put off.

In saying all of that I realize that no illustration is perfect. Furthermore, no situation is the same as well. It would be wrong to categorize different examples of anger into certain categories of “right” anger and “wrong” anger. However, there still must be a sense in which instances exist where anger on the part of the Christian is permissible, and even obligatory.

In Ephesians 5:1 (in almost a carbon copy passage to Col. 3.5 ff.) Paul tells Christians to “Be imitators of God, as beloved children”. This is what Paul is doing in the Colossians passage as well. We are to demonstrate that we are “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4) as much as possible on this side of glory. This is only done by the power of the Spirit that indwells us, and is ultimately done for the glory of God alone. Furthermore, we will not reflect God perfectly, nor has God enabled us to in this lifetime.

Let me know if this helps:)- AS

Sermon Summary- Colossians 3.5-7, “The Life of the New Man: Vices to Avoid” (continued)

In the last post we saw:

I. The list of requirements for the new life: put to death sins of sensuality (vs. 5)

Now let’s look at the second point…

II. The line of reasoning for the new life: the reality of God’s wrath (vss. 6-7)

Paul’s first line of reasoning as to why the believer must put sin to death centers upon the wrath of God. Several things need to be noted here. First, the wrath is described as something that will come. Thus, Paul specifically has in mind the wrath of hell (see 2 Thess. 1:8-10). Secondly, the wrath is defined as wrath that will come upon the “sons of disobedience” (see Eph. 5:6). Therefore, Paul specifically has in mind the wrath of hell that only comes upon those who never become the sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ (see I Thess. 5:9; Rom. 5:9). Third, in vs. 7 Paul is clear that the Colossians do not fit into that category (“sons of disobedience”). The Colossian believers “once walked” in the sins described in vs. 5 when they “were living in them”. But as the beginning part of this letter bears out, they are now secure in Christ their Lord (see Col. 1:3-4).

Let’s be clear. Paul’s reasoning for the believer to kill sin is based upon the reality (hell) that is reserved for sons of Adam who fail to repent of their sins and turn to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Calvin says that in this text God brings before our minds the punishment appointed for the unbelieving so “that beholding it in the reprobate, we may be deterred from sinning” (Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary, Vol. XXI, 209). In other words, the reality of God’s eternal wrath on sinners serves to prevent saints from sinning. This is the same thing as saying that this warning serves to encourage believers to slaughter the sin in their lives.

Now the question becomes, “How does this work?” In other words, how can a reality (hell) that believers will never experience serve to encourage the personal killing of sin? That is like me telling my daughter to stop jumping on the couch. And then I follow that command by saying something like, "Well, you need to stop jumping on the couch, but I will not punish you for it. Punishment is reserved only for other children of other parents." Everyone knows that is not the way to parent. There is nothing in what I said that will prevent the child from jumping on the couch. So again I ask, how does Paul's reasoning work to encourage the putting off of sin? Well, it helps to see that Paul is not really focusing on the wrath of God. That is only a minor aspect of his overall point. In reality, his emphasis is the believer’s new status before God the Father. Let me explain. As we have seen, when someone comes to faith in Jesus Christ, the Spirit of God gives him a new nature. This new nature grants for us a new status- that of adopted sons of God. We are no longer considered “sons of disobedience” from God’s vantage point. Rather, we are viewed and accepted as sons. Let me illustrate. The other day I was getting ready for church in the bathroom when my son crawled from the kitchen to the bathroom, found a comfortable place, sat down, and just watched my every move. He made no sounds. He sat still as could be and just gazed up at me. Now, there is nothing in my appearance that is particularly great to behold, but that was not the point. Sons naturally want to be like their dads, even at age one. That is the point that Paul is making here in Colossians 3:6-7- sons want to be like their dads.

Paul is telling the Colossians about the wrath of God for one reason. It is so that the Colossians will see God’s character reflected through the mirror of His wrath. It works like this. As the Colossians see God’s wrath poured out on sinners because of the sins listed in vs. 5, they are reminded that God’s wrath comes upon sinners who commit the sin described in vs. 5 precisely because those activities do not match God’s character. And because the Colossians have been given a new nature, they have a new character. In fact, they now possess God’s character (see 2 Pet. 1:4!). Hence, they desire their lives to match God’s character as much as possible in this lifetime (see Eph. 5:1-6). Thus, believers are encouraged to put sin to death by Paul’s line of reasoning due to their new nature (in Christ) that now desires to be like God in every way. In other words, sons of God want to be like their Father in heaven. They will mimic Him as beloved children (see specifically Eph. 5:1).

Prophesying about the people of the new covenant (i.e. the church), the prophet Ezekiel foretold that there would come a day when salvation would come and new hearts would be given. The hearts of stone, possessed by sons of disobedience, would be replaced with soft hearts (hearts of flesh). And God would enter those hearts through His Spirit to dwell forever. In addition, this Spirit would cause these people, who are now full-fledged sons of God, to walk in God’s statutes rather than sin. In fact, these people would now be careful to observe God’s standards of holy character (see Ezekiel 36:25-27!). These people would constitute the true Israel- the church.

In the final analysis, only the Spirit of God can change a heart Godward. This is only possible because of Christ’s atoning work of redemption! Praise God for His wondrous plan of grace for sinners. Do you know Him? He can change your heart too.

Sermon Summary- Colossians 3.5-7, "The Life of the New Man: Vices to Avoid"

Before his death, Winston Churchill placed great importance upon his funeral arrangements. He requested the services of two separate buglers. After the benediction of his funeral service one of these buglers was elevated on the right side of the balcony. This particular bugler played “Taps”, the universal signal that the day was over. After this there was a long silence which was followed by a bugler on the other side of the balcony who played “Reveille”, the signal of a new day beginning. It was Churchill’s way of communicating that while we say “Good night” here, it’s “Good morning” up there!

Jesus said, “I am the resurrection, and the life; he that believes in Me, though He were dead, yet shall He live” (John 11:25). When a man steps out of the grave of sin, he steps into new life. This partly means that he says, in effect, “Good night” to sin and “Good morning” to holiness. We could say that the believer grows into holiness by following new covenant requirements, which are established for the new life in Christ. These requirements are obviously found in Scripture. The Apostle Paul deals with such a thought in Colossians 3.

In Colossians 3:5 Paul is transitioning into the practical section of this Epistle. The word "Therefore" marks this transition. This word says much. By using this word Paul is pointing back to everything that he has written so far (theology concerning the Gospel), and is saying in effect, "Now because of the Gospel, this is how you need to behave". In fact, he spends the rest of this letter telling the Christian how to behave. Other examples of Paul spending the first part of a letter on theology (who we are in Christ), and the second half of a letter on practical issues (how we are to behave because we are in Christ) are found throughout the New Testament (most notably Ephesians and Romans).

God does care how the Christian lives. The Gospel affects one’s life greatly, if it is truly the foundation of that life. Belief will always affect behavior. Doctrine will always impact duty. Paul affirmed that receiving the grace of Christ in salvation was never a license to sin (Romans 6:1-2). It does mean something to follow Christ. In fact, Christ Himself said so (Luke 9:23).

In verses 5-11 Paul gives two vice lists followed by two lines of reasoning. Very simply, vices are bad practices (i.e. sin). Vices are obviously in contrast to virtues (Paul will speak about these in vs. 12), which are good practices. Thus, a vice list is a list of bad practices to avoid. In giving two vice lists, Paul is calling the believer to put away the sins listed therein. Paul also gives two lines of reasoning as to why the believer should avoid these sins. Let’s just look at vss. 5-7 first. In these verses we find the first list of requirements for the new life followed by the first line of reasoning for the new life (for these requirements).

I. The first list of requirements: put to death sins of sensuality (vs. 5)

The key phrase found in vs. 5- “put to death the members of your earthly body” (NIV)- is important. Paul is commanding Christians to “treat as dead” certain body parts. Obviously, this is a metaphor similar to Christ metaphors (Matthew 5:29-30). Paul is not talking about literally hurting oneself. Rather, he is allowing the various body parts to represent the sins listed in vs. 5. Why? The most natural answer is that different body parts carry out the sins in vs. 5. He is using a figure of speech to arouse attention. He is commanding Christians, therefore, to get rid of everything about their Christian walk that comes into conflict with the Spirit of God that now indwells them because of the Gospel. The Gospel saved them from those sins; therefore they ought not to practice those sins.

The new nature, which is granted to the one who places faith in Christ, does not immediately eradicate (kill) the power of sin in the believer’s life. That will not come until later (Romans 8:23). In Romans 6:6, Paul says the Gospel will prevent us from being “slaves” to sin in this lifetime. But that does not mean that there will not be a real, experiential struggle with sin until Christ returns.

This is good news though because the Bible tells us that we don’t kill this sin by simply trying harder. We kill it by the power of the Spirit, which now indwells us if we are indeed resting and trusting in Christ (Romans 8:13; Galatians 5:16). So we are commanded to put to death sin, but we are given the ability to do just that because of the Gospel, that is manifested in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit! This “power over sin” even includes power over sexual sins, which we often view more offensive than other sins. Paul says the power over sin that the believer possesses begins with power over “immorality”, which refers to any type of illicit sex. But this power also works against the other sins listed in vs. 5: “impurity, passion, and evil desire". These sins focus primarily on unclean, sexual thoughts. God is concerned just as much with the inside of a believer as He is with the outside. And just in case sexual sin is not a struggle for you (inward or outward), Paul lists “greed” as the last sin in vs. 5. Greed is literally the same thing as “covetousness”. To covet something is to desire to have it with an unquenchable thirst. The Greeks would define coveting as a desire that could not be satisfied. They illustrated coveting by saying that it was like filling a bowl up with water that had a hole in it. No matter how much water you tried to put in the bowl, it would never be full due to the hole. When one covets something, he is willing to hurt anyone or anything to feed his selfish desire. The only problem is, he does more hurting than he expects because he never gets “full”.

At the end of vs. 5, Paul refers to “greed” simply as“idolatry”. Greed is idolatrous because it seeks one’s desires over God’s; love of self over love of God; and rule of self over rule of God. In short, it replaces God with self on the throne. Thus, self, becomes the object of worship instead of God. This makes "greed" idolatry. Greed is the root of all sin because all sin begins with what one desires. So Paul is really talking about all sin in vs. 5 by including greed.

The believer must be actively engaged in killing the sin in his life. As the Puritan pastor Richard Baxter was noted for saying, “Use sin as it will use you; spare it not, for it will not spare you…kill it before it kills you”! This is the essence of what Paul is saying in vs. 5.

In the next post we will look at point #2- the line of reasoning for why the believer ought to put sin to death.

Are You Eating and Drinking Christ? (Part 2)

Reason #7: Jesus is clear that eating His flesh and drinking His blood results in something “spiritual”, namely “eternal life” (6:54, 57). If the result is “spiritual”, then the cause (eating and drinking) must be “spiritual” as well (i.e. faith). In other words, it is not physical eating and drinking in view, but appropriation of Christ through personal faith (which is a spiritual act) in Him. This fits with the rest of Scripture, which affirms that eternal life only comes by faith.

Reason #8: It is likely that if Jesus were speaking about the Lord’s Supper that He would use the Greek word soma (translated “body”). Every passage in Scripture referring to the Lord’s Supper uses this word to speak of the body of Christ as represented in the bread (Matt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22; Lk. 22:19; I Cor. 10:16; 11:24, 27). Instead, Jesus uses the Greek word sarx (translated “flesh”).

Reason #9: At first, Christ simply speaks of “eating” His flesh (6:51). Later he refers to “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” (6:53-55). Finally, he refers only to “eating His flesh” (6:57). Again, this seems to prove Christ is speaking metaphorically. One must assume that if He was speaking about the Lord’s Supper that He would always include the act of “drinking” with the that of “eating”. He does not do that. As shown above (verse 57), Christ simply speaks of “eating” to the exclusion of “drinking”. If He were speaking about the Lord’s Supper, then it would appear Christ is diminishing in some sense the “drinking” aspect. Thus, the eating and drinking are not referring to the Lord’s Supper. Rather to “eat His flesh and drink His blood” is the same thing as believing (vss. 35, 47); coming (vs. 35), listening (vs. 45), and learning (vs. 45). Coming to Christ in faith seems to be more logically consistent.

Reason #10: Jesus is addressing largely unbelievers (“the Jews”…In John’s Gospel this title always refers negatively to the Jewish religious leaders who reject Christ.), not believers. It is true, that many were lukewarm disciples, but we see at the end of the chapter that they were not true believers because they deserted Jesus. Therefore, it would not make sense to command observance of Lord’s Supper (when Christ has not yet died anyway) to an audience largely composed of unbelieving, sinful rejecters of Christ.


Reason #11: Jesus says that eternal life is granted to those who eat and drink Christ. Christ unequivocally says there is “no life” (6:53) in those who do not. If this were as some suggest a reference to the Lord’s Supper, then it would logically result in a belief in works salvation. In other words, if one asserts the Lord’s Supper is in view in Christ words, then he must also assert that the act of observing the Lord’s Supper grants eternal life. This is contrary to grace and promotes works oriented salvation. Ironically enough, that is what the religious leaders, influenced by the Pharisees, held to. Jesus certainly did not promote their erroneous teaching! In fact, He rebuked them in 6:29, declaring that one does not work for salvation. Rather, one simply believes.

Reason #12: The eating and drinking in John 6 is reference to salvation. Whereas, the eating and drinking that is seen in Lord’s Supper is for those who have already been saved looking back with thanksgiving.

Reason #13: (This last one is for all the Greek snobs.) The verbs “eat” and “drink” (ex. 6:50, 53) are in the Aorist tense (original Greek) emphasizing the once for all action of receiving Christ. Observance of the Lord’s Supper is an ongoing recognized ordinance of the church. Thus, it cannot be in view based on the basic grammar of the text itself.

Are You Eating and Drinking Christ?

Our small groups have been studying the Gospel of John. It has been a rich study. Most groups have already studied chapter six. Some are already past it (Okay, all are except my group. Leave me alone.). Chapter six has a history of being controversial for a couple of reasons. First, it consists of unflinching teaching from our Lord regarding the doctrines of grace that we adore so much (total depravity, election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints). Some ignore or somehow argue around the doctrines taught in this chapter because of the offensive nature of these truths. Others stress these doctrines concerning God's sovereign grace that are so clearly spelled out by our Lord. As a result, there exists disagreement regarding how to interpret Christ's words in chapter six. And this has been true throughout the history of the church.

But there is a second reason that this passage is controversial. It relates to Christ’s words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, which He spoke in the synagogue in Capernaum. In fact, Christ’s original audience who heard these words (composed largely of the religious leaders...John simply calls them “the Jews”) argued “with one another saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’” (6:52). They failed to understand what Christ meant by His provocative words.

What did Christ mean anyway? Unfortunately, many have used this section of Scripture (i.e. Roman Catholic Church) to argue that Christ is speaking about the Lord’s Supper when He says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (6:54). However, the most consistent and logical conclusion, if this were true, will result in seeing salvation as a cooperation between God and man. In short, this view leads to affirming a works oriented salvation. For to partake in a Lord’s Supper service, that is, to physically eat and drink bread and juice (or wine, if you are not baptist), requires the work of man. One makes a conscious decision to attend a church where Communion is offered. In addition, one decisively takes the elements into his hands when they are passed to him and proceeds to chew and swallow. Any way you look at it, it takes work- the work of man.

The idea among some ("sacramentalists" as they are often called) is that if we take the Lord's Supper faithfully we will be granted eternal life. However, John himself made clear at the beginning of his book that human works contribute nothing to salvation, " But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God"(John 1:12-13, cf. Romans 9:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). This was the whole point of Christ’s words to Nicodemus earlier in chapter three when Jesus said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (3:5-6). Jesus was saying that until the Spirit of God regenerates a heart, a person will not believe. Only the Spirit, who works like water, can wash a sinful heart clean and create new life. And when the Spirit regenerates a heart, belief in Christ will always occur. On the other hand, the flesh is incapable of producing spiritual life. In other words, our good works can never gain acceptance before God. They result in condemnation rather than salvation. And God does not view them as "good" either because they manifest an attempt to butter God up so that He will grant eternal life. Flesh only produces flesh. Simply put, it takes an independent, sovereign act of God in order for salvation to take place and new birth to be realized. Just as you had no part in your physical birth (your parents did not ask what you thought about being born, and furthermore you did not lend a hand in the process), so to you have no hand in your spiritual birth.

As the helpful commentator Leon Morris points out, those who believe Christ’s words are directed to the Lord’s Supper begin with a great assumption. They presuppose that the Apostle John failed to record in the sacred Scriptures Jesus' direct words regarding the Lord’s Supper. In essence, proponents of this view believe that John only recorded a summary of what Christ said, leaving out large chunks of information. If we had those large chunks of information in our Bibles then there would be no question that Jesus was speaking about the Lord's table because in those chunks Jesus says as much. Forgive me for presuming on the Holy Spirit, but would He not include those sections if indeed they existed? It sure would clear up the provocative statements of Christ regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Nevertheless, Morris says that some argue Christ’s words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood strongly imply that He was teaching about the Lord’s Supper (The Gospel According to John, NICNT, 311). The attitude among those who hold this view seems to be, "Well, what in the world could Jesus have meant if He was not talking about the Lord's Supper?"

Well, that's a good question. But I think those who assume Jesus spoke about the Lord's Supper in John 6 have the wrong answer. There is a better answer. In studying this passage I found 13 good reasons that suggest Jesus was, in fact, not talking about the Lord’s Supper. I would like to share these with you. These are not entirely original with me. This week I did my reading much as I always do- armed with a highlighter- marking various arguments made by commentators against the notion that Jesus was speaking about the Lord’s Supper in John 6. As you will see in the reasons listed, understanding Christ’s words in John 6 has enormous implications for the church!

In addition, the 13 reasons against the "Lord's Supper View" (or sacramental view) also provide the correct interpretation of John 6, which I will explain more clearly at the end.


Reason #1: No where does the context, or passage itself indicate that Jesus is speaking about the Lord's Supper. As stated above, the best argument would be to say that the Holy Spirit simply left out the words Christ spoke directly about the Lord's Supper. But even that argument only deals with the passage itself. Even if that were true (which I hope you can see that it is not), one would still have to ask how a sermon on the Lord's Supper by Christ fits in with the overall context of John 6. After studying John 6, one sees that a discourse on the Lord's Supper would be awkwardly out of place, having nothing to do with what comes before, or what follows.

Reason #2: If our Lord's words are to be taken in a strictly literal sense, then the obvious and consistent conclusion results in seeing Christ promoting cannibalism. (Not much more needs to be said here. Nobody would argue that Christ was teaching cannibalism.)

Reason #3: The metaphor of eating and drinking was a common one among the Jewish people. The original audience probably did not take Christ's words overly literal. Indeed, it is possible that the religious leaders were not confused entirely regarding Christ's statement. Its true that they argued among themselves regarding the meaning of Christ's statement (vs. 52). But perhaps many (if not most) of them knew He was speaking figuratively. After all, metaphors were common in Jewish culture and teaching. This might explain their question in verse 52, "Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?'" A large part of the confusion stemmed from the fact that they did not understand the full implications of the metaphor Christ placed before them.

Reason #4: "I am the bread of life" is the first of the “I AM” sayings, which are metaphorical expressions regarding the person of Christ. The other metaphorical expressions include:
1. I am the Light of the world (8:12)
2. I am the Door of the sheep (10:7,9)
3. I am the Good Shepherd (10:11, 14)
4. I am the Resurrection and the Life (11:25)
5. I am the Way, the Truth, the Life (14:6)
6. I am the True Vine (15:1,5)

These expressions are to be taken no more literally than "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh" (6:51). In other words, nobody would be inclined to argue that Jesus is literally a vine, or a door. So why argue that Christ's statements in John 6 must be taken literally as pointing to a literal presence of Christ in the bread given at a Lord's Supper service?

Reason #5: Verse 54 is parallel with verse 40, proving Christ was not talking about the Lord's Supper. Rather, He is emphasizing belief in Himself as the Messiah. In vs. 40 Jesus says, “everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day”. Verse 54 says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”. There is no contradiction in these verses. They are saying the same thing in a different way. It is clear that to “behold” and “believe” the Son (vs. 40) is the same as to “eat” His flesh and “drink” His blood (vs. 54). Simply put, "believing" and "eating" refer to placing faith in Christ.

Reason #6: When Christ spoke these words, the Lord’s Supper had not yet been instituted. The original hearers would know nothing of a “Lord’s Supper” celebration. For Christ to give a theology on an unknown practice before its official institution makes no sense. Once again, context is important when interpreting Scripture.

To be continued on a later post. Please feel free to ask questions or make comments....

MacArthur Quote

I came across this statement by John MacArthur in my study of John 6:41-59 yesterday. MacArthur is commenting specifically on verse 51 where Jesus said"...and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh". MacArthur writes:

"The concept of Jesus giving Himself sacrificially for sinners is a repeated New Testament theme (e.g. Matt. 20:28; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:2, 25; I Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:14). The Lord referred prophetically here to His death on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; I Pet. 2:24), one of many such predictions recorded in the Gospels (John 2:19-22; 12:24; Matt. 12:40; 16:21; 17:22; 20:18: Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; Lk. 9:22, 44; 18:31-33; 24:6-7). It is Jesus' offering of His 'flesh' that is the price of redemption. Had He merely come and proclaimed God's standards, it would have left the human race in a hopeless predicament. Since no one can keep those standards, there would have been no way for sinners to have a relationship with God. But to make reconciliation between sinful man and holy God possible, 'Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God' (I Pet. 3:18; cf. 2:24; Isa. 53:4-6; Rom. 3:21-26; 2 Cor. 5:21)...

...His death, for all who believed and would believe, God accepted as the full payment for sin...

The death of Christ was a real, genuine, actual, satisfaction of divine justice. It was a true payment and atonement in full- actually, not potentially, paid to God by Christ on behalf of all who would ever believe, because they were chosen and redeemed by the power of God. The death of Christ was definite, particular, specific, and actual on behalf of God's chosen people, limited in extent by His sovereign purposes, but unlimited in effect for all for whom it was rendered.

Redemption is the work of God. Christ died to accomplish it, not merely to make it possible and then finally accomplished when the sinner believes. The Bible does not teach that Jesus died for everyone potentially, but no one actually. On the contrary, Christ procured salvation for all whom God would call and justify; He actually paid the penalty in full for all who would ever believe. Sinners do not limit the atonement by their lack of faith; God does by His sovereign design" (The MacArthur N.T. Commentary, 258-259).

What a statement on the atonement!

Book Recommendation

The Newness of the New Covenant is a short book recently published by New Covenant Media (2008). It is the best, short work I have come across in explaining how the Old Testament fits together with the New Testament. The content of the book supports New Covenant theology, and thus departs from classical dispensationalism and covenant theology. The bibliography is full of men whom we have all come to love- Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel, John Reisinger, and D.A. Carson just to name a few. (The author went to Southern Seminary, but I promise that I am not bias.)

