An Easter Hymn

by Denny Burk

O Jesus, Savior of my life,
My hope, my joy, my sacrifice,
I’ve searched and found no other one
Who loves me more than you have done. (John 15:13)

So I denounce my lingering sin
Whose power You have broke within (Rom 6:14)
My ever weak and faithless frame. (Rom 7:14)
Its vigor’s crushed in Jesus name.

For your death did at once proclaim,
The Father’s glory and my shame. (Rom 3:25-26)
And you did seize my cup of guilt (Luke 22:42)
And drank all that the chalice spilled. (1 Cor 5:21)

No condemnation now I dread
Because you went for me instead
To bear the Father’s hell-bent rage,
To pay the debt I would have paid.

Yet your work finished not with death,
Nor with your final murdered breath.
For death’s blows could not ever quell
The One whose life is in Himself. (John 5:26)

Your passion broke forth full with life
And foiled the adversary’s wiles
And broke the chains and killed the sting (1 Cor 15:55-57)
In which death had imprisoned me.

O Savior, who died in my stead, (Mark 10:45; Heb 9:28)
You firstborn from among the dead, (Col 1:18)
O Savior, you who saved my life, (Matt 1:21; John 12:47; 1 Cor 1:21)
Will take me whole to paradise. (Rev 22:1-7)

So on this resurrection day
I lift my voice with all the saints
And sing with all my ransomed might (1 Tim 2:6)
Of You, the Savior of my life.

5

Peggy Noonan Writes on Ashley Smith


Peggy Noonan

My favorite columnist, Peggy Noonan, wrote about Ashley Smith’s seven hours with murderer Brian Nichols. Noonan’s piece is the best I’ve read yet on Ashley Smith’s encounter with the killer, and I think you should read it too. She includes the entire transcript of Smith’s testimony to reporters after the event. Noonan’s article is titled “Flannery O’Connor Country.” Go read this one. You will be glad that you did.

5

A Ransom to Satan?


Paul Harvey

I preached in my home church of DeRidder, Louisiana this morning, and I chose to preach a very traditional Palm Sunday sermon. I addressed the topic of “the innermost meaning of the cross” from Romans 3:21-26. It would seem that this kind of a message would be “old hat” among mature Christians, the basic substance of our faith. Yet I find that popular misconceptions about the meaning of Christ’s death still abound.

I heard Paul Harvey share the following story on his radio program on the Saturday before Easter, March 30, 2002. It’s a sweet story, but it represents a fairly common misunderstanding of Jesus’ atoning work on the cross. My aim is not to criticize Paul Harvey; I’ve always loved to listen to his show. However, I think the anecdote does reflect an unwitting error that Christians are prone to make–namely, that Jesus’ death was a payment to Satan. Here’s Harvey’s story.
_____________________________

“The Bird Cage”

There once was a man named George Thomas, a pastor in a small New England town. One Easter Sunday morning he came to the church carrying a rusty, bent, old bird cage, and set it by the pulpit. Several eyebrows were raised and, as if in response, Pastor Thomas began to speak.
“I was walking through town yesterday when I saw a young boy coming toward me, swinging this bird cage. On the bottom of the cage were three little wild birds, shivering with cold and fright. I stopped the boy and asked, “What you got there son?”
“Just some old birds,” came the reply.
“What are you gonna do with them?” I asked.
“Take ’em home and have fun with ’em. I’m gonna tease ’em and pull out their feathers to make ’em fight. I’m gonna have a real good time.”
“But you’ll get tired of those birds sooner or later. What will you do then?”
“Oh, I got some cats. They like birds. I’ll take ’em to them.”
The pastor was silent for a moment. “How much do you want for those birds, son?”
“Huh??!!! Why, you don’t want them birds, mister. They’re just plain old field birds. They don’t sing – they ain’t even pretty!”
“How much?” The boy sized up the pastor as if he were crazy and said,
“$10?”
The pastor reached in his pocket and took out a ten dollar bill. He placed it in the boy’s hand. In a flash, the boy was gone. The pastor picked up the cage and gently carried it to the end of the alley where there was a tree and a grassy spot. Setting the cage down, he opened the door, and by softly tapping the bars persuaded the birds out, setting them free.
Well, that explained the empty bird cage on the pulpit, and then the pastor began to tell this story.
One day Satan and Jesus were having a conversation. Satan had just come from the Garden of Eden, and he was gloating and boasting.
“Yes, sir, I just caught the world full of people down there. Set me a trap, used bait I knew they couldn’t resist. Got ’em all!”
“What are you going to do with them?” Jesus asked.
“Oh, I’m gonna have fun! I’m gonna teach them how to marry and divorce each other. How to hate and abuse each other. How to drink and smoke and curse. How to invent guns and bombs and kill each other. I’m really gonna have fun!”
“And what will you do when you get done with them?” Jesus asked.
“Oh, I’ll kill ’em.”
“How much do you want for them?”
“Oh, you don’t want those people. They ain’t no good. Why, you’ll take them and they’ll just hate you. They’ll spit on you, curse you and kill you!! You don’t want those people!!”
“How much?”
Satan looked at Jesus and sneered, “Your life.”
Jesus paid the price.
The pastor picked up the cage, opened the door and he walked from the pulpit.

Accessed 4/5/05 – http://www.webedelic.com/church/birdcagef.htm
_____________________________

In spite of its shortcomings, we should acknowledge that the story does illustrate a couple important truths. First of all, it illustrates God’s love for sinners through Jesus’ sacrificial work (e.g. John 15:12; Rom 5:8). It also rightfully proclaims that Jesus’ death on the cross releases sinners from the ruling power of sin, which includes satanic bondage (Acts 26:18; 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:13; 2 Tim 2:26).

However, the story completely misunderstands the Bible’s teaching about the payment that Christ made in behalf of sinners. In the story, Christ’s sacrificial death is pictured as a payment to Satan. Satan has humanity caged up, and unless he’s properly paid off all humanity will be damned. So Jesus steps in and pays the ransom to Satan in order to release sinners who are held captive by him.

Harvey’s story represents a view of Christ’s atonement that the church rejected centuries ago (click here for more info on the early church’s rejection of this view). But the main problem with this “ransom to Satan” view of Christ’s death is that it misunderstands what the Bible teaches about the meaning of the cross. The scriptures are clear that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross constituted a payment to God, not the devil.

Why is this point significant? It’s important because the Bible everywhere affirms that sin is an offense against God (e.g. 2 Samuel 12:9-10; Romans 3:23). All of us are sinners and have thus offended God. The offense of sin has created a rift between God and humanity (Isaiah 59:2). Sin has incited God’s angry and terrible wrath, and all of us therefore owe God a debt of eternal punishment because of our sin. This debt is paid in hell, and when one goes there one never finishes paying the debt. It lasts for eternity.

It’s important to note here that hell is not a place where Satan doles out punishment upon sinners. No, hell is much scarier than that. Hell is the place where God metes out His just punishment upon sinners. We must not think of hell as a place where Satan rules. On the contrary, hell is the place of Satan’s punishment (2 Peter 2:4; Rev 20:10). So if hell isn’t the realm of Satan’s wrath, then who’s wrath is it that is poured out in hell? It’s the wrath of God. When we let ourselves reflect on this truth, the thought is almost too difficult to bear. The same God who is the treasure of heaven is also the One who is the terror of hell. This is why Jesus warned people, “And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28). Whereas heaven is the realm of God’s mercy, hell is the place of God’s wrath. Hell is scary not because Satan is there but because, “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31).

All of this further illumines the point that we as sinners owe a debt of eternal punishment to God, not to Satan. Therefore, when Jesus died, he was making a payment to God, not to Satan. When Jesus died, he was being punished by God, not by Satan. On the cross, Jesus Christ was receiving the punishment from God that we deserved. Someone may object to this last statement by asking, “But does the Bible really teach that God is the one who punished Jesus? After all, it looks like the Romans and the Jews are the ones who punished him.” Numerous texts could be cited in response to this objection. Let’s look at a couple.

The prophet Isaiah describes Jesus’ death as follows, “But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief” (Isaiah 53:10, emphasis mine). In Isaiah’s words, “the Lord” is the One who crushed Jesus. In Matthew’s gospel, God says “I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered” (Matt 26:31). In this text, God is clearly the agent of Jesus’ death. Also, let us not forget 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” God made Jesus to bear the guilt and punishment for our sin! This couldn’t be any clearer in scripture.

So the payment that would have taken us an eternity in hell to endure, Jesus endured in the moment of the cross. Jesus’ physical sufferings were horrific. But who can imagine the terror of the spiritual anguish of bearing God’s wrath against sin? All the frightful rage of the infinite creator and judge of the universe was poured out in full on Jesus at the cross. As C. H. Spurgeon once put it, “it seemed as if Hell were put into His cup; He seized it, and, ‘At one tremendous draught of love, He drank damnation dry.’ So that there was nothing left of all the pangs and miseries of Hell for His people ever to endure.” This is the true meaning of Christ’s death. Jesus took the wrath of God upon himself as a substitute in the place of sinners. In this, Jesus rendered payment to God, not Satan.

The amazing paradox is that the measure of God’s wrath is also the measure of his love because “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). God’s love is demonstrated in Jesus’ death. How can this be? The measure of Jesus’ anguish on the cross demonstrates the extent of his love. He suffered to the uttermost for those he came to save. So when we view God’s wrath poured out on Jesus at the cross, we are at once viewing the measure of his love for us. Isn’t this the reason that we sing, “Amazing love, how can it be that Thou my God wouldst die for me?”

We give away precious gospel truth if we say that Jesus’ death was a ransom to Satan. If we say that Jesus’ death is a ransom to the devil, we don’t see the true measure of God’s love because we don’t see the true measure of His wrath poured out on sin. But we see the gospel in all of its glory when we realize that Jesus’ death was a payment to an offended God who loves us. God offers Jesus as a substitute penalty-bearer to anyone who will place their faith and trust in him. Whoever turns from their sin, whoever forsakes all attempts to reconcile himself/herself to God through human effort and good works, whoever will trust in Jesus alone will find salvation from the eternal debt of punishment owed to God. That is the heart of the Gospel.

2

The Death of a Postmodern Theologian


Stanley J. Grenz, 1950-2005

I was shocked to learn this week of Stanley Grenz’s death. He died very suddenly on Saturday, March 12 as a result of a massive aneurism. I cannot improve upon David Dockery’s review of Grenz’s life and career as an ‘evangelical’ theologian. So I recommend that you read Dockery’s very personal appraisal of Grenz: ‘When Piety Is Not Enough.’

I was introduced to Grenz’s theology in 1998 while working on my Master’s in Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. I read Grenz’s Primer on Postmodernism, and my mind began to understand for the first time the philosophical and theological roots of postmodernity. Until his book, I had not properly understood the causes of the epistemological irrationality that seemed to permeate every aspect of the American culture in which I lived. His book made clearer the things I had only begun to be aware of from reading Francis Schaeffer years before. Grenz’s lucid description of postmodernism’s historical underpinnings made clear to me how the rationalism of modernity had vanished once for all as the ruling paradigm of knowledge. I remember reading the book and being so thankful for his clarity and insight into the postmodern ethos. I also remember very clearly how disappointed I was by the final chapter of the book. As an evangelical, I could not understand how he could be so sympathetic to the epistemology (or lack thereof) of postmodernity. In the years since that introduction to his thought, I have come to believe that his theological program is actually antithetical to evangelical orthodoxy. Grenz and his work will not soon be forgotten, but I do hope and pray that his theological paradigm will not carry the day.

0

Puritan or Separatist? To Leave or Not To Leave

A person recently asked me what I though about the “downgrade controversy,” which was a doctrinal dispute that C. H. Spurgeon had with liberal members of his denomination. Ultimately, Spurgeon decided that separation from the doctrinal “downgrade” of his denomination was the best course. The question arises for us as to when it is appropriate to separate from a church or a denomination over doctrinal issues. For us as for Spurgeon, I think that the question is all about when it is proper to stop being puritans to become separatists (for the difference between the two, click here). Spurgeon believed that his denomination had become so compromised doctrinally that he had to stop being a puritan to become a separatist. I agree with him that sometimes a church or denomination can become so compromised that you cannot remain in fellowship. The question is when does a church or a denomination cross that line. For my answer to that question, I refer you once again to Dr. Mohler’s article, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity.” We have to separate with people who deny “first order” doctrines, and we have to regard them as non-Christians. We have to worship in separate churches from those who deny “second order” doctrines, though we may still acknowledge them as brothers. We have to strive for unity in spite of disagreements over “third order” doctrines.

1

“Theological Triage”: Recognizing Doctrinal Priorities

For many students of theology, one of the last lessons to be mastered is the ability to discern how and when to engage in theological debate. On the one hand, some simply don’t know how to disagree amicably with those who have different perspectives. Too often, students become so abrasive and caustic that no one wants to listen to them, no matter what they are saying. When I was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary, I remember seeing three students arguing over the so-called “lordship salvation” controversy. One of the “free grace” advocates became so incensed at his opponent that he nearly punched the “lordship” advocate in the face. Though I’m sure he felt “free” to attack his poor brother, I’m glad that he chose not to. Instead, he stormed off in a huff, fists clinched and red-faced. It was clear to me that this guy had not mastered the how of theological discourse.

On the other hand, too many do not discern properly when debate is advisable and what the pitch of such dispute should be. I have known many who become more excited about the order of events on their prophecy chart than they do about the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. They do not seem to understand that error with respect to the former results only in division while error with respect to the later results in condemnation. This inability to discern a taxonomy in doctrinal priorities is one of the hallmarks of theological immaturity.

It is for this reason that Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has recommended a “theological triage” to govern theological dialogue. In his essay, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity,” Mohler sets forth the necessity of identifying first order, second order, and third order doctrinal issues. He argues that the mature theologian will be able to distinguish each of the three from one another. I highly recommend that you make it your priority to read this short essay for yourself.

“A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity” – by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

4

To My Students: A Word of Exhortation

My writing today is dedicated especially to my students at the Criswell College. I am happy to hear that so many have been stopping by to read what I have posted, so I have all of you in mind as I write today. There is a short essay by B. B. Warfield that I read when I first began my trek in theological education many years ago. What Warfield wrote in this essay radically changed the way that I had been thinking about the task that I had before me. He argues with passion and vigor that there should be no bifurcation between the “head” and the “heart” when one applies himself to serious study of the scriptures. Warfield’s words were momentous in my life, and I think they will be in yours too. Princeton Theological Seminary has posted Warfield’s article on their website, and I am encouraging you to click on the link below, print out the article, and read it carefully. Blessings on all of you with much love, Dr. Burk.

The Religious Life of Theological Students – by B. B. Warfield

(About B. B. Warfield)

6

The Sloan Resignation: “Vision Minus the Visionary”

Several weeks ago I wrote about the resignation of Robert Sloan from the presidency of Baylor University in a blog titled, “The Demise of Sloan and the Fortunes of ‘Baylor 2012’.” In that essay I concluded with the following: “I fear that the vision of ‘Baylor 2012’ will have a whole different character or be perhaps entirely lost without Sloan at the helm. However, I am reminded by a good friend that the glass may not be half empty, but half full . . . I will be hoping and praying that my friend is right.”

According to an article in the March issue of Christianity Today, the glass may indeed be half full. In “Vision Minus the Visionary,” Robert Benne predicts that, “there is good reason to believe that Baylor 2012 will go firmly forward under a new administration. There is no guarantee that this ambitious plan will be completely successful or that it will now be free of controversy, but its likelihood of success is now greater without Sloan than it was with him.” It remains to be seen whether this analysis will be correct, but I recommend your reading the article anyway (click on the following link).

“Vision Minus the Visionary” – by Robert Benne

0

Brothers, let us love with our words

When it comes to sin, Christians often get the most exercised about avoiding the “biggies.” For many in the conservative wing of Christianity, that means a preoccupation with certain behaviors that should be avoided. Those behaviors are summed up in the familiar rhyme:

I don’t smoke, drink, cuss, or chew
And I don’t go around with people who do.

Yet the reductionism of this formula (whose biblicity will have to be discussed at another time), like many other kinds of behavior modification theories, fails to shed any light on some of the darker corners of our hearts that we don’t like for anyone to see. It is these cherished and concealed peccadillos that truly threaten to destroy us as individuals and as a fellowship of believers.

One such sin that often slips in under the radar unnoticed is gossip. To engage in gossiping means to give “a report (often malicious) about the behavior of other people.” The Bible has many terms for this kind of behavior: slander (Ps 15:2; Mk 7:22), gossip (2 Cor 12:20); backbiting tongue (Prov 25:23), to name a few. All of these describe one’s using their words to speak out against another in a way that defames, belittles, or misrepresents them, and it is roundly condemned by God (Lev 19:16; Prov 10:18; Ps 140:11). Indeed, the wise man knows that, “He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip” (Prov 20:19).

Yet gossip is one of those besetting sins that ensnare all of us at some time or another. The reason for this indulgence often emerges as willingness to capitulate to the worser angels of our nature. Proverbs 18:8 says, “The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body” (cf. Prov 26:22). This text simply means that we like to hear the whisperings of a gossip. We like to “get the goods” on other people, especially when there’s dirty laundry involved. Somehow it makes us feel really good to listen to and to dole out “the dainty morsels” that defame others.

In our relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ, this evil proclivity accounts for much of what is wrong with our churches. When we get offended by a brother or are scandalized by the behavior of a sister, we immediately gather others around to tell them about the grievous misdeeds of the wayward so that we can “pray” for them.

Yet this is clearly not the ethic that Jesus commended for us. One of the ways that we love each other is to follow strictly the mandates of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17:

“15 And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.”

Jesus sets forth very plainly a three-step process for what we are to do when we are offended or scandalized by the behavior of a brother or sister. The first step in that process consists in going and confronting the offender in private. Notice that Jesus does not say, “Go gather a bunch of other believers together and tell them your beef with your brother so they can pray for you.” No, the directive is to keep the matter private for as long as possible so that you can “win” your brother. The sad thing is that we often ignore Jesus in our relationships. We like to go public first by gossiping, and then to put off as long as possible the confrontation with the offending brother. This is the opposite of what Jesus commands, and it is the opposite of love.

So my exhortation is that we love one another with our words. Often, love calls us to hold back our words, to keep back those would-be “dainty morsels.” Sometimes the best thing to do is to just keep quiet. “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise” (Prov 10:19). At other times, it will be necessary to say the words in love to the brother who has offended, even if the words bring confrontation. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov 27:6). In any case, the question that governs our behavior is not, “What do I want to do?,” but “What would love have me do?”

So brothers, let us love with our words.

6

The Purpose-Driven Resurrection

I am reading The Purpose-Driven Life along with other members of my church in a 40-day study of Rick Warren’s blockbuster book. The book contains both positives and negatives. On the positive side, no serious Christian could argue with the main points of the book, which are but a summary of what every Christian should be about: worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and evangelism. Rick Warren is right on target with these as they are clear imperatives that appear in different ways throughout scripture.

There are, however, certain drawbacks to this best-seller that one would do well to pay attention to. Warren’s frequent proof-texting sometimes runs roughshod over the context of the verse in question with the result that one is sometimes left with a less-than-accurate understanding of the biblical writer’s real intention.[1] The use of paraphrased versions of the Bible (New Living Translation, The Message) also leaves much to be desired.[2]

In this essay, I would like to focus on one particular area of concern. Warren appears to embrace a kind of dualism that is frequently heard in popular evangelical preaching today. In chapter 4, Warren explains that people are “made to last forever,” and he embarks upon an explanation of the nature of the eternal state. He writes: “One day your heart will stop beating. That will be the end of your body and your time on earth, but it will not be the end of you. Your earthly body is just a temporary residence for your spirit” (p. 37). This passage seems to suggest that our non-physical self (the soul) is eternal while our physical self (the body) is only temporary. A mind/body dualism emerges here that is foreign to the Bible. Warren quotes 2 Corinthians 5:6 to explain the different mode of existence which believers have in “heaven”: “Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.” From Warren’s explanation of this text, one is left with the impression that our future mode of existence in heaven is non-physical, being characterized by not having a physical body.

Yet this is not at all what Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. In fact, Paul is teaching quite the opposite. Paul is arguing that our ultimate hope is that God will resurrect the bodies of believers after they die. The eternal state is very much a physical state. In the eternal state, Christians will not be “unclothed” (2 Cor 5:4), but will have put on the clothing of a new resurrected, glorified body.

