Turning Points

Psalm 3:3-4

O LORD, how many are my foes!
Many are rising against me;
many are saying of my soul,
there is no salvation for him in God.

...............

After seeing the temptations of Christ in Matthew 4, it is a little easier to understand why Jesus might have been a big fan of the Psalms. Aside from many of the Messianic references, the majority of the Psalms are technically classified as "laments." While Jesus was not well known for his melancholy, he was a "man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" (Is 53). In fact, it was to the Psalms of lament that he turned when he was hanging on the cross, betrayed by his closest friends and bearing the curse of sin for those he loved (see Mt. 27:46, quoting Ps. 22:1, and see Gal. 3:13 about the curse).

The beautiful thing about the Psalms is that they almost always have a turning point of hope. After beginning with a prayer of desperation in Psalm 3, the writer immediately turns to what he knows is true, and this changes everything:

But you, O LORD, are a shield about me,
my glory, and the lifter of my head.
I cried aloud to the LORD,
and he answered me from his holy hill.

I admit, there is something romantic about wallowing in your problems. Human nature takes a sick delight in self-pity, and we must be aware that this in not the pattern in the laments of Scripture. There must always be a turning to what is outside of oneself (a pointer to the objective beauties of the gospel, especially the finished work of salvation accomplished by Christ - go to Romans 8 for a refresher). The psalmist gains hope by (forcefully, if necessary) reminding himself of what he knows is true, based on God's former actions and the promises He has made. Let this be a pattern we also follow when we are facing life's many trials: a prayer of desperation, followed by a declaration of truth to match.

Interpretative Light

Matthew 4:5-7

Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you,' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

...............

Jesus did not have a problem with Scripture passages that were in contradiction. Or, are they really in contradiction? I mean, God said the angels would take care of His chosen one, right? But, God also said not to put Him to the test. Does one type of Scripture overrule another? How do you know when you've found one of these overruling passages? No, overruling is not the issue; Light is the issue.

The Bible is a book with meaning, like many others, and that meaning has always been meant to be accessible to the average reader. If that is true, then what do we make of this biblical "contradiction" between Jesus and Satan? I said Light is the issue, rather than overruling. It is true that there are different levels of brightness with Light, and that a strong Light might "overrule" a weaker Light. The difference is that the weaker Light is not, therefore, diminished or done away with; it is enhanced and aided by the stronger Light. Matthew 4:5-7 can be aided by at least three "stronger" Lights.

First, the immediate context of 4:5-7 sheds light on what the temptation of Jesus was all about. Jesus was tempted to break his fast, to throw himself to his death, and to worship Satan. Sounds like a biblical "no-brainer" - DON'T DO THAT! But, as many have pointed out, these temptations, like our own daily struggles, are reflections of what hounds our souls most. Jesus dealt with feelings of despair, perhaps, that threatened to undo his ministry from the start. As in all three temptations, the weapon to fight these thoughts was Scripture itself. The Bible cuts through the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12) and zeroes in on the root sources of our struggles; in this case, despairing was akin to testing God, and Jesus would have none of it.

Second, as mentioned in a previous post, the Light of the whole Bible must be combined with the particular passage in question. Fortunately, many difficult passages contain their own specific allusions to others passages, and this is no exception. You want more Light on what it means for Jesus to struggle with putting God to the test? Well, check out the passage that He quotes, Deuteronomy 6:16. The Light from there will only strengthen the visibility of this passage.

And third, Matthew 4 actually gives us a little hint to what is the greatest Light of all: Jesus himself. In Matthew 4:16 we read,

The people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light,
and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death,
on them a light has dawned.

The allusion is to Jesus and his kingdom ministry, as described in the verse immediately following. Jesus steps into a dark world (in the shadow of the curse of sin and death) and he makes quite a scene, calling people to follow him, teaching in public, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, "and healing every disease and every affliction among the people" (4:23). How is Jesus the Light that aids us in reading Scripture? He, in His very person, provides the picture of what every passage of Scripture is pointing to: the good news of God in the flesh, sent to bear the sin of the world, draw sinners to himself, and restore all creation as the only good and wise King of Kings.

The Fruit of Repentance

Matthew 3:8-9

Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.
And do not presume to say to yourselves,
"We have Abraham as our father,"
for I tell you, God is able from these stones
to raise up children for Abraham.

...............

It is fitting that the forerunner of the Messiah would be an iconoclast. For hundreds of years, the people of Israel had lived without a prophet, without an authoritative word from God. The Temple had been destroyed and the locus of Jewish religion had shifted to the home, to the community, and to the local rabbis. Rabbinical orders like the Pharisees and Sadducees had developed, along with a rabbinic tradition of wisdom sayings and interpretations (midrash) of the Torah. Significantly, the people of Israel had become comfortable in their culture and traditions, believing that God's favor upon them as an ethnic group was secure and unchanging (a complacency not really warranted by the warnings of the Old Testament, however).

Into this cultural complacency came the iconoclast, John the Baptist. Even his diet and clothing were against the grain. People were flocking to him from all over Judea and Jerusalem because he was calling everyone to a changed life, a new start, and also alluding to some mysterious figure who was one the way. Some speculated whether John himself was the Messiah spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures, the specially anointed king who would lead the ethnic people of Israel to a restored Davidic kingdom. Boy, were they wrong.

Not only was John not the Messiah, but he was pissed off (at least concerning the Jewish leaders). His mind was so fixed on the coming of Christ and preparing people's hearts for what was about to take place, that he had little time for the "brood of vipers," the Pharisees, who thought that their ethnicity was tantamount to a cosmic "get out of jail free" card. Nobody likes a freeloader, especially one with an inflated sense of entitlement. These guys fit that description to a "T." John warned them that God had no partiality for ethnic origin, saying that he could make children of Abraham out of the stones (Paul will later argue in Romans and elsewhere that those who have faith in Christ are the true "children of Abraham"). No, what truly mattered to God was a changed life, a life that was radically transformed by repentance and faith.

As a closing illustration, the Apostle Paul gave a stirring example of what it meant to have no regard for one's race or cultural background with reference to salvation and acceptance before a holy God. A former Pharisee himself, he made a laundry list of his heritage and accomplishments, and then stated this, in Philippians 3:7-9:

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which come through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith...

Jesus' Hymnbook

Psalm 2:11-12

Serve the LORD with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

...............

The psalms are notoriously difficult to interpret. As a young believer, I turned to the psalms of the Old Testament for daily encouragement in my faith. I found solace especially in the transparent quality of the psalmist's doubts and fears, born from struggles with everything from envy (see Ps. 73) to adultery (see Ps. 51) to persecution (see Ps. 63 among others).

The problem is, poetry is cryptic. It is meant to be. My poetry professor in college taught us a pithy little statement I will never forget: "Art is a lie that tells the truth." Sounds very postmodern, right? Well, you get the point. Artistic expression never gives you all the cards; the artist leaves much to the imagination, forcing the viewer or listener to contribute their own attention and mental energy to the artistic experience. In the case of the psalms, this shared experience came through corporate singing, both then (3,000 years ago) and now (in the singing of the Psalter or other Psalm-based songs). *Note: Just because poetry is cryptic doesn't mean it has NO rules for interpreting. Any cursory reading of the Psalms will give you an idea of the patterns, the parallelisms, and the poetic structures throughout that make interpretation very possible. The following is a brief example of how to interpret a psalm.

Rule number one in interpreting the Psalms is to look to the New Testament. Psalm 2, verses 1, 2, and 7, are all quoted in the New Testament (in Acts 4 and Hebrews 1). A good study Bible will give cross-reference notes for these kinds of quotations. While not every psalm is a direct allusion to Messiah, today's chapter is clearly one of them. While verse 12 is not quoted in the New Testament in this way, it is fair to the context of the psalm to include it as part of the allusion to Christ.

Allowing for a Christological reading, verses 11 and 12 are a strong exhortation to us that our affectionate reverence to the Son of God is not optional; it is absolutely necessary. "Rejoice with trembling" conjures ironic images, but the point is made: The LORD is both terrible and beautiful, like the fiercest thunderstorm or the erupting of a volcano. As the Beaver in Narnia described Aslan, “Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.” This combination of emotions is fitting for the Man we meet in the Gospel accounts of Jesus. One who spoke with authority, who controlled nature and demons with a word, and who wept for his friend and bled drops of blood in the agony of the garden. The Psalms are devotional material of the highest caliber, because they add these soaring melodies of emotion to the concrete truths of Christ's kingdom as described in the Gospels.

Flight Report

Matthew 2:13

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him."

...............

Getting a bachelor's degree in Religious Studies from a public university has had its advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, I've been given a glimpse into a method of biblical interpretation that has raised important questions and often provided reasonable answers. My credibility as a Christian, I hope, has increased because of my familiarity with higher criticism, source criticism, etc. On the other hand, because of my experiences in the classroom (studying the New Testament under a Jewish professor, for instance) I have had to face subjects like Matthew's Infancy narrative and scratch my head a little bit.

Critics of "biblical inerrancy" often misunderstand what is being claimed by those who deny any errors in Scripture. If I believe that Matthew 2 is absolutely without error (in the original Greek), then it is claimed that I am blind to the authorial restructuring and the obvious literary retooling that the author engaged in to make his theological point (that Jesus is the new Moses, fulfilling prophecy and ushering in Messiah's kingdom). The misunderstanding is located in this obviously ridiculous premise: that historically inerrant texts must be disorganized, devoid of the author's personality, and have no interest in theological agendas. Sounds like the (impossible) constraints of historical objectivity being forced upon the written text.

The two most contested issues in Matthew 2 are the "Flight to Egypt" and the "Massacre of the Innocents." The historicity of the first (2:13-15) is questioned for its apparently "forced" parallel with the nation of Israel, orchestrated by Matthew in order to fulfill the Hosea prophecy. There is also the dilemma of this account being completely absent from Luke's version of the infancy narrative. The historicity of the second (2:16-18) is also questioned due to the claim that such an important event surely would have been recorded somewhere outside the Bible, though no such evidence has ever been found.

These objections have answers: the journey of one ancient family and the infanticide of one very small village were probably too insignificant to be noticed by contemporary historians like Josephus. As mentioned earlier, the "forced" parallel to Old Testament prophecy does reflect a theological agenda, but this does not necessitate it being historically false or untrustworthy. In fact, what we do know about the times (i.e. Herod's notoriety as a violently unstable ruler) seems to corroborate the biblical account.

Perhaps what is more important than these specific questions is the more fundamental issue of authority: Where do we get our basis for discerning Truth? The Bible itself claims to be such a basis for finding Truth. Modern interpretative methods, like academic higher criticism, certainly do not. Our finite historical knowledge, though substantial, must always submit to the final authority of God's infinite knowledge, which has been unchangeably revealed in Scripture.

Angels Overruled

Image via Wikipedia

Matthew 1:21

"She will bear a son,
and you shall call his name Jesus,
for he will save his people from their sins."

...............

Angels are many things, but they are not necessarily "innocent." It is odd how the common conception of angels is that they are pure, holy beings. If I see another piece of infant clothing that refers to a "little angel" I will gag. This is quite foreign to the biblical account because angels are first and foremost, created beings, and second, mere messengers.

First, the fact that angels are created beings should clue us in that they are something less then "holy." Isaiah 6 is a clear example of this. Rather than being holy, they forever testify to the infinitely superior holiness of God: "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty!" Matthew 1 hints at this as well, by describing the angel as "of the Lord." Its being is not independent of God's, but rather is entirely attached to the source of its existence.

Secondly, that angels are mere messengers is even more clear from Scripture. The first two chapters of Hebrews are prime real estate for this topic. "Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?" (1:14). This is what we are seeing in Matthew 1. Joseph is met by an angel in a dream and he is brought the message of salvation - the gospel - that through Jesus people can be saved from their sins.

Why does all this matter? This appears to be rather trivial, but the importance of defining angels as created messengers becomes clear in Galatians 1:8 - "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preach to you, let him be accursed." Paul is adamant that angels can be overruled. They are not an independently certain source of true knowledge. Our epistemic foundation is better situated in the gospel message of the apostle, over and above a supernatural visit from an angel, who could potentially preach a lie and find himself accursed. Let this be a warning to the extreme mysticism of cults which are based more on visions and angels than on the unchanging promises of God in Scripture (see also Col. 2:18-19). Let this also be a warning to us who pride ourselves in being "biblical" but who daily struggle with trusting God's promises and find ourselves searching for circumstantial signs to direct us in our decision-making. May we continue to put our final hope in God, rather than created messengers or mystical signposts.

Ecology of the Soul

Psalm 1:3

He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.

...............

Ecology is not the end of the world. Oh well, in a sense it is, but what I mean is that it is not everything. In fact, the Bible puts ecology in its right place in the grand drama of human history. Genesis 1 and 2 show us that the creation was originally good in every way. Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day as sort of a culmination of this "very good" creation. Why did they get top billing over the rest of the earth? Because they were made in the very image of God, a unique description that sets them apart from the created order and begs the question, "what is the image of God?" More on that another time.

The point is that God is more concerned with human souls than he is with planting trees. It is very important that we did not arrive at this conclusion by means of some gnostic anti-materialistic bent. Rather, we are seeking use the priorities that God uses in his Word. The created world reflects the glory of God in a most agreeable and profound way, see Psalm 19:1-6, but the Bible declares that God's glory is even more evident in his Word, see Psalm 19:7-11. Today's verse puts this clearly and throws the whole issue into focus. God is looking for men and women to reflect his glory by planting themselves in the nourishing streams of his Word. By all means, plant a tree and save the earth; this pleases God and is clearly underappreciated by evangelicals. But please, do not neglect the nourishment of your soul for sake of the planet. Not that these two activities are diametrically opposed, but in our culture we are forgetting the ecology of the soul and soon we will wither. As Schaeffer and others have pointed out, ours is a "cut-flower" culture: the beautiful blossom of Western Civilization has been severred from its biblical roots and it is only a matter of time before it withers away.

All this points to a conclusion that I must mention: ours is a personal universe. Beware that your fixation on saving the planet does not overshadow your interest in persons. I know most environmentalists are also human rights advocates as well, but be careful here. Believers must distinguish themselves by their passionate love for persons, God first and also our neighbor likewise. Let us not display an impersonal worldview by getting caught up in ecology to the neglect of our neighbor next door and our families as well. When we do ecology, let's put it in the framework of a personal universe, ruled by a personal God, to whom all persons will one day give account for what they have done. Gladly, the Lord is concerned with the earth. He grieves over the curse of sin which has broken the ground (Gen. 3) and caused all creation to groan (Rom. 8), but he is altogether more concerned that His children find new life in the streams of water that flow from His own personal thoughts - the Word of God.