Purchase and read if you get a chance!

Mohler: Can We Do Without "Male" and "Female"?

There is not a day that goes by that I do not marvel at the God ordained differences between my two children. Created as male and female respectively, my children, at many points, could not be more different. They might look like twins in some respects (both red hair, blue eyes, etc.). But there is no question that one is male; the other female. This is seen in temperament, interests, etc. Even at a young age, gender differences are obvious. The differences move beyond just the physiological dimension as well. Anyone with children can attest to this (or for that matter anyone capable of conscious thought).

Follow the link below to read a well worded blog from Albert Mohler (President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) regarding gender differences provocatively entitled, "Worldview Test: Can We Do Without 'Male' and 'Female' . Mohler does an exceptional job of informing our minds Biblically as we ponder about gender issues. In addition, he shows the foolishness attached to the notion that "male" and "female" categories are meaningless, confusing, or unimportant. He convincingly argues that far from meaningless, confusing, or unimportant, gender differences are God ordained, God glorifying, and good for mankind.

http://albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3792

John Piper at Ladies Conference!

Okay, so he wasn't really at Grace Chapel in person for the ladies conference. But the ladies did watch a sermon entitled "Love is a Fulfilling of the Law" by John Piper. There are actually three parts to this topic that Piper preached a few years ago as he worked through the book of Romans. I believe the ladies watched part one at the conference. At any rate, the links for all three are below. Enjoy! (Sorry that I could not get video for part one.)

http://desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/MediaPlayer/217/Audio/ (Part 1, audio only)

http://desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/sermons/bydate/2005/218_Love_Is_a_Fulfilling_of_the_Law_Part_2/ (Part 2, video

http://desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2005/219_Love_Is_a_Fulfilling_of_the_Law_Part_3/ (Part 3, video)

Reformed Fellowship Meeting Features Our Good Friend Tom Wells

Last Friday our dear brother Tom Wells was the guest speaker for the men's Reformed Fellowship meeting at the Ramada Inn in Morgantown. As usual, Tom delivered an insightful and Christ-centered message. The topic was Israel as a Sacral Society. Below are bullet points from my personal notes taken during Tom's lecture. Hopefully, my notes accurately depict the good intentions of Tom. If you would like more information on the topic that Tom spoke on, then see Mike or myself (or contact Tom if you want intelligent discussion).


Israel as a Sacral Society

DEFINING A SACRAL SOCIETY. A sacral society is a spiritual society where all people belonging to that society possess the same religion. Ancient Israel constitutes as a sacral society. In a sacral society extreme penalties exist for those who forsake the established religion (i.e. death...most common penalty). The evidence proving that ancient Israel was a sacral society can be found in Leviticus 21:1 ff. (external acts concerning laws for priests with no spiritual qualifications for their position as leaders in the society) and Leviticus 22:9 (death as penalty for priests who disobey).

HOW DOES JESUS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HIS SOCIETY (ESTABLISHED WITH THE NEW COVENANT) AND A SACRAL SOCIETY? In Matthew 12:15 ff. Jesus establishes the fact that one can be a lawful citizen of a particular nation in which one lives and still serve God (cf. Romans 13). This was not self-evident to the original audience who heard these words from our Lord. Christ's words (spoken in the context of a sacral society) were considered radical.

NEW COVENANT IMPLICATIONS. In Matthew 12:46-50, Christ makes clear that His new nation of priests (i.e. the church) is not tied to blood or society. New Covenant citizens are a new race. Thus, we (as citizens of the New Covenant) must serve Christ and be willing to die for Him over everything. In other words, Christ's emphasis is His Church, not society or blood relatives. Thus, our first love must be for Christ, and this love for Christ will naturally flow into love for Christ's bride- the Church.

Thank you Tom Wells! What a refreshing reminder!