Does Genesis 49:27 Teach Paul was Evil?

"Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil." [Genesis 49:27]

Does this verse warn us to avoid Paul of Tarsus as a false apostle and evil man? The reasoning behind this is that Paul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul said this himself in his epistles:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. [Romans 11:1]

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. [Philippians 3:4b-6]

A conclusion is taken from this: Paul must have been "a ravenous wolf" - a false apostle - who "devoured the prey" of the Gospel, and "divided the spoils" in evil. I am not making this up - someone recently presented this to me as an argument against Paul's apostleship.

Of course, Paul isn't the only descendant of Benjamin in scripture. Who else is? The judge Ehud (Judg 3:15), the king Saul and his son Jonathan (1 Sam 9:21), and Mordecai the helper of Esther (Est 2:5) were all descendants of Benjamin. While one might make a case for Saul, are we to say that Ehud, Jonathan and Mordecai were all wicked men who could not be trusted? In fact, let's go a step further - should any ethnic Jew who descends from the tribe of Benjamin be considered evil? Why does the application of Genesis 49:27 only deal with the apostle Paul? Why isn't it about Ehud? Why isn't it about Jonathan? Why isn't it about Mordecai? Why isn't it about that nice Jewish man you met on the train?

Plus, this isn't the only verse in the Bible about Benjamin. We find Moses speaking in the Law with:

Of Benjamin he said, "The beloved of the LORD dwells in safety. The High God surrounds him all day long, and dwells between his shoulders." [Deuteronomy 33:12]

Wait a minute...in one verse Benjamin is a "ravenous wolf," but in another verse Benjamin is a "beloved of the Lord" and is surrounded by God, and God dwells between his shoulders? Is this a contradiction? Should we trust Paul now, since it is now said that God has surrounded him and dwells between his shoulders? But I thought Paul was a ravenous wolf - now God dwells inside him? As a wise man once said, "This done confuse my thinkin'!" There has to be a contradiction here!

On the contrary, there is no contradiction, because those who use Genesis 49:27 in the manner our diatribe does are misusing it completely. Turn to Genesis 49 and look at the entire context of the chapter - you will find that it is Jacob blessing his sons, and telling them what their descendants will be like. When he calls Benjamin a "ravenous wolf," it is actually meant as something of a compliment, because the descendants of Benjamin (such as Ehud and Jonathan) became skilled at war. Some commentators who discuss this topic:

But [the verse] respects the tribe itself, compared to a wolf for its fortitude, courage, and valour, as well as for its rapaciousness, it being a warlike tribe; and the Jewish writers say, that it is compared to a wolf, because of its strength. [John Gill; from his commentaries]

...he only foresees and foretels this, that his posterity should be a warlike tribe, strong and daring, and that they should enrich themselves with the spoils of their enemies... Ehud the second judge, and Saul the first king, were of this tribe; and so also in the last times Esther and Mordecai, by whom the enemies of the Jews were destroyed, were of this tribe. [Matthew Henry; from his commentaries]

Benjamin is described as a wolf who is engaged morning and evening, that is, all day long, in hunting after prey. He was warlike by character and conduct (Judges 20-21), and among his descendants are Ehud, Saul, and Jonathan. [Albert Barnes, from his commentaries]

This is how the verse has been interpreted during the span of the 2000 years of the Christian church, therefore anyone who argues contrary to this has clearly been given a new revelation no one else has ever received. For certain John Calvin writes of interpreters who wrongfully applied verse 27 to Paul, saying that he went from being a wolf to an apostle, and Matthew Henry does similar as those interpreters when he says that Paul did "in the morning of his day, devour the prey as a persecutor, but, in the evening, divided the spoil as a preacher." In such a case, however, it interprets it as referring to Paul in a positive light, not a negative one. Again, the idea that this verse refers specifically to Paul, and in a negative light, is brand new to the history of Christianity.

Of course, there lies here a bigger problem than the misuse of a single verse, and that is a flawed methodology in reading the scriptures. Rather than reading God's word in context and as a flow of thought, it is read like ancient hieroglyphics, or a system of cryptic messages from which some secret message has to be decoded. Like some Omega Code nonsense, people go through God's word, picking a verse here and applying it to an unrelated verse here, trying to discover some undiscovered conspiracy that will reveal some unknown truth. Consistency seems to not be a concern - one cannot, after all, declare one book of the Bible corrupt but at the same time take their evidence from it. Furthermore, if we confess scripture to be God's divine word, we cannot at the same time declare him a victim of fatalism by saying that bits and pieces (if not outright chunks) of lies have been inserted into His divine truth with God being unable to do anything in the way of preservation. The former is the habit of atheists and Muslims seeking to refute Christianity, while the latter is the habit of liberal Christians seeking to minimize God's authority. In the end, such methodology is opposed to God, not supportive.

The fact is, God has not hidden truths in scripture that we have to search out and unscramble like a kind of divine cryptogram. God's truth has been made plain to us, so that everyone from the theologian with a ThD to the layman sitting in church taking notes may hear it and be edified, if not saved. As the apostle John wrote: "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). God uses the preaching of the written word to give His general call for salvation, just as the apostle Paul wrote: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Rom 10:14) Our salvation does not come from looking for Gnostic-like truth hidden deep within scripture, waiting to be discovered and opened up like a Hellraiser puzzle box. Our salvation comes from the preaching of God's word, which is available to all to be heard by all.

If any one treats God's word in the manner I have described previously - looking through it like a hyper-dispensationalist trying to find some secret message to reveal to believers - I seriously suggest that you reevaluate how you read God's word. Meditate on these things, and by God's grace you will realize that scripture is not a magical puzzle box, but the single narrative of God's bringing about salvation for His people. When you discover this, you will truly enjoy the word of God for what it is. God bless.

Reliance upon Christ

The following is from the journal of Jonathan Edwards.

It seemed yesterday, the day before, and Saturday, that I should always retain the same resolutions to the same height, but alas, how soon do I decay! O, how weak, how inform, how unable to do any thing am I! What a poor, inconsistent, miserable wretch, without the assistance of God's Spirit! While I stand, I am ready to think I stand in my own strength; and am ready to triumph over my enemies, as if it were I myself that caused them to flee; when alas! I am but a poor infant, upheld by Jesus Christ; who holds me up, and gives me liberty to smile to see my enemies flee, when he drives them before me; and so I laugh, as though I myself did it, when it is only Jesus Christ leads me along, and fights himself against my enemies. And how the Lord has a little left me, how weak do I find myself! O, let it teach me to depend less on myself, to be more humble, and to give more of the praise of my ability to Jesus Christ. The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?

Dedicated to a Daughter of God

This post is dedicated to a special woman in my life. Today, April 26, is her birthday, so I thought this would be as good a day as any to write this. I won't say her name because she knows who she is, and most of those who know me in real life know who she is as well, so it won't be necessary to give it here.

We first met on a Christian networking site sometime last year. She had seen something I had written about John Wesley, and she wrote to me and said I was the first Calvinist she had encountered who read John Wesley and wasn't ashamed to share it with others. We began to chat on Skype, and found that we seemed to have a lot in common, and these commonalities grew the more and more we got to know each other. We were both in our mid-20's, we were both believers, and we were both Reformed - all of which is very rare these days. We both enjoyed reading on the personal lives of theologians, and enjoyed even more studying and expositing scripture. It was refreshing for me to be able to open the Bible and go through a chapter with a woman, all the while not be worried about saying something that would turn her away.

Finally, we decided to meet in person and see where things led us. As it turned out, we got along well, and there seemed to be more of a connection than we realized. For example, I found out that she loved board games, even strategy board games. Around Easter this year we played about three rounds of Stratego - and when she told me she had always wanted to play Axis and Allies, well I just about squealed! We also both love older movies: we spent one night eating Chinese food while watching the Gary Cooper war classic Sergeant York, and we spent the night before Easter watching the wonderful film The Greatest Story Ever Told.

There's more, of course. She's a lovely daughter of God, and is someone who wants to live after her heavenly Father as much as an earthly father would want his daughter to do so. She practices what she preaches, and the only thing she looks for in a man is someone whose heart is likewise after God. Why she chose me, then, I do not know. I only see myself in the lowest opinion - the foremost of sinners, as Paul saw himself (1 Tim 1:15) - but in her eyes I am a wonderful man. In many ways, she makes me feel like one. I have never met any one like her who can not only make me feel wanted and loved, but she is able to make me feel better in a matter of moments. She can say a single thing, and the worst day is turned around almost immediately. No woman I have ever known has made me feel the way she makes me feel.

More importantly, she is a wonderful, shining example of God's love. She is so kind and forgiving to me, even when I really don't deserve it. I am in no ways a perfect man, and I do not always feel like the right man for her, and I feel that often I can treat her better than I really do. Despite this, she forgives me of my faults, and she loves me all the same no matter what trouble or speed bump we go through. At times I've come to tears because of the overwhelming realization of how much better a child of God she was than me, combined with the feeling that I am really undeserving of her and yet the Lord has gifted her to me any way. For this reason above all others I love with her with all my heart, and pray that our relationship only continues to blossom.

In short, I might compare her and I with our Lord and the man possessed by Legion. Why? Because she knows every demon inside me, and yet, at the end of the day, she doesn't hesitate to say she loves me.

God bless you, and I love you.

Does Genesis 18 Teach the Trinity?

The beautiful image to the right is based on a well known icon by Andrei Rublev, considered one of the greatest iconographers to ever live, and who is a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church. This icon was originally painted around the early 15th century for the Trinity-St. Sergius monastery. It has been recreated many times, and is sometimes known as "the Rublev icon," "The Trinity" or even "The Hospitality of Abraham." It is based off the idea by many that evidence for the Trinity can be proven from the Old Testament in the account of the Lord's visit to Abraham and Sarah. In the icon, the Persons are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are depicted as the individual angels.

At times this argument is made far too plainly. I recall once watching a YouTube video where a young man boldly stated nothing more than, "See, there's three here. That's the Trinity!" A more careful and educated approach comes from an examination of the following verses:

And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, "O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant." [Genesis 18:1-3]

The idea is this: three men appear before Abraham (v. 2), yet he addresses them in the singular ("Lord," v. 3), and it is said that "the Lord," in a singular sense, appeared to Abraham (v. 1). This does, at surface level, seem to be a fine example of the Trinity, which is three Persons unified within the one Being of God. To give an example of such a mindset in regards to Genesis 18:

...these three men have never been viewed by the Church as a "pre-Incarnation" of the Holy Trinity but rather as an appearance of the Holy Trinity in the guise of three Angels, a temporary appearance manifested in order that God might speak with the holy patriarch. [Timothy Copple and Patrick Barnes, Presumptuous Propositions; source]

And again:

The first verse of this chapter says that ‘the Lord appeared’ unto Abraham, and then proceeds to tell that ‘three men stood over against him,’ thus indicating that these were, collectively, the manifestation of Jehovah. [Alexander McClaren, from his commentaries; source]

And again:

...the three Persons in the Trinity, in the shape of three men, appear to Abraham and dine with him, and eat the first flesh mentioned eaten in all the Scripture. [John Lightfoot, quoted from John Gill; source]

The problem with this interpretation, however, is what happens after the conversation between Abraham, Sarah and the Lord:

So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. [Genesis 18:22]

It is said that "the men" turned from there and go towards Sodom, but the Lord stayed before Abraham, and enters into dialogue with him following this verse (the Lord doesn't leave until verse 33). In the very next chapter, the men arrive at Sodom, and are not only numbered at two, but are identified as angels (Gen 19:1). The first man, whom Abraham had addressed at the start of chapter eighteen, is referred to later explicitly as the Lord, but is never referred to as an angel like the other two were. Reading scripture plainly, we have to come to a different conclusion than those who stop at the first few verses of Genesis 18: the three men were not the three Persons in the Trinity, but the Lord accompanied by two angels.

Genesis 18, therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity. The only connection between this appearance of three men and the Trinity is the fact that both involve the number three. What can be argued, perhaps, is that this is an example of the pre-incarnate Son in the Trinity appearing to believers. It might be interesting to note here (as discussed in the book The Rublev Trinity by Gabriel Bunge) that, before Rublev, many iconographic depictions of the Genesis account depict three angels, with one bearing the cross on his halo and sometimes the familiar markings of "IC/XC" (Jesus Christ in Greek abbreviation). This would be a far closer depiction of what is actually unfolding in the Genesis account.

Keep in mind I'm not declaring anyone who argues Genesis 18 teaches the Trinity is a heretic. However, I would humbly ask them to review this section of scripture and come to a conclusion that is loyal to what it says regarding these three men.

Jesus knows me

Genesis probably gave us the best satire of televangelists (and Word of Faith leaders) ever...

You Have Received a Warning at Christian Forums

Dear Paul33AD,

You have received a Warning at Christian Forums.

Reason:
-------
Warning

Hello Paul33AD,

Your post quoted below was recently reported for staff review. After careful review our moderating team has reached consensus and has decided to issue you a warning for this post which you made in the thread "Is the Gospel really enough?" for violation of the following Christian Forums rule:

Flaming

• Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
• If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
• Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
• Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them.

Your post will remain deleted from the thread. Please take some time to review our Sitewide Rules before making any further posts. You should also review the Moderation Protocol for Christian Forums. This warning does not carry any points, however, further violations will lead to infractions which do carry points. The policy for reviewing staff actions is located here. The review policy is as follows:

If you receive a staff action such as a warning or an infraction, you may contact a Supervisor or an Administrator to discuss the action. If you receive a ban, you may use the Member Services Center to begin a thread and talk to the Administrators about the staff action. They will decide if the ban was given in error and should be reversed or if it was correct and should remain in place.

Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me, a Supervisor, or an Administrator.

Sincerely,
**CF Staff Team

-------

Original Post:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Christian Forums

Getting Parables Horribly Wrong: The Prodigal Son

Most everyone knows the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), and almost every convert claims it as that one moment in scripture that resonates with them the most. Unfortunately, because the parable is so well known and strikes at the chords of emotion so easily, it is more prone to abuse and misinterpretation. In fact, this is perhaps one of the most misused parables in scripture. People have attempted to twist the intent and moral of the parable into something which the Lord never intended for it to mean or infer.

Yet before we even touch on the subject, we need to ask ourselves that all important question...what is the point? More specifically, what's the point of this parable? Let's review how this chapter from Luke begins:

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them." [Luke 15:1-2]

Let's stop right here and ask: To what is Christ responding? The immediate answer is that he is responding to the self righteousness of the Pharisees and scribes in regards to repentant sinners. Tax collectors and sinners were going to Christ and repenting, and as a result Christ permitted them to eat with him (a shadow of the "marriage feast of the lamb" they will have at the resurrection). The Pharisees and the scribes, who saw their sin as being a permanent stain and hence labeled them as permanent outcasts from society, became indignant towards Christ. How dare he accept repentant sinners! they ask themselves. Why was he willingly - if not joyfully - permitting them to eat with him? It is after this indignation that Christ begins to tell three parables, all of them involving lost things that were returned with great joy: the parable of a lost sheep (v. 4-7); the parable of a lost coin (v. 8-10); finally, the parable of a lost son (v. 11-32).

All three, as previously stated, deal with something lost being found with great jubilation, but the first two mainly deal with God's attitude towards the found lost item. The first parable deals with a shepherd of a hundred sheep (which was actually pretty modest for the time) losing one and, instead of being content with the ninety-nine, goes out and finds the lost one and brings it back, holding a celebration with his friends. "Just so," our Lord says, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (v. 7). The second parable deals with a woman having ten coins and yet, upon losing one, turns the house upside down looking for it, and upon finding has a celebration with her friends. "Just so," our Lord repeats, "there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (v. 10). God's attitude towards repentant sinners, Christ says to the Pharisees through these parables, is not one of hatred and judgment as yours is, but is one of joy and celebration.

Now we arrive to the parable of the prodigal son. In the parable, a man has two sons (v. 11), the youngest of whom demands their inheritance early (v. 12). Upon receiving his portion of the inheritance, the youngest son goes to a faraway country and wastes it all on "reckless living" (v. 13), which turns against him when a famine hits the land and he has no way to support himself (v. 14). He takes a job feeding pigs (a major insult in the minds of Christ's Jewish audience) and yet finds no contentment there, longing even for what the pigs ate (v. 15-16). Eventually the man decides to go back to his father and repent of his error, and ask to be made one of his servants (v. 17-19). The father sees the boy from afar and immediately runs to him, embracing him (v. 20), and before the son can even finish his prepared apology, the father asks his servants to put fine clothes on his son and prepare a feast (v. 21-24).

At this point, the parable is not unlike the others, as it focuses on the joy of finding something that was lost - but Christ adds an extension to this particular parable. The older son, working out in the field all day as he was supposed to do, returns and discovers that his father is preparing a feast for the younger one (v. 25-27). He becomes enraged at this, and tells his father that he can't understand his joy for the son who was disobedient, when he himself had worked faithfully at his father's side almost all his life (v. 28-30). The father reminds the older son that all the older son owns is his (v. 31), and then ends with the famous words: "It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found" (v. 32).

Let's stop and ask this question: who does the older son sound like? The older son sounds very much like the Pharisees and scribes at the beginning of the chapter. Many of them were probably brought up in religious households and had adored the Law most of their lives, and so couldn't understand the notion that God would welcome someone who had sinned most of their life only to repent in the third act. The older son, likewise, has been model child to the father and can't understand why the father is showing so much joy now that the problem child has returned to his doorstep.

The entire point of the parable, therefore, is an admonishment against those who are indignant and judgmental of repentant sinners. Not sins or sinners, mind you, but repentant sinners. Any other attempt to read into this parable another moral lesson or point is to commit eisegesis and forget why Christ was telling this parable to begin with.

Nonetheless, many have tried to do so, and often these attempts boil down to two main errors:

First Error: The Prodigal Son is about synergism versus monergism.

Many people have tried to use the parable as a refutation against Calvinism specifically and monergism generally. The reasoning behind this is very simple: it is said that the prodigal son "came to himself" (v. 17) and from that repented, and since there was no monergistic situation involved in his repentance, monergism cannot be true.

The immediate problem here is, as already discussed, the intent of the parable is not to discuss how God and man relate to one another in salvation, but rather how one is to react to repentant sinners. Other parables do touch on the nature of salvation, but this was not intended to discuss the topic of salvation's mode or man's ability, and so we should not attempt to read that into the story.  The situation between the father and prodigal son is a poor example of God's relation to mankind. For example, there is no drawing by the Father (John 6:44), nor is there any regeneration in the new birth (John 3:3). If the prodigal son is supposed to be an example of soteriology, then it only serves to prove heresies such as Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

I would further argue that a person attempting to look at the parable in a more literal sense would have to consistently conclude that it must teach one of two things:

1) The parable teaches Gnostic Dualism. Gnostic Dualism (or dualism in general) taught that there were two realms - the spiritual and the material - and the spiritual realm was good was the material realm was bad, and neither wanted to have anything to do with them. The prodigal son, after all, leaves the father (the spiritual world) for a "far country" (the material world), and only finds salvation when he returns to his father (the Gnostic enlightenment out of the material to the spiritual). Keep in mind that the only part which belongs to the father in the parable is the farm - the father did not create the "far country," nor does it belong to him. A literal reading of this makes far more sense in Gnostic Dualism, where God is not the creator of matter, but rather a "demiurge" is, and all within that material world is owned by the demiurge or other lesser deities.

2) The parable teaches Deism. Deism traditionally holds that God is a faraway deity and a very "hands off" Creator whose attributes are mainly seen in His creation and little else (hence deists such as Thomas Paine and others would abhor any kind of special revelation, such as the Bible). If the parable of the prodigal son is to be a more literal representation of how God interacts with man, then what we see here is not only hyper-synergism, but deism. The father does not enter into conflict with the son, but rather simply permits him - with great passivity - to do as he pleases. He does not go after him in the "far country," and let's again remind ourselves that the father doesn't even have any power or authority in the "far country." This fits very well with the deistic mindset: the father is a benevolent provider, and he won't offer any support other than showing mercy when we act as we are supposed to act.

Some might immediately say, "Of course this parable doesn't teach any of those things - that's reading far too much into it." However, upon what basis do we say that these examples are reading too much into the parable, while an assumption that the son's coming to his senses as an explanation of man's ability is not? The easiest way to discern this, as discussed before, is to look at the original intent of the parable and its immediate context. As it stands, this parable is not about man's salvation in regards to his personal responsibility, and we should not read it as if it is.

Second Error: The Prodigal Son is a denial of blood atonement or similar kinds of soteriology.

Many people have argued that the parable is a refutation of the idea that Christ paid, or atoned, for our sins on the cross. To cite one example:

As you can see, there's no concept that our sins put us in God's debt legally: No idea that somebody has to pay something before He can forgive us. He just forgives us. When the prodigal son came home, the father was already running toward him with his arms open. He didn't say, "I'd like to take you back, son, but my hands are tied. Who's going to pay this Visa bill?" [Frederica Mathewes-Green, Christ's Death: A Rescue Mission, Not a Payment for Sins; source]

Such argumentation forgets a few things:

1) There are no unrepentant sinners in this parable. The father does not have a third son that enters into any kind of judgment or separation. There are two sons: a son who is very obedient to the father, and a son who is disobedient but later repents of it. Christ's parables that do deal with judgment and those who are given eternal life and others eternal torment would seem to conflict with this parable, which ends with no one receiving judgment. Some have tried to say that the older son is left outside of the feast because he initially refuses to go in (v. 28), but the parable simply ends with the father's words, and does not say whether the older son did go in or not. Bottom line, the parable is not dealing with judgment versus salvation, as judgment is not even displayed.

2) The larger problem of sin, death and the like is absent from this parable. While some might say there's nothing here speaking of debt needing to be paid, there likewise is nothing in the parable similar to the very real situation of sin bringing about death, or death itself separating us from God. While there is a discussion of sin and sin bringing about misery in our lives, it ends there, and no further condition on the state of man can be discernibly seen. We must also point out that, in the same vein, such argumentation would suggest there is contradiction between this parable and others which do speak of debt needing to be paid, such as the parable of the ungrateful servant (Matt 18:23-35).

3) No one dies at all in this parable. If we are to say that the parable of the prodigal son is a refutation of the blood atonement model, then we can likewise say that this parable is a refutation of the Christus Victor model or anything similar to it, because in this parable no death of anyone takes place. It literally is simply forgiveness and nothing else - therefore, Christ didn't even have to die. This leads us to question why Christ therefore did die. We would have to come to the conclusion of liberals or Emergents that he must have died either simply as a noble example to his followers or to make a bold statement to society.

None of the issues raised are a problem when we simply accept what the parable is trying to say at face value and within its proper context. The parable is not talking about judgment of any kind. It is not talking about the mode by which we are made righteous before a holy God. Rather, it is talking about how we are to respond to repentant sinners, and that we are to have an attitude mirroring that of God Himself.

Third Error: The Prodigal Son is a good chance to pick on the oldest son/youngest son.

A secular woman, doing research on American churches, discovered an interesting difference between conservative and liberal churches, and it involved this parable. Namely, each side chose a son to focus on. The conservative churches honed in on the sin and error of the youngest son, while the liberal churches honed in on the judgmental attitude of the oldest son.

Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with discussing either: the youngest son did sin and had to repent of that sinning; the oldest son was acting judgmental towards his younger brother. However, let's once again remember what the point of the parable was, and how this is related to the two sons. The youngest son was an adamant sinner so that the parable could have an example of someone who had fallen deeply in sin and yet repented (as the tax collectors and prostitutes had). The eldest son was judgmental in the sense that he didn't take into account that his younger brother had repented, and neither did he seem to take into consideration the love and acceptance his father had shown to his younger brother.

It is imbalanced to turn the younger son into a sermon of Law-without-Grace, just as it is imbalanced to turn the older son into a sermon on how we should never, ever, ever, ever judge anything ever, be it sin or sinner. Understanding instead that all sinners have the capability to repent - and that we are to welcome them with open arms when they do - is a proper way to handle the parable.

The Circumstances Around Christ's Resurrection

Last Sunday was Resurrection Sunday, celebrating the victory of Christ over death. Oftentimes, in my studies of the scriptures, I have noticed that the gospel writers took great pains to highlight some details regarding the burial of Christ and the circumstances that surrounded his resurrection. While many people (perhaps erroneously) disregard all the gospel accounts as simply one account from long ago, their original readers would have read them as contemporary accounts detailing facts concerning the story of Christ's burial and resurrection. Many of these facts would have directly refuted any early arguments against the resurrection or those who claimed the resurrection did indeed happen. Among these many factors include:

1) The entombment of Christ was approved by the governing authorities. The taking down of Christ's body and his entombment were granted permission by Governor Pontius Pilate himself (Matt 27:58; Mark 15:45; Luke 23:52; John 19:38). This made the burial of Christ a public affair in some respects, rather than the disciples going on their own, without permission, and taking the bodies down, which their enemies could have denied they ever did if only the disciples could make such a claim. With Pilate's open and public permission being attached to the action, no one could deny that it had been done.

2) The management of the entombment was by a well known leader. The taking down and entombing of Christ's body was under the personal charge of a wealthy and respected Jewish leader known as Joseph of Arimathea (Matt 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50; John 19:38). This gave the account some validity, as many would have likely known of or heard of Joseph, and hence would know that the entombment of Christ was no anonymous affair. Even in this day and age, if someone off the street was to pay for someone's burial, it would probably not reach the ears of many. If, on the other hand, someone as rich and well known as, say, Ted Turner had personally paid for someone's burial, many more people would be aware of it. If someone were to try to lie about Ted Turner financing the burial, such a fabrication could be easily disproved by either himself or those who knew him well.

3) The tomb of Christ was a brand new and unique one. It is stated that the tomb they laid Christ in was brand new (Matt 27:60; Luke 23:53; John 19:41). The significance of this was that there was a uniqueness to Christ's tomb - it could not have been lost in the midst of older and equally worn down tombs. Also, we are made aware of the fact that the tomb was located in a garden (John 19:41), which only added to its uniqueness. It is far easier to remember a location with a landmark than it is a location in the midst of nothing extraordinary. This all lessened the possibility that those who went to Christ's tomb on Resurrection Sunday could have gone to the wrong one.

4) There were witnesses to the tomb's location. Joseph did not unilaterally bury Jesus, but rather a large group of people took a part, and hence were eyewitnesses to where the body was lain. Most particularly, all the Gospels make mention of the women - including Mary Magdalene - being witnesses (Matt 27:61; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55). What is the significance of this? Mary Magdalene and many other women went to the tomb on the third day to find it empty - as it was a brand new tomb and they knew where it was, there was very little possibility that they could have gone to the wrong tomb. If none of the women who went that day had personally seen where the tomb was made, and were simply gathering the location word of mouth, we might have grounds for stating that they could have gone to the wrong tomb and, seeing the stone rolled back, assumed the resurrection had taken place. Instead, they were fully aware of the tomb's location, it was impossible that they could have gone to the wrong one, and it was at the correct tomb that they found the stone rolled back.

5) Guarding the tomb was entrusted to Christ's enemies. That Saturday, the Jewish leaders go to Pilate and warn him that Christ had sworn he would be resurrected on the third day. Therefore, their fear was that the disciples would come, take Christ's body, hide it, and then proclaim to the people that he had indeed been resurrected. They suggested to Pilate (who had been warned Christ was an enemy for secular reasons) that it was in his best interests to make certain this did not happen, as "the last fraud will be worst than the first" (Matt 27:62-64). Pilate then tells them: "You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can" (Matt 27:65). Therefore we know that the people in charge of the tomb where not those who had been sympathizers with Christ - indeed, they were entrusted to his worst enemies! This would be the equivalent of the SS being put in charge of the grave for Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The number one priority of the Sanhedrin would not be to see the resurrection happen or to show apathy either way, but instead to make absolutely certain that no one could claim Christ had been resurrected.

6) Roman guards were placed at the tomb. Some have suggested that the guards were actually Temple guards employed by the Sanhedrin, hence Pilate's words of "You have a guard of soldiers" (Matt 27:65). In other words, the governor was saying, "You have a guard of soldiers of your own." However, the words of the high priests to the guards later on ("if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble," Matt 28:14) would not make sense unless they were under the direct employment of the Roman governor, and hence they must have been Roman soldiers entrusted to them by Pilate. The Roman soldiers, at that time, were among the best disciplined and most feared in the world. Most of all...sleeping on duty resulted in death. Pilate had therefore employed the most reliable force in the world to guard the tomb against possible action from the disciples. It's also worth noting that, although popular artwork usually depicts about five or so Roman soldiers at the tomb, the traditional Roman guard was about sixty soldiers - therefore there was very little likelihood that all sixty men could have all fallen asleep at the tomb, permitting the disciples to sneak in and steal the body.

7) Christ's tomb was sealed. Matthew makes mention of the Roman guard placing a seal upon the stone (Matt 27:66). The significance was two-fold: a) if someone moved the stone, the seal would be broken, hence providing evidence of foul play if they were to roll the stone back as if nothing happened; b) the seal was a way of telling potential thieves: "ROMAN PROPERTY - DO NOT TOUCH." This provided a deterrent to any common thief or weak disciple desiring to rob the grave or take Christ's body out.

8) The emptiness of the tomb - and lack of a body - was undeniable to all. On Resurrection Sunday, there was a great dilemma for all parties involved, especially those who might have motivation in regards to the resurrection: there was no body. The disciples did not have a body, and the Sanhedrin did not have a body. If the Sanhedrin had held the body in their possession - or they knew that Christ's body was in the tomb - then they could have easily squashed Pentecost then and there by providing the body (or its location) to the crowd. As it stands, they did not, because even they realized that the body was missing. The body was missing because Christ had, as he had promised, been resurrected from the tomb, to grant life to all those who believe in him.

Resurrection Sunday

And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. [Jonah 1:17]

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." [Matthew 12:38-40]

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen..." [Matthew 28:1-6]

The Thieves on the Cross

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” [Luke 23:39-43]

On the evening of Christ's death on the cross, an episode occurs between the Lord and the two thieves with whom he was crucified. Matthew had recorded that "the robbers who had been crucified with Him" (Matt 27:44; NASB). This has caused some to cry "CONTRADICTION!", but this supposed dilemma is easily resolved through two possible explanations: 1) both thieves initially mocked Christ, and one later repented; 2) Matthew may be using a figure of speech known as synecdoche, which can refer to many things, but one of them is when you refer to part as you would a whole. In other words, one thief mocked Christ, but Matthew (who is known to abbreviate or simplify stories throughout his gospel) refers to the thieves as a whole.

In either case, Luke goes into further detail about the dialogue between the three crosses. Christ is in the midst of mockery, having already received it from the Jewish onlookers (v. 35) as well as the Gentile soldiers (v. 36-8). Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, one of those suffering with Christ turns against him as well. His words reveal the true nature of his heart:

1) He repeats the mockery. "Are you not the Christ?" he asks (v. 39). "Save yourself..." This was what the Jewish rulers had demanded, and the Roman soldiers as well. The dozens upon dozens of miracles Christ had performed were not enough, and to many - even Christ's loyal followers - the idea of the great, expected Messiah being crucified and mocked by foreigners was unthinkable. The very nature of this world is to look upon the cross as foolishness (1 Cor 1:18), seeing it either as a failed ministry, a needless suicide, or divine murder. Indeed, is it any wonder that, when the day of resurrection comes around each year, the jokes directed towards Christ are amplified? Many people, seeking to either satisfy their own lusts or appear justified before others, mock Christ's death, not realizing that they are merely joining in with the Pharisees and Roman soldiers.

2) He adds himself into the equation. The blaspheming thief not only desires Christ to save himself, but demands that, if Christ be who he says he is, he rescue the two of them as well. Many today likewise demand something from the cross: the idea of a crucified savior is good for nothing, in their eyes, unless something is gained from it. We demand health and wealth, a better life now, or a special purpose. If the man on the cross cannot give us these things, then we dismiss his claims to divinity and Messianic lordship. What's more, we demand it without any real discernment on whether or not we truly deserve it. Upon what basis does the thief believe he deserves this freedom? Was he not hanging on the cross for charges lodged against him? The unregenerate heart does not ponder these things. Those outside of Christ declare that God must be gentle and kind towards them, irregardless of their own personal guilt and sin.

Let us now stop and ponder something many might have missed in their studies of the Passion: at this time, throughout the whole account, no one has stood up for Christ. All the disciples had fled. Peter brashly cuts off the ear of the Temple, but falls when he then denies Christ three times under pressure. No one - Jew or Gentile, commoner or nobleman - seeks to defend Christ against his enemies. All this changes here and now, when the afflicted savior finally gets words of support. However, it's not from a Pharisee, a disciple, his mother, or a Roman officer...it's from the other thief. The following points arise from his words to the his fellow condemned:

1) He rebukes the other thief. "Have you no fear of God?" he asks him (v. 40). This shows the regeneration that had happened within the thief. The fear of God had driven him to say these words, and to those who truly fear God, blasphemy appears as absurdity. Those who love God feel ache in their heart in regards to those who don't, just as the apostle Paul wrote regarding disbelieving Jews: "I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers" (Rom 9:3).

2) He affirms his own sin. "And we indeed justly," the thief adds, "for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds" (v. 40). He recognized, unlike the former thief, that he was guilty of the crimes for which he was being punished. He had broken the law, and was receiving what was owed to the law for his crimes. He was guilty, and held no innocence within himself at this moment of judgment. The great Christian author and evangelist John Bunyan wrote:

He that truly confesseth and acknowledgeth his sin, acknowledgeth also the curse to be due thereto from the righteous hand of God.

3) He affirms the righteousness of Christ. "But this man," the thief adds again, "has done nothing wrong" (v. 41). Pilate had earlier pointed out that Christ was innocent of any serious crimes (v. 4, 22), but his intentions were based more on political motivations than true care for Christ. The repentant thief, on the other hand, is convicted by Christ's innocence, for he had earlier told the blaspheming thief "you are under the same sentence of condemnation" (v. 40). Christ was suffering and yet, unlike the two thieves there, he had committed no wrongs. His spot on the cross, in fact, had been reserved for Barabbas, an insurrectionist and rebel, but it had gone instead to the innocent Christ (v. 17-21). The wise thief points this out as a further indictment against the blaspheming one, for the latter had shown great disrespect towards Christ, not seeming to realize that Christ was suffering for sins that were not his.

The repenting thief was showing the true fruits of repentance, for these few sentences reveal: 1) a confession of personal guilt; 2) an acceptance of the righteousness of God. All this leads to what Matthew Henry called "the prayer of a dying sinner to a dying savior," when the wise thief turns to Christ and says: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" (v. 42). The former thief had sought pain from the then and now for a better life in the here and how, but the latter thief had sought freedom from the judgment of God in the soon to be. The thief had sought happiness not now (for he recognized he deserved none), but rather for happiness in the next life. What's more, he recognized that the only freedom from judgment and sin came through Christ, and in his last dying moments he clung to the cross and, in not so many words, pleaded for mercy. To these words, Jesus Christ replied:

"Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (v. 43)

Many people have speculated on what Christ means here in regards to "paradise," however in its purest form it simply refers to the joy and comfort of being in the presence of the Redeemer in the hereafter. All sins which the man was guilty of were, at that moment, washed away, and no longer held against him. He was justified not for anything he had done - for there was nothing he could have done - but rather, he was justified through his faith. Christ would eventually commit his soul to God (v. 46), but the wise thief committed his soul to Christ. He would die, but his life would be "hidden with Christ in God," and upon the day of resurrection he would appear with Christ in glory (Col 3:3-4).

The two thieves as a whole represented the effect that the cross would have upon the world: on the one hand, an indictment of sin and judgment; on the other hand, regeneration and the giving of grace. It was a personification of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12, for Christ was "was numbered with the transgressors," as seen with the wise thief, and "bore the sin of many," as he bore the sins of the thief, and would make "intercession for the transgressors," as Christ personally interceded for the wise thief.

Everything the cross represented could be seen at this moment, for though "the word of the cross" was "folly to those who are perishing," to those "who are being saved," as the wise thief, it was "the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18). God bless.

Isaiah 14:12 and the "Morning Star"

The following is from the NET notes:

The Hebrew text has הֵילֵל בֶּן־שָׁחַר (helel ben-shakhar, “Helel son of Shachar”), which is probably a name for the morning star (Venus) or the crescent moon. See HALOT 245 s.v. הֵילֵל.

What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12–15? This whole section (vv. 4b–21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called “the man” in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19–20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12–15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9–11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, “Isaiah,” BKCOT, 1061).