This hope of resurrection is actually the center of New Testament hope. Christians are supposed to look forward not only to heaven, but to resurrection. That is why Paul urged the Thessalonians who were burying their loved ones who had died: “13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess 4:13-16 NIV). Paul encouraged the Thessalonians who were grieving the death of their loved ones by telling them that God would resurrect their bodies just like He resurrected Jesus’ body.

One of God’s purposes for Jesus’ resurrection is that believers should look to Christ’s resurrection as an example of what He will do for them in the future. Consider Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:16-22: “16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Paul’s argument is that if Christ has not been resurrected then believers won’t be resurrected either. He simply assumes that resurrection is what all Christians should be looking forward to after death.

In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 Paul uses the doctrine of resurrection to refute those who say that the physical body is morally irrelevant to God. Paul argues that the believer’s body is not for immorality but for the Lord because the Lord will one day raise up the believer’s body just as Jesus’ body was raised. Indeed, the physical body is called “the temple of the Holy Spirit.” No dualism here. In fact, Paul is arguing against the very kind of mind/body dualism that has become so prevalent in the modern day.

We would all do well to keep in mind a purpose-driven resurrection. God’s ultimate purpose for the believer is that they should glorify Him forever in resurrected physical bodies. He wants us to believe His promise that we will be raised just as Jesus was. We won’t be like Casper the friendly ghost, disembodied “spirits” roaming to and fro upon the clouds. We will be ourselves again, as God always intended for us to be: whole, physical, sinless, perfected, glorifying him. Until we fix our eyes on that hope, we are hoping in something less than what God purposes for us.
__________________________
[1]In chapter 4, Warren completely misinterprets 1 Corinthians 2:9, which he quotes from the Living Bible: “No mere man has ever seen, heard or even imagined what wonderful things God has ready for those who love the Lord.” Warren uses this verse to make the point that the human mind cannot comprehend what heaven will be like (p. 38). Yet when considered in context, 1 Corinthians 2:9 is clearly not talking about heaven, but about the cross of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:24). Indeed it is the wisdom that is “hidden” from the rulers of this age (1 Cor 2:7). Yet this wisdom has been revealed to believers “through the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:10). Paul’s point is not that something has been hidden from Christians but that something has been revealed to them that is not revealed to others. Christians can see and enjoy the wisdom of God in the cross. So Warren has completely misunderstood this text. Christians do in fact understand “what wonderful things God has ready for those who love the Lord.” As a matter of fact, this is what distinguishes believers from unbelievers. Believers “get it,” and unbelievers don’t.
[2]There are many examples throughout the book. Consider Warren’s argument in chapter 12 on “Developing Your Friendship with God.” In this section, Warren claims that a healthy friendship with God includes “accusing” God when one is not pleased with what God does. Warren uses Moses’ words in Exodus 33:12-17 from The Message to bolster his point: “‘Look, you tell me to lead this people but you don’t let me know whom you’re going to send with me. . . . If I’m so special to you, let me in on your plans. . . . Don’t forget, this is YOUR people, your responsibility. . . . If your presence doesn’t take the lead here, call this trip off right now! How else will I know that you’re with me in this, with me and your people? Are you traveling with us or not? . . .’ God said to Moses, ‘All right. Just as you say; this also I will do, for I know you well and you are special to me.’” (quoted on pages 93-94). Does The Message really capture the content and tone of the conversation between God and Moses in this text? Compare that translation to the one found in the NASB, the translation widely regarded by scholars to be the most literal English translation: “12 Then Moses said to the Lord, ‘See, Thou dost say to me, “Bring up this people!” But Thou Thyself hast not let me know whom Thou wilt send with me. Moreover, Thou hast said, “I have known you by name, and you have also found favor in My sight.” 13 Now therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found favor in Thy sight, let me know Thy ways, that I may know Thee, so that I may find favor in Thy sight. Consider too, that this nation is Thy people.’ 14 And He said, ‘My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest.’ 15 Then he said to Him, ‘If Thy presence does not go with us, do not lead us up from here. 16 For how then can it be known that I have found favor in Thy sight, I and Thy people? Is it not by Thy going with us, so that we, I and Thy people, may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the earth?’ 17 And the Lord said to Moses, ‘I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight, and I have known you by name.’” The Message makes it sound like Moses disrespects God, a notion that does not appear in the NASB.

8

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes