TILL HE COMES Blog

I want to begin a study today on the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” as they relate to Jesus. Since this study will require quite a bit of research, I will only be able to make one post per week (maybe less!) related to this issue. Today, I am only introducing the study.

The importance of this study cannot be overemphasized, since all four Gospels center their message around the identity of Jesus, who He is, and what He has done. This study will help our understanding of the Gospel of John in particular, since John’s purpose in writing is to get people to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If people receive eternal life by believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, it is vitally important to understand what these terms mean, and what must be believed about Jesus, so that we can be sure we have everlasting life.

By way of full disclosure, I do not yet know where this study will lead. Too many people come to Scripture with their theology already set by tradition and what their favorite teachers proclaim. I will do my best to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. Many people today teach that the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” refer to the divinity of Jesus. While that certainly has been a popular view in the past, and may be what is considered the “traditional” view, more and more students of the Word are realizing this view does not fit all the Biblical data. However, if in my study, I find that this traditional view best fits Scripture, I will believe and teach it to the best of my ability.

Where I Currently Am
Nobody, of course, is a blank slate. We all have theological systems of thought which must either be corrected or supported by Scripture. One key to proper Biblical investigation is knowing where you are starting from, and then turning to Scripture, not in an attempt to defend what you believe, but in an attempt to see if Scripture should challenge and change what is believed. We must never believe the theology handed down to us simply because it is the traditional or majority view.

So my current view is this by historical and cultural definition, the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” do not inherently refer to deity. Instead, they refer to the role or function of someone who is being used by God in a special way to carry out God’s will on earth.

In the current tradition I am part of (the Free Grace movement), the Gospel of John is often seen as “the only evangelistic book of the Bible.” I am not completely convinced that this is the case. In fact, I think every single book of the Bible is “evangelistic” but this is more due to how I understand the word “evangelism” than anything else. I will save that for a different study.

I believe that John, in his Gospel, is trying to get people to see that Jesus is God, and is possibly trying to instill more meaning in the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” than the average person in the first century would have understood or immediately grasped. In other words, one of the primary purposes of John is to impregnate the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” with new meaning and significance that cannot be used of any other human throughout history.

If this is true, John is not trying to teach that believing that Jesus is God is how a person receives eternal life, but that believing that Jesus is God brings a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. There is a vast difference. 

So my hypothesis is as follows:

The terms “Christ” (or “Messiah”) and “Son of God” did not originally refer to someone who was divine, but to someone who had a special relationship with God and was therefore given a God-appointed task, which was often related to some sort of deliverance. However, as Jesus performed His ministry as “the Christ, the Son of God” the terms grew in significance to include the idea that the God-appointed task of Jesus required Him to be God in the flesh. The Gospel writers (especially John) emphasized the divinity of Jesus to prove that everlasting life is freely given to those who believe in the name of Jesus for it.

A Warning
I can already hear certain people calling me a heretic and a false teacher. If that is you, I invite you to withhold judgment and embark with me on this study. Let’s search the Scriptures together. I value and desire your input…if it is genuine and spoken in love. There are certain men out there right now on different blogs and publications calling me a heretic for even proposing such a study. They misquote and misrepresent what I have said and written, and though they claim a desire to see me “return to the truth,” the tone of their posts, their bitter name-calling, and their complete unwillingness to honestly critique their “tradition” makes anything they say worthless to this discussion. If you want to lambaste and quarrel, I can’t stop you from saying such things, but I can stop you from saying them on this site. Such comments will be deleted and such users will be blocked. For everybody else, please try to keep your comments concise, clear, and on-topic.

How We will Proceed
1. We will begin by looking at the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” in the Old Testament and extra-biblical literature to determine their customary usage. 

2. Focusing on the Gospels of John and Matthew, we will look at several key passages to determine how these terms were understood in the days of Jesus, and what the Gospel writer was intending His readers to understand by these terms. As part of this study, we will try to examine the true purpose and intended audience of the Gospel of John.

3. We will look at later New Testament usage and extra-biblical literature to determine if the meaning of the terms had changed due to the life and ministry of Jesus.

By way of preparing for points 2 and 3, please feel free to list in the comments section below the passages you feel must be discussed and looked at.

12 Comments »

I sometimes hear pastors say that they don’t have systematic theology, they have pastoral theology. As a pastor myself, I used to nod my head in agreement. I too am concerned with the way some theologians seemed too caught up with dotting every theological “i” while neglecting the task of serving others. However, in recent years, I have come to develop some reservations about the pastoral theology concept.

With today’s postmodern mindset, a person who claims to have a pastoral theology is often just saying that his theology is not fixed, but adjusts it to the pastoral concern being faced. This approach often leads to contradictions in theology. Like the situation ethics of the 70s, many pastors have a different theology depending on the situation they find themselves in. It might be better to call it situational theology.

This was brought to my attention through a recent conversation I had with a regional leader of a particular denomination. He and I did not see eye to eye on certain issues of soteriology, and it was not long before I caught him in some serious logical contradictions. When I pointed these out to him, he said that he lived with these contradictions because he had pastoral theology, not systematic theology.

When pressed to explain the difference, he relayed the following story which he said actually happened to him:

I was in my office and a man came in who was a serial adulterer. He shared that although he is married, for the past seven years he slept with at least one different woman every month. I asked him if he thought he was a Christian, and the man said, “Yes, I accepted Christ as my personal Savior when I was in high school. They told me I was secure forever, and so I know that even though I’m sinning, I’m still going to heaven.”

I would have stopped and asked the man for further clarification on what he thought he had done in high school. Why did he say, “They told me I was secure forever”? Why didn’t the man point to Jesus’ promise? And what did he mean when he said, “I accepted Christ as my personal Savior”? Until these questions are answered, it is still uncertain whether or not he has believed in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. But this leader thought that answer was fine, and so his story continued:

In such a case, my pastoral heart tells me to put the fear of hell into the man. I told the man that if he was ever saved, he certainly wasn’t saved now. Such adultery was a serious pattern of sin. Unless he repented of his sin, and returned to a monogamous lifestyle, he would not enter heaven.

This is classic Arminian loss-of-salvation theology. It was a little surprising for me to hear these words coming from this man who claimed to be a Calvinist. But he continued his story:

Later that day a different man came into my office. He too admitted to being an adulterer. He was married for seven years, and in that time frequently looked at pornography and had committed adultery twice. He sat in my office with tears streaming down his face, worried that he had lost his salvation and that God would never forgive him.

But I saw that this man had a repentant heart, and he knew that what he had done was sinful. He was a genuine Christian, not in need of chastisement and the fear of hell, but in need of love and forgiveness. I told him that God still loved him, and Christ died for all of his sins—past, present, and future—and that there was nothing which could separate him from God. He was secure in the hand of God. Of course, I warned him that he needed to turn from his sin, or else it may prove he was never saved in the first place.

So in one day, this man’s pastoral theology led him to espouse Arminian theology to one person and Calvinistic theology to another. The two systems are in blatant contradiction, but he didn’t care, for his theology was pastoral. He admitted the two views were contradictory, but only if viewed apart from the individual situations. He molded his theology to fit what he thought the person in front of him needed to hear. This was his pastoral theology.

Far from actually helping his congregation, such contradictions will only lead to confusion. Such pastoral theology does more damage than good, because it allows love for people to drown out the truth of God’s Word. And when truth gets neglected in the name of love, love dies too. It is not loving to tell a lie in a kind way, even if we think the lie is what a person needs. It is far better to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). It is also far better to be Biblical, rather than pastoral.

Consider the first man. Not only was he not given the clear saving message, but he was given a false message. If this man was indeed unregenerate, he went away with a message in his head that would make it harder for him to be born again. How practical, how pastoral, was that? Doesn’t God know best?

And what about the second man? He also was given a false message. He may have gone away feeling better, but if he wasn’t already born again, he left this encounter more confused than ever. So this situational approach to theology is neither loving, nor pastoral.

What is the loving thing to do? Give people what God said! For example, Jesus gives everlasting life to anyone who believes in Him, and a life of obedient discipleship is important for fellowship and rewards. That is an encouraging, loving, and pastoral message. Best of all, it’s true. 

-appeared in the Sept/Oct 2007 issue of Grace in Focus

2 Comments »

What everyone needs…

2 Comments »

Jennie Yabroff reports in Newsweek that “After A. J. Jacobs spent a year reading the Entire Encyclopedia Britannica for his book “The Know-It-All,” he figured he had the yearlong experiment thing down. How much harder coudl it be to follow every rule in the Bible? Much, much harder, he soon discovered, as he found himself growing his beard, struggling not to curse, and asking strangers for permission to stone them for adultery.”

What I found most interesting about the article is some of the comments Jacobs makes in the interview. When asked how his life is now that he can sin again, he says, “I miss my sin-free life, but I guess I was never sin free. I was able to cut down on my coveting maybe 40 percent, but I was still a coveter.” Jacobs sounds a lot like the Apostle Paul here, when he wrote, “But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of coveting” (Rom 7:9). Jacobs, like Paul, has realized that nobody can perfectly obey the entire law, and trying only makes you recognize your sin more.

When asked if there were any rules he was still following, Jacobs focuses on the Sabbath. He says, “I love the Sabbath. There’s something I really like about a forced day of rest.” Interesting, isn’t it, that this is what Jesus tells us: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man  for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). God knows that we need to rest from our work, and life is better when we take time to rest. The entire law, really, is to help us live life better with God and with each other. The great deception of sin is that we think it helps us live life to the full, but in reality, sin only gets in the way of truly living life.

Naturally, Jacobs found many of the laws and rules impossible to obey. For example, there’s a funny story in the interview about when he stones a man for committing adultery, but he doesn’t really stone him to death as commanded in Scripture. Of course, if he did, in our culture, he would be a murderer, which would be breaking other Biblical commands. This leads Jacobs to admit that “One of the lessons…[is that] there is some picking and choosing in following the Bible, and I think that’s OK.” In other words, since God’s standard of righteousness is too high for us to realistically follow, we can lower the standard by picking which commands and rules to obey. How much better would it be to say, “We can’t come close to obeying all these laws, and since God demands perfect righteousness, I need to get it from somewhere else. Jesus lived in perfect righteousness, and tells us that if we believe in Him, He gives that righteousness to us” (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 2 Cor 5:21).

I pray that Jacobs comes to this conclusion. It is evident that the Spirit is working on him, for now that he is without the law, he admits that he feels “unmoored, overwhelmed by choice.” Paul did tell us that the law is a tutor, to bring us to Christ (Gal 3:24-25). Jacobs lived under the tutor for a year, and we can pray it will lead him to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

BTW, I want to thank Geeding over at the Bag of Nothing blog for alerting me to this article.

No Comments »

I attended a LeadNow Conference here in Irving this weekend inwhich Todd Phillips shared that, according to current studies and using modern water purifying technology, $10 Billion could solve the world’s water crisis. This got me thinking about my earlier post related to Money, Missions, and Ministry.

I am not aware what the value of church property in America is currently, but I know that in 1931, the estimated value of church property in America was $4 billion. When you realize that the average home price in 1930 was $7,000, imagine how much churches are sitting on today? The average home value today is around $230,000, an increase of 3300%. So $4 billion in 1930 would be $1.3 trillion today. I have no clue how accurate this number is, but let’s say it’s less than half of that and call it $500 billion.

If only 2% of the churches in America sold their buildings, and put the money toward solving the world’s water crisis, we would have enough money.

But churches don’t want to sell their buildings. After all, where would they meet?

Okay, then, here is another option. In 1930, it was estimated that since churches were tax-exempt organizations, they were being “subsidized” by the government at $250 million annually. In other words, if churches were being taxed, the government would receive $250 million from them annually (which is 6%). Again, I don’t know how tax rates have changed since 1930, but let’s say they haven’t changed at all.

If, in 1930, the government could have gotten $250 million by taxing church property (valued at $4 billion), then today, if our property value is only $500 billion, our taxes today would be over $31 billion!

So if churches in America decided that for ONE year, we would put aside only 1/3 of what we would owe the government in property taxes for that one year, we could solve the world’s water crisis in one year! Should churches do this (or something similar)? Absolutely. Will churches do this if made aware of the opportunity? Call me pessimistic, but probably not.

So the question then becomes, “What am I doing personally to help solve the world’s water crisis (and similar needs) around the globe?” Rather than pointing the accusatory finger at the churches and their vast wealth, I need to take a hard look at my budget, and my possessions, and where my money is going. I may not have $50 million to put toward a building, but if I have $50 which I am going to spend on coffee this year (it’s probably more than that), maybe I should consider giving up my coffee so someone else can simply have water…

But that’s too convicting.

1 Comment »

Imagine yourself in church, and as the service starts, a young couple sits down in front of you. You are a bit surprised to see them in church, because you know one of them from work. He is not the kind of guy you think would come to church. But here he is!

As the service starts, the worship leader invites everybody to stand and greet those around them. You do, and warmly greet the couple in front of you. The guy you know from work says they came because you are always talking about how great your church is. You are excited he came because of that, but are a little nervous because you know he isn’t the church type. The couple isn’t married, but is very sexually active, and don’t have any qualms about public displays of affection. You hope they don’t hold hands or kiss during the service.

But wouldn’t you know it…as the music starts, each puts one arm around the other and they hold each other close. Then, after a few minutes, they start holding hands. You look around nervously. Not even many married people hold hands when they are in your church, and you are afraid how this couple’s affection will be taken, especially since you know most people know that they are not married.

During the sermon, they sit close enough to each other that they are touching, but that’s about it.

After the service is over, they turn around to greet you again, and say, “You were right! We really liked attending here. I think we will come again next week.”

What would you say to them? Who would you introduce them to? Would you tell them to not hold hands next week? Would you tell them about a six-inch rule for unmarried couples? Would you tell them that sex before marriage was a sin and God did not approve of fornication?

Oh, and before you answer, I forgot to tell you…The couple is gay. It’s two guys.

Now, with that information, what would you say?

12 Comments »

A pet peeve of mine has been how much churches are willing to spend on buildings, all in the name of “ministry.” I currently live in Dallas, the mega-church capital of the world. There are more mega-churches here per capita, than anywhere else in the world.  One street I was driving down recently contained four mega-churches in a one mile stretch. 

I don’t mind the number of churches so much. What gets me going is how much these buildings cost. One mega-church in downtown Dallas recently spent close to $50 million to construct a new “ministry” building! They say this will help them better reach the residents and people of downtown Dallas. Truly, I hope it is money well spent, and I wish them well.

But I often wonder what that $50 million could have bought in Africa or Papua New Guinea. If they answer by saying they were trying to reach the people in Dallas, then I wonder how many meals for homeless people in Dallas that $50 million could have bought? If they answer that they were trying to build a place for people to come for education and instruction so they could better their lives and get a good meal, then I have to ask why the building has “clever accessories” (that’s their term) along with 9000 square feet of exterior glass, state-of-the-art audio-visual equipment, wi-fi hotspots, beautiful stain-glass windows, comfy couches and lounge chairs, etc., etc.

Don’t misunderstand. I am not condemning mega-churches. I attend a mega-church. Many mega-churches are doing a lot of good in their communities and around the world with spreading the gospel. I just wonder if all of us (big churches and small churches alike) could be a little wiser with our money.

I wonder if this church in Dallas could have built their building for about $10 million less, and sent the extra $10 million overseas to plant about 2000 churches (It costs around $6000 to build a church in Africa). OR, what if they said to their donors, “This building will cost $50 million, but we need to raise $100 million so we can build churches overseas as well.”? What would happen if a church plant, from day one, decided to give at least 50% of it’s budget to missions?

The issue, of course, is “How do you define ‘missions’? By “missions” I mean anything that is helping you accomplish the mission of the church, which is to make disciples of all nations. If you can really, honestly say that you need a $50 million building to accomplish the mission God has given you in Dallas, then I say “build away!” It’s not what I would do with $50 mil, but if it is truly what you believe God has called you to do, go for it.

But here’s what really gets me angry. I read today about a church that has alerted its missionaries that after this year, the church will not be able to support them any longer. Why? Because the church needs a new auditorium and can’t do both. You can find our more about this here. Certainly, I don’t have the whole story, and this church definitely does not answer to me for how they use their money.

But one thing I know. American churches are the richest churches in the world. If our primary use of the funds God has given us is to construct bigger and nicer buildings for ourselves and our “ministry,” Jesus will not be pleased with us when we stand before him at the Judgment Seat. So what does your church budget look like? What does your church raise funds for? Whose kingdom are you building?

7 Comments »

I visited Willow Creek while I was living in Chicago in the late 90’s. And while it is always dangerous and unwise to criticize a ministry you have little firsthand knowledge about, I remember thinking, “This is fantastic for the unchurched…but what are they doing for the believers?” I heard they had Saturday and Wednesday night services for the maturing believers, but was not able to attend one of these. I heard they had small groups, and leadership training tracks. At the time, I felt this was satisfactory.

But guess what? Hybels now says that it isn’t working. Here is the link: Watch Bill Hybels.

Also, here is a blog link about it.

I have great respect for Hybels for admitting (thirty years into ministry!) that what he and Willow Creek have been doing is not working. I truly hope that they can make the necessary changes.

The lesson for the rest of us is to make sure we are learning from this. How are we doing in training our people to feed on the Word for themselves? How are we doing in helping people learn to follow Jesus? How many of the people in our church are trained well enough, that they themselves could train others also (2 Tim 2:2)?

If you have a website or a blog which shows how your church (or a church you know) is teaching and training believers to be fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ, please post these links in the comments section below.

4 Comments »

Now you can.

I developed this website about a year ago, then forgot about it. I don’t have time to contribute to it, but I hope someone does, or I will just have to delete it. :’(

The link is www.youbible.org

3 Comments »

I wrote an article for Chafer Theological Seminary Journal about three years ago, and it just now got posted online for people to read. We often hear that while works are not required for justification, they are the necessary result of justification and true saving faith. I argue that this makes works a condition of eternal life. Here is the article so you can read it:

 Are Works the Necessary Result of Justification?

No Comments »