Tag Archives: Jesus Christ

12/23/2019

On the Fourth Sunday of Advent

By Phillip Powers

advent 4

The fourth Sunday of the season of Advent is dedicated to the contemplation of love, namely that it was love that motivated the Father to send the Son into the world as the incarnate Christ-child. And though the lectionary readings do not mention the love of God specifically, they do focus us on that great act of love, whereby our Savior became like unto us so that we may become like Him. So, before we turn our attention to the readings for this fourth Sunday, let us remind ourselves of that most memorable of verses,

For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will no perish but have everlasting life. (John 3.16)

This is the gift that we celebrate at Christmas, and the lectionary readings prepare us for that celebration by reminding us that this was the eternal plan of God from the very beginning of time.

Old Testament: Isaiah 7.10-16
Of course, this is the passage where we find God’s prediction of the virgin birth, that “the virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel,” (verse 14), and this is the verse that will be cited by Matthew in today’s Gospel reading. And so it is tempting to fast forward immediately to the those events surrounding the birth of the Christ-child. However, we would be completely remiss if we ignored the original context within which this prophecy is given. And while we do not have the space here to recount the whole story, it would behoove us to linger in these chapters, specifically chapters 7-9, before jumping to the details of the Christmas story. This passage recounts the promise given through the prophet Isaiah that God would deliver the Kingdom of Judah from the enemies, even in spite of the seemingly insurmountable odds that were arrayed against them. “For before the boy knows to reject what is bad and choose what is good, the land of the two kings you dread will be abandoned.” (Verse 16) And it is this pattern then that becomes the typological precedent for the coming of Messiah. In other words, because God loves His people, He will deliver them from their enemies, whether those enemies be temporal (as with the people of Judah) or eternal (as with us and our enemy – sin).

Psalm: Psalm 80.1-7, 17-19
In the Psalm reading, “the psalmist laments Israel’s demise and asks the Lord to show favor toward his people, as he did in earlier times.” (Study Note, NET Bible) In other words, the psalmist is praying for God’s salvation specifically as that pertains to the restoration of the people of Israel. “Listen, Shepherd of Israel, who leads Joseph like a flock; you who sit enthroned between the cherubim, shine on Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh. Rally your power and come to save us.” (Verses 1-2) But what is most sobering in this Psalm is that the psalmist admits that the people of Israel have reaped the just and due consequence of their sin in punishment from God, and that it is God and God alone who can must intervene on behalf of His people for their forgiveness and restoration. “Lord God of Armies, how long will you be angry with your people’s prayers? You fed them the bread of tears and gave them the full measure of tears to drink.  (Verse 4-5) And this is not unlike the spiritual condition of all humanity; we are too justly under the judgment of God for our sin, and He and He alone is the one who must act for our salvation. And so we pray, “Restore us, Lord, God of Armies; make your face shine on us, so that we may be saved.”

New Testament: Matthew 1.18-25
The Gospel reading for this fourth and final Sunday of Advent, then, takes us to the events leading up the birth of the Christ-child. “After his mother Mary have been engaged to Joseph, it was discovered before they came together that she was pregnant from the Holy Spirit. So her husband Joseph, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her publicly, decided to divorce her secretly.” (Verse 18-19) Obviously, Joseph was facing a perplexing dilemma, and who’s to say what we might have done under those same circumstances. But God intervened in a dream telling Joseph to take Mary as his wife. “She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” (Verse 21) Of course, Matthew goes on in verses 22-23 to make the point that this was in fulfillment of what God had said through the prophet Isaiah, as we saw in our Old Testament reading. And “When Joseph woke up, he did as the Lord’s angel had commanded him. He married her but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus.” (Verses 24-25) But the important point to note in this passage is that in the Christ-child, God himself has come into the world “to save His people from their sins.” 

New Testament: Romans 1.1-7
And this was God’s plan A all along, as Paul goes on to show in the New Testament reading. Of course, in the Letter to the Romans, Paul is writing to a church that he himself had never visited. He was practically a stranger to them, and so, in these introductory verses, he must establish his identity and the authority from which he writes, which he ultimately grounds in the Gospel of God. “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God.” (Verse 1) And it is this concept, the Gospel of God that Paul goes on to define in verses 2 thru 6 of the passage, that it was promised beforehand through the prophets in the Scriptures (verse 2), that it concerns his son, Jesus Christ our Lord, that he was a descendant of David (verse 3), appointed the powerful Son of God by the Spirit through resurrection (verse 4), and that through Him, we have been given a mission to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His name throughout the nations (verse 5). The point being that this was God’s plan all along from eternity past to eternity future, the Gospel of God is the script by which history unfolds. And the coming of Christ, both in His first Advent and in His second, is the cornerstone of that Gospel.

And so, we return to where we began, that the Gospel of God is nothing less than the expression of His love for His people, and that is what we celebrate at Christmas. God himself entered into the creation as the Christ-child incarnate to save His people from their sins. And thanks be to God for giving us this gift.

For further study:
On the Season of Advent
On the First Sunday of Advent
On the Second Sunday of Advent
On the Third Sunday of Advent

Comments Off on On the Fourth Sunday of Advent   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Gospels Studies, Worship & Liturgy

12/04/2019

On the First Sunday of Advent

By Phillip Powers

Adventskranz 1. Advent

As previously noted, this last Sunday, December 1, 2019, marked the beginning of the Christian season of Advent, and this first Sunday of the Advent season emphasizes hope, namely our expectation that Jesus the Christ will one day return to this earth in glory and power to establish His kingdom forever. Understandably, the corresponding lectionary readings (taken from the Revised Common Lectionary) help us to envision and to prepare ourselves for that day, and they reinforce our hope in the midst of the pain and difficulties that are so common in our world today.

Old Testament: Isaiah 2.1-5
In the Old Testament reading, we are confronted with “The vision that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem” (verse 1), and in this vision, the prophet looks forward to the last days to see the house of the Lord established and all the nations streaming to it. In verse 3, they say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us about his ways so that we may walk in his paths.”  This reminds us that God’s plan was never solely for the people of Israel; rather, His plan was for the salvation of the nations, that all peoples might come to know Him and to enjoy His benevolence. Because on that day, “instruction will go out of Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” 

And on that day, He will establish peace, as Isaiah describes in verse 4, “They will beat their swords into plows and their spears into pruning knives.” He goes on, “Nation will not take up the sword against nation, and they will never again train for war.” What a glorious hope that we have, that our Lord Jesus will come back to establish peace on earth once and for all. Oh, how we desperately long for that peace, and so, Isaiah encourages us, “House of Jacob, come and let us walk in the Lord’s light.” In other words, we are called to people of peace because of our hope. We know that one day our Lord Jesus will return.  This is our blessed hope, and so we must walk in the His light.

Psalm: Psalm 122
The Psalm reading follows up on Isaiah’s vision, then, with a prayer for the well being of Jerusalem. It is one of the “Songs of Ascent” which would be sang by Jewish pilgrims as they made their way up to the holy city to worship at the temple. As it says, “I rejoiced with those who said to me, ‘Let us go to the house of the Lord.'” (verse 1) And David tells us why we should rejoice in verse 3-4, where he writes, “Jerusalem, built as a city should be, solidly united, where the tribes, the Lord’s tribes, go up to give thanks to the name of the Lord.” Of course David was thinking of that earthly city, that temple which was made by hands, but we know, in light of our Lord’s first coming, that we are waiting for that heavenly Jerusalem, the city of God, where we will live in the presence of God for eternity. This is our hope.

Gospel: Matthew 24.36-44
The Gospel reading for this first Sunday of Advent, as it does every year, comes from the Olivet Discourse, in this case Matthew’s version. And this is a profound reminder that the season of Advent is radically eschatological in its scope. Yes, it prepares us to celebrate the birth of the Christ-child at Christmas, but it also reminds that our hope is yet future. And as Jesus says, “Now concerning that day and hour no one knows – neither the angels of heaven nor the Son – except the Father alone” (verse 36). And He concludes, “This is why you are also to be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (verse 44). The point here is clear, that we must be ready, that we must prepare ourselves for His arrival, and in the context of the Olivet Discourse, this means that we must be faithful to the responsibilities that He has left us. As it says in verse 46, “Blessed is that servant who the master finds doing his job when he comes.”

New Testament: Romans 13.11-14
And finally, the New Testament reading gives us a glimpse of what this readied faithfulness looks like. It is sufficient here, I believe, to simply quote the passage at length: “Besides this, since you know the time, it is already the hour for you to wake up from sleep, because now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is nearly over, and the day is near; so let us discard the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk with decency, as in the daytime: not in carousing and drunkenness; not in sexual impurity and promiscuity; not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and don’t make plans to gratify the desires of the flesh.” That last line says it all, that we should put on Christ-likeness, because we know that our hope is certain and that our faithfulness will be rewarded on that day when Jesus comes again.

And so, let us renew our hope this Advent season. We live in a world that is completely inundated with conflict, confusion, and chaos; we are constantly bombarded with painful and tearful reminders that this world is not completely as it should be. But one day, it will all be put to rights, and until that time, we are called to endure in hope and to persevere in faithfulness, no matter how grim the outlook may be.

For further study:
On the Use and Benefit of the Lectionary
On the Season of Advent

3 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Gospels Studies, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

01/25/2019

On the Ending(s) of the Gospel of Mark

By Phillip Powers

d38a6db3-bd4e-4462-b587-5e0764af14dd-mark-16

In the Sunday School class that I am a part of, we have recently been studying the history and meaning of the cross, and as a part of that study, I suggested that while the historical specifics and the theological significance of the cross are important, to truly understand the cross, we must understand it narratively as the climax of the Passion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This led the class’s facilitator to ask me to walk us through the Passion narrative, an invitation that I was more than willing to accept, and so, for more than two months, we followed in the steps of Jesus as He made his way toward the cross. And we did this by focusing specifically on Mark’s version of these events, which is recorded in chapters 11-16 of his Gospel.

It has been said that Mark’s Gospel is simply a “passion narrative with an extended introduction.” And whether that is an accurate description or not, Mark does allocate a disproportionate amount of space to the final week of Jesus’ life as compared with the first three plus years of His public ministry or, even, the thirty-some years that Jesus had lived beforehand. To be specific, Mark dedicates six entire chapters of his Gospel, some 38% if you are doing the math, to the events leading up and following Jesus’ death on the cross. Obviously, he thought that these events were of supreme significance. And so, typical of Mark’s style, these final six chapters tell the story of Jesus’ passion with such action and drama as to constantly leave the reader on the edge of their seat waiting to see what might happen next.

However, all throughout this study of Jesus’ passion week, I found myself feeling somewhat more afraid with every step we took as we moved closer and closer to the ending of Mark’s Gospel. You see, I already knew that there is a text critical question regarding Mark’s Ending, but the vast majority of the members of the class, being King James faithful, were very likely unaware of this issue. I was terrified of how they might react when I explained that Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20, as they appear in their Bibles, are most likely secondary in nature. Well, I am glad to report that my brothers and sisters in Christ were more than gracious in accepting my explanation of the issue, which, as I had presumed, most of them had never been exposed to. But, the vast ignorance of this issue among so many Christians, especially down here in the Bible Belt, breaks my heart, so in the space that follows I would like to give a brief overview of the issues related to Mark’s ending(s).

The fact of the matter is that there are actually four endings to the Gospel of Mark which are extant in the manuscript tradition. They are as follows:

  1. No ending, as is indicated in most modern translations, the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, particularly B and א, end the text of the second Gospel at verse 8.
  2. The Short Ending, immediately following 16:8, “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
  3. The Long ending (otherwise known as 16:9-20), which is included in all Bible translations that are available today, though usually with brackets, footnotes, and/or other indicators of its questionable authenticity.
  4. The Expanded ending, which expands the Long ending after verse 14, saying, “This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ – thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.”

Now, I am not here to argue the merits for or against any particular one of these four endings, but suffice it to say that the overwhelming consensus of New Testament textual scholarship has concluded that all of the endings that we have (numbers 2-4 above) are inherently secondary, and that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the Gospel of Mark as we know it ends at 16:8. Based on both external and internal evidence considerations, this much seems reasonably certain.

However, what is important is not one’s conclusion regarding the original ending of the Gospel of Mark, but what conclusions should be drawn in light of the textual question. First, we must maintain our belief in the fundamental trustworthiness and historical reliability of the Bible in general, and of the Gospel accounts in particular. Just because the last twelve verses of the second Gospel as we know it are in question, this does not mean that the rest of the Gospel of Mark, or the other three Gospels for that matter, are inherently false. In fact, all of the events in the so-called Long Ending are attested in the other accounts, especially in Luke and Acts. Further, we must remember that we do not build theological conclusions based on the testimony of one verse in isolation. As important as scriptural citations are in establishing the Biblical basis for our theological conclusions, individual verses must be understood within the context of the whole of Holy Scripture.

Second, this does not mean that translations of the Bible which lack any indication of the textual issue, e.g. some editions of the King James Version, are fundamentally in error, or that the are trying to lead people astray. The history of the Bible in English is long and complex, and conclusions that are based on the presence and/or omission of this particular issue, or others like it, are simplistic and reductionistic. To the extent that any English translation of the Bible faithfully reflects the original text of the autographs, then it can be read with great spiritual benefit. As Jesus promised, the Spirit will lead us into all truth through His Holy Word. Ultimately, He is the one who inspired the original  biblical authors, He is the one who has providentially preserved the text, and He is the one who gives understanding of its truths and applies them to our hearts to make us more like Christ.

 

 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus

04/03/2018

On the Season of Easter

By Phillip Powers

empty tomb

This past Sunday, the church universal celebrated Resurrection Sunday, which marks the annual commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. And, unfortunately, for most churches, especially those stemming from low church or free church traditions, this celebration will be quickly forgotten as they slide back into their usual routine of doing church every week. Sadly, most of the people who attended church yesterday, because it was Easter Sunday, will simply resume their normal routines, and they will continue to live as if the resurrection is simply an interesting story that happened long ago but has no real impact on their daily lives.

This is where I believe the historic Church Calendar can aid us in our spiritual formation. According to that traditional reckoning of the church’s annual worship rhythms, the celebration of the resurrection is not simply something that is relegated to one Sunday per year. No, the season of the Resurrection lasts for almost two months and culminates in the church’s celebration of the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Just as Jesus spent 40 days after His resurrection with His disciples teaching them about the kingdom before He ascended, observing the Resurrection as a season in the church’s worship can help us to more fully understand, appreciate, embrace, and be formed by that most essential of historical foundations that Christ is risen!

So, during my sermon this past Sunday, I challenged those who were in attendance simply because it was Easter, that if they really wanted to be Easter only Christians, then I would expect to see them in Church for the next seven consecutive Sundays. I doubt that many of them will heed that challenge, nevertheless, the Season of the Resurrection, sometimes called Eastertide, is an invitation for Christians, both corporately and individually, to intentionally position ourselves in a place where the Spirit may take us deeper into the wonder and mystery of Christ crucified and resurrected.

So, in the limited space that follows, let me offer some practical suggestions on how Christians, both as individuals and as congregations, might navigate the next seven weeks leading up to Pentecost so as to grow in and be formed by the wonderful mystery of the Gospel.

First, read through, or reread through, one of the four Gospels in the light of Jesus resurrection. The lectionary for the Season of the Resurrection is going to be taking us through the Gospel of John, but you may choose another one of the four. Whichever you choose, try to read it as one of the first followers of Jesus. The Gospels tells us that it was only after Jesus resurrection that they truly began to understand more fully all that He had said and done during His ministry. And one of Jesus’ last instructions to His followers was that they were to go into all nations teaching them to observe all that He had commanded them. (Matthew 28.20)

Second, whether you are a preacher or simply a listener, ask yourself how the resurrection makes what you are saying and/or hearing in the sermon possible. It has been said many times perhaps, but it bears repeating: if what you are preaching doesn’t require Jesus, then you’ve missed the point. Paul said that the resurrection is the linchpin, if you will, of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15), so how does the truth of Christ’s resurrection impact or influence the message of whatever particular text you are preaching. Here again, I would suggest considering the lectionary as a basis for determining a preaching schedule (see my post here), but wherever your preaching schedule is going, it is all meaningless without the resurrection of our Lord.

Third, be actively and intentionally involved in the life of the local church. During the Season of the Resurrection, the Lectionary replaces the Old Testament reading with a passage from the Acts of the Apostles. This is because the 50 day Season of the Resurrection culminates in the celebration of the coming of the Spirit on Pentecost, which might be called the birthday of the church. Jesus’ resurrection makes it possible for His followers to live in new life free from the power of sin, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes it possible for those followers to live in a new kind of Christian community, one characterized by love and service. So, during this Season of the Resurrection, seek out intentional ways to love and serve people in the local church.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Christian faith is meaningless without the resurrection of Jesus. Without it, Jesus is just another nameless victim executed by the Roman Empire; His death is pointless. The Apostle Paul said as much in his first letter to the church at Corinth, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15.17). So, if we truly believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus is the necessary and essential heart of the Christian Gospel, then it deserves to be celebrated more than just one Sunday per year. This Resurrection Season, let us remember that we worship a Risen Lord!

 

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Christian Education, Church History, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Ministry, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

03/28/2018

On Jesus’ Understanding of His Death

By Phillip Powers

JesusFinalHours-56a149da5f9b58b7d0bdda13

In a previous post, I began considering how we should understand the death of Jesus, and I argued that the overwhelming testimony of both the Old and New Testament point to a penal substitution view as essential for understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Specifically, I gave a handful of quotations from the various New Testament authors that show that the very first followers of Jesus understood His death in this way. Now, it is only reasonable to suppose that they must have received this understanding from somewhere; they didn’t just come up with it on their own. And it is my thesis that they received this understanding of Jesus’ atonement from Jesus himself.

However, this proposition is not without its critics. One such voice is that which belongs to Brian Zahnd, founder and lead pastor of Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri and author of a book entitled, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God: The Scandalous Truth of the Very Good News, where he argues:

“Among the many problems with [a penal substitution] theory of the cross is that it turns God into a petty tyrant and a moral monster. Punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is monstrous logic, atrocious theology, and a gross distortion of the idea of justice. … A theory of the cross that says it was God who desired the torture and murder of Jesus on Good Friday turns the Father of Jesus into a cruel and sadistic monster. It’s salvation by divine sadism.” (101-102)

He has also stated that

“Even if penal substitutionary atonement theory is one of the correct models for interpreting the cross (personally I’m convinced its a pagan idea and an outrageous libel against God) its still not the gospel. The gospel is the story of Jesus – not abstract atonement theories.” (via @BrianZahnd, tweeted 3.20.18, 7:27PM)

And in his blog “How Did Jesus Understand His Death?”, he argues that Jesus understood his death in the vein of the Christus Victor theory of the atonement on the basis of John 12:31-32.

So, in order to understand the meaning of Jesus’ death, we must consider carefully how Jesus understood it and conveyed its significance to His first disciples. It is relatively obvious that Jesus anticipated his death by crucifixion at the hands of the Jewish and Roman authorities. In the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), He predicts his death at least three specific occasions. Those predictions, along with many other allusions, coupled with the obvious animosity between the Jewish religious establishment and Jesus clearly indicate that Jesus was well aware of the fate that awaited Him on that third and final trip to Jerusalem. However, not only did he expect his upcoming execution, he also very clearly saw it as the necessary culmination of His ministry and mission.

In this light then, it is reasonable to expect that He must have reflected on the meaning of His death. And there are three sayings of Jesus that give us some insight into how he understood that meaning. The first saying of Jesus that gives us some insight into how he understood His death is found in Mark 10:45 (also Matthew 20.28), which is known as the ransom saying, because Jesus says, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The second saying of Jesus that shows how he understood his death is found in the words of institution at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22-25, Matt. 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20). There Jesus reinterprets the elements of the Passover meal in the light of His upcoming death. And the third saying that is also somewhat conceptually related is found in the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he prayed “Take this cup away from me.” (Mark 14:36. Matt. 26:39,42, Luke 22:42)

These statements indicate that Jesus understood his death as a vicarious substitution for many, and it seems reasonably clear that the theological background of these sayings is to be found in that paradigmatic passage from the Old Testament which describes the vicarious substitution of the “suffering servant”. In Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the prophet vividly predicts the vicarious and expiatory suffering of the servant of the Lord for the many. The linguistic and conceptual parallels between the suffering servant song and these sayings of Jesus are quite telling. For example, the idea of a ransom in Mark 10:45, used as a metaphor, parallels the idea of a guilt offering in Isaiah 53:10, and the idea for many echoes the repetitive many in Isaiah 53:11-12. This indicates that Jesus clearly understood himself to be fulfilling the role of the suffering servant in His death on the cross.

Further, in the garden, when Jesus asks His Father to remove “the cup”, He is likely referring to “the cup of God’s wrath” or “judgment” so often described in the Old Testament prophets. And that is why He is able to say in John 12:31, “Now is the judgment of this world.” So, here again it seems fairly evident that Jesus understood His death as the satisfaction of God’s judgment on sin. In light of all this, it is safe to conclude that Jesus viewed His death as a substitutionary and expiatory act that satisfies the just judgment and due penalty for sin before a Holy God. It would seem, then, that the first followers of Jesus drew their penal substitution view of the atonement directly from the words of Jesus himself.

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Systematic Theology

03/15/2018

On so called ‘Cosmic Child Abuse’ and the Atonement

By Phillip Powers

o-CRUCIFIXION-facebook

In recent years, it has become rather faddish for critics of traditional atonement theory to dismiss the idea of penal substitution as a form of cosmic child abuse. In other words, these critics assert that it is a morally evil injustice for God to punish His innocent Son for the sins of all other human beings. They further assert that this kind of “redemptive violence” is simply incompatible with a God who is love. Stephen Chalk and Alan Mann, in their book The Lost Message of Jesus, state it this way:

The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love”. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.

Later, they give their understanding of the atonement when they state:

The truth is, the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his Son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love.

This moral influence theory of the atonement is not new or original with Chalk and Mann. It was first advanced by a medieval scholastic theologian named Peter Abelard (1079-1142), who

“emphasized the primacy of God’s love and insisted that Christ did not make some sort of sacrificial payment to the Father to satisfy his offended dignity. Rather, Jesus demonstrated to humanity the full extent of God’s love for them” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 803)

In other words, on the cross, God showed to what extent He was willing to go to demonstrate the depth of His love for humanity, and His great love so demonstrated should cause human beings to respond in love to God. Certainly, God is love (1 John 4:7-21) and the cross is a demonstration of God’s love (Romans 5:8), but the above definition simply does not go far enough to explain why the cross is effective as a means of salvation for human beings. In what follows, I will give some reasons why this critique, that penal substitutionary atonement is “cosmic child abuse”, is completely unfounded and why a penal substitution view of the atonement is essential to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

First, it goes against the overwhelming testimony of Holy Scripture. It is no overstatement to conclude that the nearly unanimous witness of the Biblical authors from beginning to end is that Christ died as a substitute for the sins of humanity. There is not enough space here to quote all the verses that would serve to prove this point, so a few will simply have to suffice. As it relates to the Old Testament, one could argue that the entire sacrificial system was pointing to the death of Jesus, because that system is based upon the foundational assumption that the death of animals can substitute and atone for the sins of human beings. But, the premier text on this topic is the “Suffering Servant Song” of Isaiah 53, which says in part:

But he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds. We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the Lord has punished him for the iniquity of us all. (verses 5-6)

And, in the New Testament, there are numerous verses that could be quoted to show that the first followers of Jesus understood his death as a substitutionary atonement for sin. Due to space limitations, a few will have to suffice. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul says, “For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” Also, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” In Romans 4:25, he says “He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” And not only Paul, but we see that the other writers of the New Testament understood the atonement in this way as well. In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter wrote, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness.” And in 1 Peter 3:18, he wrote, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God.” In 1 John 4:10, John writes, “Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice (propitiation) for our sins.” And the author of Hebrews, says in Hebrews 2:9, “But we do see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God’s grace he might taste death for everyone.”

In light of all this, we are safe to conclude that the Old and New Testament authors unanimously understand the death of Jesus as a substitute making atonement to God for the sins of humanity.

Second, this view also misunderstands the essential character and nature of God in two ways. First, as it relates to His character, proponents of this kind of moral influence theory exalt God’s love over and against His other attributes, namely His holiness and justice. God’s character attributes cannot be so divided as to pit them against one another. He is a God of love, but he is also and equally a God of holiness and justice. Moreover, His attributes are interrelated, such that his love is just and holy, and his holiness and justice are loving. To pit God’s justice against His love is to recapitulate that ancient heresy attributed to Marcion of Sinope (c. 85-c. 160), who believed the wrathful Hebrew God of the Old Testament was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. That heresy was rightly condemned by the fathers of early church.

Also, as it relates to the nature of God, this view fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine of the trinity. These critics of the traditional penal substitutionary view seem to assume that the Son was an innocent third party separate and distinct from God the Father. Therefore, they argue that it is unjust for God to punish the Son for the sins of all humanity. However, the Son is not some innocent disconnected third party in this discussion; no, the Son is God himself. The second person of the trinity was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, so it was the second person of the Trinity that died on the cross. We must not disconnect God’s threeness (in persons) from his oneness (in essence). After all, Christians are fundamentally monotheists; Holy Scripture clearly teaches that there is one God. So, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons. So, if the second person of the trinity died on the cross for the sins of humanity, then we must say that God himself died on the cross for the sins of humanity. Thus, the Son was a willing participant in the crucifixion, as God took the sins of humanity onto himself.

The atonement, a penal substitutionary atonement, is at the very center of the Christian Gospel, that Jesus Christ bore the sins of humanity on the cross and died in their place to satisfy their deserved punishment before a just and holy God. Let us not shrink from this fact in fear or shame, but embrace it as the glorious demonstration of God’s love that it is.

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Church History, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Systematic Theology, Worship & Liturgy

03/06/2018

On Partaking of the Lord’s Supper

By Phillip Powers

UnworthyCommunion.jpg

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself; in this way let him eat the bread and drink from the cup.  For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.  This is why many are sick and ill among you, and many have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30, CSB)

Certainly, no one wants to partake of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy way, especially if the consequences are sickness and/or death! But because of our western cultural predispositions, especially toward individualism and toward feelings of guilt rather than shame, we usually read Paul’s warnings here as if they concern our individual relationship with God. In other words, when Paul speaks of partaking of the elements in an “unworthy way,” we typically think of that which makes us feel unworthy before God, namely unconfessed sins. Moreover, when we read that “a man should examine himself”, we primarily think of some kind of moralistic introspection. Practically speaking, this usually entails a time of “prayerful self-examination and confession” prior to the distribution of the elements.

The problem with this is that rather than drawing the believer to celebrate anew the glory of God’s forgiveness in the Gospel through the observance of the Lord’s Supper, we end up heaping more feelings of guilt on the believer who truly desires to confess ALL their sins before partaking of the elements. Besides, who could ever be certain that they had confessed 100% of their sins, and thus could partake “worthily”? And what about the forgiveness that we have already received when we placed our faith in the Gospel at conversion; was it not once-for-all? So, in order to understand Paul’s warning here, I think we must reevaluate Paul’s instructions light of the social issues which they were meant to address.

The text of 1 Corinthians chapter 11 is relatively clear; obviously, there were some problems in how the Corinthians were practicing the Lord’s Supper, so much so that Paul’s comments on this issue are very sharp. He minces no words so to speak, and the reason for Paul’s outrage is simply this: The behavior of the Corinthian Christians at the Lord’s Table denies all that the Gospel stands for. In verse 20, Paul says that when they come together, they aren’t eating the Lord’s Supper. They may be sharing a meal together, but it looks nothing like the Lord’s meal. In other words, their behavior at the Lord’s Table is based in the values of the surrounding culture and not in the values of the Gospel. But in order to understand how this is so, we must consider the significance of meals in Paul’s world.

For them, the purpose of meals was much broader than simply eating food and consuming the necessary nourishment for the day’s tasks. No, in the first century, sharing a meal with someone was the primary gesture of companionship and community. Table fellowship was the principal means for establishing, enriching, and reaffirming relational bonds between groups of people, whether those groups were familial, religious, or secular in nature. Sharing meals together was the primary means for developing relationships. On the other hand, though, the table could also be the place where divisions according to honor, status, and affluence were publicly displayed and reinforced. In other words, mealtimes in the first century reinforced social divisions between the social elites and the lower classes, between the wealthy and poor, between the “haves” and the “have-nots”.

It is this latter function of meals that explains the practice of the Corinthian Christians. They are eating in a way that reinforces and perpetuates the divisions that exist among them. In chapter 11, verses 18-19, Paul says, “For to begin with, I hear that when you come together as a church there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. There must, indeed, be factions among you, so that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” And this is why their coming together is not for the better but for the worse. Apparently, the more well-to-do and affluent members of the congregation were arriving at the meeting early, gorging themselves on the best foods and the best wine, and they were getting downright drunk. Then, when the poorer day laborers arrived later in the evening, there was nothing left for them to eat, so they went hungry.

For Paul, this is an explicit denial of the unity that they should be sharing in Christ. Listen again to the words of Paul in chapter 11, verse 22, “Don’t you have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you look down on the church of God and embarrass those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I do not praise you for this!” Obviously, Paul is outraged, and as a corrective, he reminds them of the Lord’s Supper tradition. In other words, he reminds them that in the Gospel, cultural values like honor, status, and wealth are no longer relevant. All people stand or fall on their response to the Gospel no matter who they are. And the gospel not only transforms our relationship with God; it also transforms our relationship with others. We no longer see people as the world sees them; instead, we see them as Christ sees them. We relate to people according to the values of the Gospel, because the ground is level at the foot of the cross. We all stand equally in need of Jesus.

So, in order to understand Paul’s warning in chapter 11, verses 27-30, we must remember that the central issue at stake for Paul is not moral or ethical; rather, it is primarily communal or social. The question is not about one’s individual worth before God. Rather, it is the quality of our relationships with each other. In other words, it is primarily social in nature. The self-examination that Paul envisions is an attempt to evaluate one’s attitudes toward others in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, we might ask ourselves these questions:

Am I showing Christian love to the members of this community equally?
Am I reinforcing or breaking down worldly social distinctions by my actions?
Am I jockeying, competing, or striving for social advancement at the expense of others?Am I selflessly giving of myself, my time, my money in order to benefit others?
Am I evaluating people according the values of the culture or the values of the Gospel?Am I engendering unity or disunity within this community by my actions and behaviors?

If we will examine ourselves in this way, by honestly answering these questions, then we will be rightly discerning the body, and we will partake of the Lord’s Supper worthily. The Lord’s Table is where anyone who believes in Jesus Christ can come to receive the promise of pardon and forgiveness and bask in the grace and love of God the Father poured out through God the Son by the Holy Spirit. Let us celebrate this table together as one body of united believers in Jesus.

 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

02/15/2018

On the Season of Lent

By Phillip Powers

Yesterday, February 14th, marked the annual cultural commemoration of Valentine’s Day. It is a day that is supposed to celebrate romantic love and affection, and it is usually expressed through the giving of flowers, candy, cards, and the like. And there is nothing wrong with that; however, for Christians, this February 14th also marked another holiday, namely Ash Wednesday. Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of the season of Lent, a 40 day period of preparation for the celebration of Holy Week climaxing in Easter. This preparation is usually characterized by repentance, confession, fasting, and acts of service.

Since most churches here in the area do not observe Lent, or if they do they don’t have a traditional Ash Wednesday service, my wife and I attended Ash Wednesday Mass at Blessed Sacrament Church, so that we could participate in the imposition of ashes, where a cross is marked on a worshippers forehead with ash. In the Bible ashes are most often a symbol of repentance, contrition, even mourning; a pentitent person would mark themselves with and/or sit in ashes to show outwardly their inward emotional state. Ashes also symbolize our mortality, as in the stanza, “Remember that you are but dust and into dust you shall return.” During Lent, we remember our mortality, because Jesus took our mortality into himself at the incarnation. He went to the cross to die, even as we all will die someday, and he rose again to new life, even as we all shall be raised. This life is passing, short, and fleeting, but our eternal hope rests in the immortality of Jesus in his resurrection.

Repentance means to change one’s mind, and it implies an intentional turn from sin to godliness. However, what is missing in this definition is that true repentance is motivated by godly grief over our sin. (2 Corinthians 7:10) During Lent, we try to see and feel our sin the way God sees it, so that we can appreciate the atoning death of Jesus even more. He who knew no sin became sin for us. So, in repentance, we acknowledge our sin as the abhorrent afront it is before a holy God. We turn away from it in righteous disgust as we learn to truly desire godliness in our character and behavior.

Lent is also usually accompanied by fasting. And Jesus did not say “If you fast”; he said “when you fast”, implying that He assumed that fasting would be a regular part of Christian discipleship. (See Matthew 6) Fasting is a timeless and valuable spiritual discipline, but our cultural aversion to anything uncomfortable and our insatiable need for self-indulgence has caused us to neglect it altogether. Yes, fasting challenges us to throw off the insanity of our cultural slavery to consumerism, to give up our creature comforts, and to forsake our dependence on stuff for the sake of Christ.

Now, when it comes to fasting, the specifics of the fast are ultimately irrelevant; whether you fast one meal or one whole day, whether you do it every Friday or not, or whether you give up something other than food. The goal of fasting is to free us from our dependence on things and to cultivate our dependency on Christ. I am giving up coffee for this Lent season, and if you know me, then you know that coffee is vital part of my morning routine. I am not a morning person, not even close. But I have chosen to give up this creature comfort, this practical addiction, for the 40 day duration of Lent, because as my body aches for the fix of caffeine, so my soul should ache for communion with the Spirit of the living God.

The season of Lent is also usually accompanied by acts of service or charity, as we seek to become more like Jesus. He spent his time ministering to the bottom rungs of society, the sick, the lame, the blind, the demon possessed, and we are called to be His hands and feet in the communities and neighborhoods we live in. After all, He said, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Some people choose to give the money that they would have spent on whatever they chose to give up to charitable or Christian causes. Whatever you choose to do, the teaching of Jesus is clear, do it in secret without seeking the praise of others, “and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” (Again, see Matthew 6)

Lent is an invitation to follow Jesus, once again, as He journeys toward the cross. Along the way, we seek to become more like Him, to be set free from “the sin that so easily entangles”, and to soak in anew our need for a savior, for His atonig death and His lifegiving resurrection. There are no rules, regulations, or requirements for its observance, only freedom in the Spirit as we seek to allow the Spirit make us more like Jesus. It is a time to renew once again our repentance from the way of the world and our embracing of life in the Spirit.

3 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Ministry, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

01/25/2018

On Persistence in Prayer – Part 3

By Phillip Powers

32948-kneeling-prayer-1200_1200w_tn.jpg

I have recently been considering Jesus’ teaching on the topic of prayer. In my last post in particular, I looked at Luke 11 and the parable of the friend at midnight, and I concluded that Jesus is calling us to a persistence in prayer that is general in scope, a persistence in the spiritual discipline of prayer, itself. Our Father is not the kind of God who needs to worn down, pestered, or annoyed into answering our prayers. He is an essentially good and trustworthy father who knows what His children need before we even ask him, and he delights in meeting the needs of his children.

Now, in chapter 18, just seven chapters later, Luke presents a parable that would seem to negate that very conclusion. In Luke 18:1, Luke states that “Now he told them a parable on the need for them to pray always and not give up,” and he goes on to relay the parable of the unjust judge in which a widow repeatedly goes before a local magistrate seeking justice against her “adversary.” Ultimately, the judge concludes that “because this widow keeps pestering me, I will give her justice, so that she doesn’t wear me out by her persistent coming.” (v5-6) If we assume that this parable relates to the practice of prayer in general, then we have no choice but to conclude that perhaps we need pester God into giving in to our requests.

This is exactly the assumption that we must reconsider in this passage: is Luke and, by way of implication, Jesus telling this parable to illustrate something about prayer in general? I think not.

Luke often arranges the teaching and parabolic material of Jesus topically, and he indicates the topic usually at the beginning of a new section. So, in Luke 17:20, Luke begins a new section about “when the kingdom of God would come,” and this section dealing with the coming of the kingdom begins in 17:20 and extends all the way until Luke 18:8. (Remember, Luke did not originally have chapter divisions). Then, in Luke 18:9, he begins a new section in which “He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and looked down on everyone else.” This informs us that Jesus is not addressing our practice of prayer in general, but he is addressing a very specific kind of prayer, i.e. the prayer for the coming of the kingdom.

Secondly, in order to understand the exact nature of the widow’s request, we have to see her in light of the first century world in which Jesus lived. In Jesus’ day, women were essentially powerless, and, if their husband died, then they were left without many options for survival. Most likely, this widow was not allowed to inherit her husband’s property. So, her only options were to remain with her husband’s family where she would probably be treated as a servant, or to return to her family and repay her dowry to her parents. If she could not do either of these, she would probably be sold as a slave for debt. She was faced with homelessness, poverty, and starvation. So, her request to the judge “give me justice against my adversary” is a once-in-a-lifetime request, it was unique to her situation, and it was not something she would repeat ever again. Her situation is desperate, and she is powerless to change it.

Lastly, just like in Luke 11, so here we must recognize that Jesus is using a rhetorical technique called “from the lesser to the greater”; he is making a “how much more” argument, and he is doing so by way of contrast and not comparison. It is patently obvious in this passage that we are not supposed to identify God with the unjust judge, since the passage tells us twice that he neither feared God nor respected men. The God of the Bible is fair, good, and just. He treats all people equally; He blesses those who call upon him in faith. No, God is not like the judge in this passage.

So, hear Jesus’ conclusion,

“Listen to what the unjust judge says. Will not God grant justice to his elect who cry out to him day and night? Will he delay in helping them? I tell you he will swiftly grant them justice.” (vv6-8)

In the final analysis, Jesus is teaching us to pray always as he taught us in The Lord’s Prayer, “May your kingdom come,” and not give up hope. He is coming soon. “Amen, come Lord Jesus!”

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Sermons, Spiritual Formation

01/23/2018

On Persistence in Prayer – Part 2

By Phillip Powers

“Lord, teach us to pray.” (Luke 11:1) A seemingly simple question, but what is striking is that the disciples must have known how to pray. After all, they were raised in a Jewish religious system that placed a significant value on prayer. Nevertheless, when they compared their experience to that of Jesus, they couldn’t help but conclude that there must be something that they were missing out on in their practice of prayer.

And Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question is the Lord’s prayer, a text that is probably not completely unfamiliar to most. (Luke 11:2-4) So, in lieu of an extended discussion on all the clauses of this “model prayer”, we may simply conclude that Jesus’ understanding of prayer was grounded in His relationship with the Father which He had by nature as the Son of God, and, in the gospel, that relationship is extended to us by grace through faith. We may now bring all of our needs and concerns to God in prayer, because He has become our Father and we have become His children. (On this, see my post: On the Lord’s Prayer)

Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question, however, doesn’t simply stop with the model prayer. He goes on in this passage to describe what kind of a father God actually is, i.e. a good and trustworthy Father who responds to the requests of his children. This much is explicitly stated in Luke 11:11-13; this much seems reasonably clear. The difficulty, though, lies in between these two seemingly clear pieces of Jesus’ answer, and this being the “parable of the friend at midnight”. (Luke 11:5-8)

5 And he said to them, “Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, 6 for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and he will answer from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything’? 8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs. (ESV)

On a first reading, it might seem that Jesus is suggesting that, when we have a particular need or concern, we ought to persistently bring that request to God in prayer until He responds. After all, isn’t that what the friend in the parable had to do to get his neighbor to give in to his request? And doesn’t Jesus say that it is because of the friend’s persistence (cf. v8, so NASB, NET, NKJV, HCSB) that causes the neighbor to rise and respond to his request.

However, there are several exegetical and theological problems with this “persistence” interpretation

  1. In vv. 5-7, Jesus is asking a rhetorical question similar to the question he asks a little later in the same passage in vv. 11-12. In both places, the question is simply “would any of you do something like this?”, and in both places, the implied answer is “No!” Just as no father would give their child something that is harmful like a snake or a scorpion, no person in Jesus’ day would act like the friend in this parable.
  2. Jesus confirms this when he describes the friends actions as “impudence” (v.8, so ESV). Now, a quick survey of the major translations reveals quite a bit of diversity in the translation of this word even though, most translations opt for something like “persistence”. The problem is that this is the only occurrence of this Greek word in the entire NT, a hapax legomena, and when we look at the uses of this word outside of the NT, it is reasonably clear that it never means anything like persistence. It always carries a negative connotation of something like shamelessness, impertinence, impudence, ignoring of convention. It describes a lack of sensitivity to what is proper, or a carelessness about the good opinion of others (so BDAG).
  3. Lastly, Jesus is making an argument from the lesser to the greater, a how much more argument, and he is doing so by way of contrast and not comparison. In other words, if this sleeping neighbor will respond to the embarrassing, culturally inappropriate, shameless request of his friend, then how much more will God certainly respond to the appropriate and legitimate requests of His children. The parallel question in the passage, which we alluded to earlier (v. 11-13) drives this point home: God will certainly give His children good things when they ask Him.

For these reasons, it is unfortunate that translators and commentators continue to import the idea of persistence into this parable. Jesus is not calling us to be more persistent (read insistent) in our prayers; rather, he is calling us to grow in our faith and trust that God is a good father who responds to the needs of His children when they bring them to Him in prayer. If this is so then, one cannot help but wonder if there is not some other scriptural warrant upon which we might base a theology of persistence in prayer. In this regard, some turn to the “ask, seek, knock” saying in 11:9-10.

9 And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

The imperatives in this saying – ask! seek! knock! – are in the present tense, and in the original language, this usually refers to a continuous action. So, the HCSB translation “keep asking… keep searching… keep knocking” is not completely unwarranted. However, it would be wrong to conclude that repetition in asking, seeking, and knocking is what causes it to be given to or opened for us, especially in light of the preceding parable of the friend at midnight. In light of what we said there, it seems more likely that Jesus is saying that we should keep on asking, seeking, and knocking because we can trust God our Father to give and to open. In other words, the cause-effect relationship does not flow from prayers voiced to answers received, but the other way around. God’s fatherly goodness should motivate us to keep on asking, seeking, and knocking.

So, we may need to reconsider our definition of persistence in prayer. Most of the time, when people think of persistence in prayer, they think of the repetitive bringing of the same request over and over to God until He gives us an answer. However, this definition simply doesn’t reflect what Jesus is teaching in this passage. Further, the path between this kind of “persistence” and sinful insistence would seem to be quite slippery indeed. No, I think Jesus is envisioning a different kind of persistence – one that is more general in its scope, one that is grounded in faithfulness to the spiritual discipline of prayer itself, one that is motivated by our fundamental belief in God’s Fatherly goodness. In other words, Jesus is calling us to a persistence that is characterized by the regular bringing of all our requests to God in prayer, always trusting in Him to respond to our needs as a Father.

For further study:

Sermon: Lord, Teach Us to Pray! (Luke 11:1-13)
Series: The Parables of Jesus
Church: Redeemer Church, La Mirada, CA
Date: June 19, 2011

See also Snodgrass, Klyne. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008.

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Sermons, Spiritual Formation

Tim Challies

Slow To Write

"let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."

lovegavehope

Just another WordPress.com site

Jared Cornutt

Pastor | Speaker | Writer

Denny Burk

A commentary on theology, politics, and culture

G3 Ministries

Events + Resources for the Local Church

Biblical Reasoning

Biblical and Systematic Theology According to the Scriptures

RetroChristianity

Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith

SBC Voices

Southern Baptist News & Opinion

Lucid Theology

Thoughts on words, books, theology, and life.

Baptist21

A pastor-led voice for Baptists in the 21st century

Center For Baptist Renewal

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Pastor's Well - Pastor Well

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

Welcome

Articles - AlbertMohler.com

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Gospel Coalition

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers