John3Thirty

While reading the story of the paralytic healed by Jesus at the Bethesda Pool, I was struck by Jesus’ second encounter with the man. In John 5:14, after the man was healed and obeyed Jesus, he was scolded by others for carrying his mat in violation of the Sabbath. In the exchange he pointed out that he had been commanded, by an unknown person who had healed him, to carry the mat. Later, Jesus meets him again and warns him: “Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you” (NIV). This short passage speaks volumes, but it doesn’t say what many claim to hear in it.

First, Jesus gives him a direct command, “Stop sinning.” He does not tell him “Try not to sin.” I don’t want to make Jesus sound like a first century Yoda saying, “Do or do not. There is no try.” However, it is important to note that Jesus does tie sin to the man’s will. While it is true that we are sinful by nature and naturally drawn to rebel and resist God by every fiber of our being, there is still a very real action of the will, an exercise of choice, in the sins we commit or the sins we resist. When we sin, it is not possible for us to say—as some wrongly believe Calvinism would claim—that we are unable to resist this sin because it is determined. Our natures tempt us and fit us for rebellion, yet when we sin it is not an instinctive, unmindful event—for such there would be no condemnation. When we sin, we have chosen to sin, we have exercised our will in opposition to God. In the same way, we can exercise our will not to sin in a particular instance. To say we can exercise our will to never sin is something very different—and quite impossible. Yet, in any given instance, facing any particular temptation we can choose to resist—choose not to commit that particular sin. Believers, like all persons, have this possibility; but we Christians are blessed with something more. We are blessed with the presence of the Holy Spirit, giving us the power and desire to resist. We are no longer forced to white-knuckle our way through temptation, but are changed within so that what once tempted us no longer does. This does not happen overnight, but grows through the process of sanctification. While this is underway, we will still find ourselves tempted by the same old sins and the same old flesh. During these times the Holy Spirit is present with us—enabling us to resist what once would have seemed irresistible. The thing to remember about this is that it cuts both ways. The Holy Spirit’s empowering us to resist temptation makes us even more culpable when we give in to temptation. When a Christian sins, we have not simply given in to our fallen natures and failed to resist, we have chosen to act in a way contrary to the change worked within us and to not only give in to sin, but to resist the Spirit.

The second statement made by Jesus in John 5:14, after “Stop sinning,” is a warning. Many have interpreted this to mean the man’s prior condition was because of sin. However, Jesus says no such thing. Attempts to tie all sickness and injury to personal sin, is an attempt to answer the age old “Problem of Evil” with an even bigger problem. The Problem of Evil asks, “If an all-powerful, all-knowing, good God exists and created the world, then why do evil things happen?” To say that these things happen because the person or persons experiencing them sinned is to over-simplify reality and to overlook the fact that much of the “evil” we experience is simply the result of natural processes at work. Besides, Jesus did not say, “Stop sinning or your paralysis might return.” He said sin could lead to something worse. The results of sin can be far worse than what he had suffered. Jesus is saying, “Stop sinning, because sin can have results far worse that being paralyzed for thirty-eight years.”

In chapter 6 of the gospel of John, Jesus miraculously feeds a crowd with five loves of barley bread and two fish. What fascinates me about this story is the very natural response of the people. According to verse 14, the people said, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world” (NIV). Verse 15 continues this thought by telling us Jesus knew they intended to make him king by force.

This interchange is important in many ways. First of all, it impacts our view of the people to whom Jesus came. To say that Israel somehow failed by rejecting her Messiah, is to forget that Israel was never meant to accept her Messiah. Jesus intentionally made sure they did not and would not accept him. When they got ready to crown him he would withdraw. When they got comfortable with him, he would offend them. When they expressed their offense at him, rather than apologizing, his words were more barbed and intended for greater offense. Jesus apparently had never read How to Win Friends and Influence People. When they were ready to make him king, because they are sure he is the Messiah, he withdraws from them. However, this is not what most intrigues me about this passage.

They believe he is the prophet because he miraculously fed them. If he is made king he can continue to provide them with food. Hungry people do anything to be filled. Hungry people will follow anyone who promises them bread. They will even start a revolution to satisfy their hunger. They see in Jesus, not a Messiah who will save them from sin, but a king who will save them from hunger. Such a king can make it possible for everyone to be fed. No one would starve, or even have to earn their bread. Such a king not only meets the needs of the hungry, but fulfills the desires of the lazy. A common rule of economics is that of the “Free Rider.” Mankind always does the least necessary. Any person who can benefit without any effort will do so. This is a major problem facing welfare programs throughout history—they too often overlook this economic fact. If a person will eat the same with effort as they will without effort it is natural to simply take what is given and avoid the effort. Most of these programs subsidize laziness and punish hard work, by taking from the one who works hard and giving to the one who will not. Here we see Jesus facing his own “free rider” problem. These people do not want to be saved or even to serve him. They want him to serve them and to do so in a very specific way—through the giving of bread. Later, in the same chapter of John, we see this again. When Jesus makes claims about himself (claims they had previously entertained themselves), they ask him for a sign in a not very subtle way, “What miraculous sing then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?” They continue with a not too subtle recommendation: “Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’” (John 6:30f NIV). We can paraphrase this with: “What can you do to prove you are who you claim to be? Oh, here’s an idea! Give us bread and we’ll believe in you.” Not only does Jesus refuse to be baited, but he actually goes out of his way to offend them. He says that rather than giving them bread, he is the bread they need. When this does exactly what it is supposed to do, he doubles down and continues by saying, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world” (John 6:51 NIV). Shortly after this, most of those who had wanted to make him king when being fed rejected him when he refused to play along.

Jesus is not some heavenly slot machine—pull the handle and a prize comes out. Jesus is the lord of heaven and earth, the king of the universe. He does not need our belief and neither does he need us to concur with his choice of action or direction. He will choose and we will live with his choice. He will act and we will experience his action. He will decide and we can only follow.

When I watch a movie, I am looking for the philosophy and worldview being demonstrated. One movie that I loved was The Grey with Liam Neeson. Since I have spent years discussing and studying the philosophical Problem of Evil, I love when Neeson’s character is lying on the bank of a stream, wolves coming quickly as he looks into the sky, and calls on God to take action. What I love most, is that God does nothing. Many have gotten to their own version of this, promising to believe, to change, to be better, etc., if only God will step in and act. Yet, when God does not act they take it as an indictment of faith. However, it is just at this point, when He chooses not to act, that God most demonstrates His divinity and sovereignty. If God is at your beck and call, ready to provide the miracles you need to rescue you from your own life and your own choices or circumstances then He is reduced, and you have become God. This cry of “God if you will do (fill in the blank) then I will do (fill in the blank) for you,” is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate God. A god that can be manipulated is not worthy of worship.

Jesus chose not to be manipulated by the crowd offering am earthly crown. He chose to follow the divine plan, leading to a divine crown—a plan that required rejection and crucifixion.

Romans 16:20 is a well read, and often quoted passage of scripture. “The God of Peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (NIV). It has brought comfort to those suffering in an assortment of situations. Inspiring those facing persecution, it assures us that the world—as we currently experience it—is not eternal, but will someday be restored by God.

Don’t just stop at the surface, but notice a few things about the passage. The ‘soon’ is not stressed in the original, but is placed at the end of the sentence. The important thing about this passage is not the time frame, but the certainty with which it will come to pass: The God of peace will do it. Notice that the active agent, the one doing the crushing is God. We do not crush Satan on our own. No Christian government will organize the power of the state to crush Satan. None of these things can be done. Yet, God, the god of the universe, has the power to crush Satan. The assurance of this is found in the person, the very being, of God. Satan will be crushed by God and we can know this will happen because peace comes through the destruction of Satan so this is what the God of peace does. You can count on it. You can take it to the bank that God will crush Satan.

But don’t stop there. Yes, God will crush Satan. It is promised, and like all promises of God, it is a necessary truth—nothing will stop it and no universe can exist in which it will not be fulfilled because there are no sets of circumstances that would keep it from being fulfilled. It will be fulfilled because it is God’s nature to fulfill it. Yet, the passage does not stop there, so don’t you either. It says God will crush Satan, but goes further. God will crush Satan “under your feet.” You and I have an active part in crushing Satan. No, we do not share in the action of crushing—we do not crush alongside God’s crushing. The crushing of Satan is purely God’s action. However, the place to which he will be crushed is beneath us. In other words he will be crushed until he is as insignificant to our lives as the dust under our feet. Yet, there is another dimension to this crushing. Our feet are a tool used by God in crushing the enemy. God crushes Satan, using our ‘feet’ to crush him, doing so until Satan lies powerless beneath us. We are not only a secondary part of the plan to overthrow the kingdom of Satan. We are an essential element; the tool God uses; the ordained instrument of divine purpose.

However, we need to understand what he means by crushing Satan, and how this applies in the world. The context of the passage itself helps us understand what is meant. Just before saying this, Paul warns them about those who cause divisions, those who teach heresy. He describes them as driven by their appetites. He finishes that part by saying he has heard of their obedience and is proud, but wants them to be wise about good and innocent about evil (Rom 16:19). It is this context in which Paul writes verse 20.

To crush Satan is to overcoming him in the life of the believer. It is not a command to rule the world or a plan to set up a Theocracy under the velvet-wrapped Iron-fist of the Church. Romans 16:20 is a promise of victory, not over a physical world system—though that will happen—but victory in our own hearts; victory over temptation, divisiveness and heresy. It is a sanctifying promise. Yes, those facing persecution from without can rest in the fact that God will someday overthrow the world system and free his people from the grip of the Evil One’s minions. But this passage is promising something much more important and much closer to the heart of Christ’s disciples. It is promising deliverance from the very things that we struggle with so much—the evil within, the Satan inspired wickedness in our own hearts.

Today while reading in Acts 2 (preparing for this week’s sermon) I was struck by the words of Peter in Acts 2:24, “But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him” NIV. I was particularly struck by that last phrase, “it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.”

Sometimes you read a passage over and over, time after time, and it doesn’t really grab you. Another time you read it and it so grabs hold that you can’t think of anything else. This was my experience with this passage this morning. I find myself mulling over that phrase, “it was impossible.”” Impossible,” of course, means “not possible.” Something impossible is not just improbable (probably will not happen), but in no way is it possible (cannot happen). One reason this so resounds with me is that, in the rules of logic, when something is not possible it is the same as saying, “If A is not possible then it is necessary that not A.” Necessary and possible are two very important words in philosophy, especially in metaphysics and ontology (the study of existence). If something exists necessarily then it would exist no matter what other circumstances occur or do not occur. In the same way, if an event occurs necessarily then it happens no matter what other things do or do not occur. Such an event needs no causes; needs no catalysts. By saying it was impossible for death to keep its hold on Jesus, Peter is saying that it was necessary that Jesus rise (it was necessary that death not keep its hold on him). In this case, this is not only a soteriological point, like the very true statement, “it was necessary for Jesus to rise for us to be saved.” Instead, this is saying there was no way, no possible set of circumstances, no possible world in which Jesus would not have risen from the dead, because there was no possibility of death keeping hold of him. Jesus’ resurrection was not a response to circumstances surrounding his death or even his life. Jesus resurrection was because of who he was and who he still is. Jesus’ resurrection was not just one of several possible scenarios—stay in the grave, come out of the grave physically, come back only spiritually. His resurrection was the only possibility.

“Where was God in this tragedy?” This question comes up quickly, even among those who, before the tragedy, gave no thought to God. “Where was God? Why didn’t God do something?” As I monitor the news of the Boston Marathon bombing, I wonder, “Why do we demand God show himself before the tragedy but ignore the demonstration of God during the tragedy?”

After a bombing, a school shooting, 9/11, or after a major storm, we see God walking in the midst of the tragedy and suffering. We see Him in First Responders running into danger to save others. We see Him in the sacrifice of life, treasure and comfort for the benefit of others. We see God when a stranger drags or carries another out of danger; when volunteers gather to comfort and aid the victims; when donations are given by those who can’t be there; when hearts break over scenes of death, blood and brutality. Where is God in tragedy? Open your eyes and look. He is right there. He is holding the victims, and strengthening the helpers.

John 3: 23-30 records an incident in the life of John the Baptizer. His disciples get into an argument with some Jews (v25) about baptism and then report to John that Jesus, whom John had previously baptized, “is baptizing, and everyone is going to him”(NIV). Most likely the argument was over whether one needed to be baptized by John or by Jesus and this triggered the complaint. John does not respond the way they expected though. He tells them, “If this is true, heaven has determined it to be so and fighting it is futile” (my paraphrase). He goes on to point out, “You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but am sent ahead of him’” (NIV).

I find John’s disciples interesting and see in them something very common to humanity and especially common in today’s church. John was sent, not to save mankind, nor to redeem the world; but, to “make straight the way,” to prepare people for the one who was coming—Jesus. He was the forerunner, not the Messiah. We see that he gathered disciples. Such followers are students who travel with a teacher in order to learn and emulate the teacher. There are some details we see about the disciples themselves (John’s disciples). First, at least some of them were there when he pointed to Jesus as “the Lamb of God” (John 1:36). Second, others would have been there when Jesus was baptized and John testified to seeing the dove alight upon him, marking him out as the Messiah. Third, that the disciples know Jesus is demonstrated when they were sent by John from prison to ask Jesus (Matthew 11:3 NIV), “Are you the one, or should we expect another?” They received Jesus’ confirming message indicating he was indeed the Messiah. Fourth, disciples of John apparently scattered to other areas after the death of their master. Fifth, after many years, disciples of John are observed in the scripture record—we see Paul meet several in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) around the year 55 AD.

These details bring a question to mind, “After Jesus was baptized and pointed out by John, why didn’t all his disciples leave and go to Jesus?” Remember that some did just this. The likely answer is, of course, loyalty. This is not hard to see and is something quite commendable. Also, one can imagine that John still needed disciples since he was still preaching and baptizing. Of course his message had changed from, “The Messiah is coming,” to, “the Messiah has come.” They could have traveled with him to help with this last phase of John’s ministry. Then when John was in prison they stayed near out of love for their imprisoned Rabbi. They would have cared for him in prison and relayed messages for him—as we see them doing. These things are not problematic and neither are they confusing. They are, once again, commendable. However, my question is raised after the death of John. Once he was dead wouldn’t the highest loyalty to John’s message be going to join the band of Jesus’ followers? Why didn’t they go to Jesus? Why do John’s disciples simply disappear until some pop up in Ephesus, years later?

There are a couple possibilities. One, they could have simply not believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Remember, even John had doubts since Jesus was not doing the things they expected a Messiah to do. However, this would be a problem. It would mean their Rabbi failed in his mission—or at least its fulfillment was yet to be realized. Perhaps they believed John started preparing the way of the Messiah and they were to continue doing so, and eventually a better Messiah than Jesus would come—the militant Messiah that all Pharisaic Jews expected. Two, perhaps they were just so satisfied with the message of John and their history with him that they had no desire to go further and actually follow Jesus. They were happier living in the glory of the past, than in trying to build a glorious future. You can almost hear them, “Remember when we had so many disciples? Remember when everyone was coming to us? Remember when Rabbi John said…”

It is this last possibility that bothers me and that I see too common in today’s church. Many churches have stopped following Jesus and are simply glorying in the memories of a time when they did follow Jesus. They speak of old successful times and lament their passing. They long for olden days—for memories often distorted by the years. Many churches have stopped following the Messiah. Rather than following him where he has gone today, they bemoan the changes, curse the passage of time and insist on acting out a time that has long passed.

What do I mean by this? We hold onto programs, institutions and organizations that may no longer be effective. We imagine that these things, instituted by men seeking to follow Christ, are themselves mandatory and essential. “Heaven may fall if we replace what did work then with what does work today.” We forget that the situations that made those things successful in their day are gone and there are new situations needing new ways of reaching out. There are new tools available, new programs, new methods. Why should we drop the old and adopt the new? We should do it because it is exactly what Jesus did. He said things and used methods fit to the time in which he came. He did not insist on speaking in Hebrew, he would have spoken the common Aramaic. The New Testament wasn’t written in Hebrew or even Classical Greek, but in the common Koine Greek of the masses. He has called us to do no less. We are not called in 2013 to reach America of the 1950’s or the 1980’s. We are called to reach our people, in our time, within our culture and with our technology.

Refusing to deliver the message in a way that takes into account the times in which we live, is not “standing for the essentials of the faith.” The essentials are timeless and universal—sin is sin and no modern reinterpretation can change it or offer another solution than that offered by Jesus. However, the essentials can be packaged and delivered in many ways. When we refuse to use what works today, we confuse the message with the platform. We serve what was supposed to serve us. When we hold onto something that no longer works, that no longer has anything to do with spreading the message, then we honor something other than Jesus. We have traded the living Lord for a dead Rabbi.

A central duty of Christianity is speaking to others about Christ and about their spiritual condition. Inevitably one comes upon the confirmed skeptic who rejects Christianity for reasons he or she considers rational. If you spend any time with them you will find this often breeds a hubris that causes them to discount twenty centuries of skepticism. They seem to believe that the problems they see in our faith have never been seen by anyone before. Solomon was right when he said, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” –Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV

Modern skeptics seem to believe no one in the past, at least in ancient times, ever questioned anything. They seem to think that in the first century if someone said, “Hey, [insert name here] rose from the dead,” everyone else would simply uncritically accept it. However, this is far from the actual situation. The New Testament authors go out of their way to show the skepticism with which the message was received—from Thomas in the upper room, the crowd on Mar’s Hill and on through Agrippa. Today’s skeptics forget that Aristotle compiled his observations on logic and reason, they so fondly wield against Christianity, several centuries before the life of Christ. For centuries people have come up with arguments against Christianity, others have responded to these arguments–using the same logical toolbox. Rather than answering the question for all time, the next generation comes up with the same tired argument to be answered all over again.

When I study scripture and come up with an idea or thought on a passage that seems new or unique I know the work has just begun. This is because the Christian scriptures have been studied for almost two thousand years by some very intelligent scholars. The chances that I am going to come up with something no one else has ever seen are slim. When I get new concepts from scripture I start asking myself several questions:

1. Has anyone else ever seen this?
2. Who was the person who saw it? Heretic? Orthodox? Skeptic?
3. Does this lead to, or sprout from, known errors?
4. Has this been attacked?
5. Upon what grounds has it been attacked?
6. Has this been refuted?
7. If so, by whom?

I would challenge those with arguments against Christianity to realize that if your argument is any good you will not be the first one to have come up with it. Find out if has been answered, and if so, has it been answered sufficiently. If not, why not?

Recently during a conversation on ethics at a local college, I agreed with the consensus that it is unjust to blame or punish a child for the sins or crimes of a parent. The students knew I was a local pastor, so one immediately interjected, “So you reject the doctrine of Original Sin?” This question demonstrates the errors often made about difficult biblical concepts. This young man assumed the doctrine said something drastically different from what it actually says. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding is shared by many, including some accepting the doctrine.

Punishing a person for actions of a parent is self-evidently wrong—requiring no justification, being based on a commonly held view of justice. Yes, there are societies where it is considered “just” to punish a child for the parent’s offenses. This does not mean “justice” is relative, it simply means some societies have twisted the definition of justice—in other words, their society is simply wrong.[1]

Before I go further, some, as one friend of mine did, will paraphrase Numbers 14:18 as, “The LORD [...] punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” This is a common way to see this passage, but it actually abuses the intent behind it. The full passage says:

“The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”

To understand this passage we must not simply look at the words “punishes the children for the sin of the fathers.” In the passage, God declares His intent to forgive sin and rebellion, and responds to a couple of common misconceptions about forgiveness. First, when counseled to forgive an offender many respond, “But if I forgive her, she’ll get away with it.” Loving forgiveness can be seen as too lenient and allowing injustice to go unpunished and uncorrected. A second misconception about forgiveness is that it makes sin painless. Could forgiveness lead someone to assume there is no cost for sin? Wouldn’t this encourage more, rather than less sin? The sinner, though forgiven, is not protected from the earthly results of sin. These will still be experienced by the forgiven sinner and even by his children or grandchildren. Remember, the Old Covenant revelation did not have a well-defined view of the afterlife. The faith God gave them was much more concerned with the here and now (or perhaps more accurately, “there and then”) of life in this world. When they spoke of divine punishment they did not think or consider banishment to Hell, they thought of bad things happening in this world—crop failures, attacks by enemies, enslavement, impoverishment. The Mosaic Law concentrated on how to live in this world, with repercussions for sin being experienced while still alive. Numbers 14:8 is saying, “Because I love you, when you sin I am quick to forgive, but the results of your sin will still fall upon you, your children and even your descendants to the third and fourth generation.” This is perfectly natural and correct. When I sin there are consequences. Though God has promised to forgive me, this does not mean He is going to divinely block or wipe away the results of what I did. These consequences are felt by me, my family and my descendants. For example, I have and still do experience many difficulties in life based on the sinful actions and choices of my father.[2] My children have also experienced problems that can easily be traced back to my father’s sins or to my own sins. My grandchildren may, likewise, experience difficulties as a result of these. Being forgiven does not mean escaping the results of sin. Sin still causes problems for me and mine, or you and yours, long after God has forgiven the sin. It is wise to shun sin, even when forgiveness is available, because our sins can impact far more lives than our own. This is the intent of Numbers 14:8.

The Doctrine of Original Sin is often taken (mistakenly) to mean I am declared guilty for the sin of Adam, my distant father. By this view, Adams sin was a debit against my account, so I am responsible not only for my own sins, but also for Adams. Though this is not the correct way to see Original Sin, some try to find support for it in Hebrews 7:9f, which says (NIV):

“One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of Abraham.”

Many misuse this passage to justify applying Adam’s sin to us today. The claim would be that just as Levi tithed to Melchizedek by being within the body of Abraham, we were in the body of Adam when he sinned we sinned as well. Funny thing is that such an argument, while far from accurate and very abusive of Hebrews 7:9f and of the Doctrine of Original Sin, at least gets one thing right—when Adam sinned, we sinned. We are not being held accountable for Adam’s sin in the garden, but for our own sin in the garden. Before coming back to this, let me point out some problems with this understanding of Hebrew 7:9. First, if this were supported by the passage wouldn’t it justify punishing children for the sins of their fathers so long as they were not conceived before the sin? While in seed form “within their father’s loins” they would be sinning right along with him. Such a view is ludicrous enough that further consideration is unneeded.[3] Besides, since Hebrews is speaking of a positive action rather than a sin, wouldn’t this mean we would also be credited with all the good, as well as the bad, of each and every ancestor? Second, this application of Hebrews 7 would leave us with no recourse to the sacrifice of Christ to wash away our sins. Under this scheme, we would have to be physical descendants of Christ in order to have our sins atoned for. Remember, the saving sacrifice of Christ is applied to us upon the same basis as the sin of the garden.[4] Finally, this interpretation of Hebrews 7 takes the passage far from its intended context. It actually speaks of the superiority of Melchizedek over Levi and through this the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the Levirate priesthood established in the Old Covenant. The purpose of this passage is to explain why the old priesthood had to be swept away by the new priesthood of Christ.[5]

The Doctrine of Original Sin does not say we are guilty and worthy of punishment for Adam’s sin. Original Sin means we are guilty of our own sin, including our original sin, the one we committed in the garden. Now I know many read that and balked. They’ll say, “But I wasn’t even in the garden! That happened long before I was born. How can I have sinned when I wasn’t even born?” Original Sin is found in the Federal view of the fall. When someone acts as my agent, my representative, they are empowered to take action in my name. In property and medical matters this is usually accomplished by way of a Power of Attorney. If I empower you to make my certain choices, any of those choices made on my behalf are recognized as my own choices. If I empower you to negotiate on my behalf with another person then your negotiation decisions are recognized as binding upon me. There is no difference in either case between decisions I make and decisions my agent makes. Adam was our representative in the garden. When he was tested, all of mankind was tested. Our representative chose, on our behalf, to sin; at that moment each and every one of us chose to sin. It is this sin for which we are responsible.

Many will question the agent or representative status of Adam. Perhaps you might say, “When I send out a representative I am responsible because I choose and empower that person to represent me. I never picked Adam to be my representative.” Actually, that was not needed. Even in our legal system we recognize that one incapable of acting on their own behalf can have a representative chosen for them. There are only three requirements:

1. The person chosen is capable of being my representative.
2. The person is chosen to act for my benefit.
3. The person choosing has the wisdom and right to make this choice.

For example, in a court of law, if you are deemed incapable of making your own decisions for your own benefit, the judge is empowered by the legal system to select a representative for you. In the test in the garden the perfect man—Adam—was chosen by the perfect judge—God—to represent us. Who would pick a better representative, me or God? As a fallible human being, capable of error, the chance of me picking a better representative than God is nil. Perfect God, incapable of error, chose to create a sinless representative to stand in for all of us in a special test. Unfortunately, Representative Adam failed the test and sinned. When he sinned as our representative we sinned. The only way you can call God’s choice of a representative unfair is if you would have chosen someone better than a perfect human, (but even perfect Adam failed, so your perfect choice would have also failed), or if you would have been better able to choose than perfect God.[6] You and I were properly represented in the garden and through our representative we sinned. The Doctrine of Original Sin means the original sin was our own.

There is good news from this. Original Sin is not the end of the discussion. The concept of agent, or representative, gives us the cure for our sin. God chose to actively eradicate the guilt of sin. To do this he chose another representative to stand in for mankind. This representative had none of his own sins—nothing of his own to pay for. He came and lived upon the earth as a perfect human. He went through temptations and triumphed. In the end he died upon a cross and rose from the dead. God applies his obedience to cover our disobedience. Christ has become our new soteriological representative. When we confess Christ his act of obedience becomes our act of obedience and our sins become his.

“God made him who had no sin to become sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” 2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV.

“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous,” Romans 5:19 NIV.

Notes:

1. If you are a social relativist, believing society determines morality and no self-evident truth exists, then this document is not going to make any sense to you.
2. My father died in 1998, and, since he confessed Christ prior to his death, I look forward to seeing him in heaven. However, this does not make the choices he made in life any less sinful or the results of them any less real. Yet, I don’t want the reader to think that this statement is an attack on my father. Honesty is honest. Teaching is best illustrated by the life of the teacher.
3. The Laugh Test is just as applicable to theology as to the rest of life. If you, as a believer, can’t repeat a doctrine without breaking into laughter you either misunderstand the doctrine or there is a problem with the doctrine.
4. 1 Corinthians 15:22; 45-49
5. When interpreting scripture be careful to keep to its context. The old saying is very true: “A text without context is a pretext.”
6. But to be better at choosing than God, you would have to be more perfect than God. Since perfect means completely without anything superior, how could you be more perfect God? How can you out perfect the perfect, since the perfect cannot be surpassed? If you were equally perfect to God, you would have chosen the same Adam to represent you—because what the perfect did choose is exactly what any perfect would choose.

“If God would only show himself I would be satisfied.” This seeking statement is quite ancient and easy to understand. Even Moses wanted to see God to counter his own nagging doubts. This desire for a visible god was mankind’s inspiration to create idols. The idols were usually not seen as the god themselves but as images of the god. Of course images were not quite what we think of today because many of the ancients believed the essential characteristics of the god dwelt in the image and control of the image gave people (the priests and worshippers) a certain amount of influence with the god represented. The line between portraying god and the god portrayed was blurred. Having an image of one’s god was very important. We even see Aaron try to give this to his people when upon revealing the golden calf he says, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of Egypt,” (Exodus 32:4 NIV). Aaron followed their request for an idol. He gave them an image and claimed it to be the image of the god who had brought them out of Egypt—it appears he was trying to portray YHWH. By making an idol they would have a representation of the frightening invisible God—an image that might, from their perspective, give them a way to influence Him.

Paul tells us in Romans 1:23 that man very quickly exchanged the worship of the true God in favor of images of humans and animals. It is natural for man to want to see God and if God will not present himself then in our fallen state we will try to make an image of Him or even one in opposition to Him. In doing this we overlook the image God already gave us to interact with. Through our treatment of this image we actually please or displease God, whom this image represents. As I say this, most will be reminded of Jesus, of whom scripture says, “He is the image of the invisible God,” (Colossians 1:15a NIV). While this is true and very important to remember, there is another image given by God that has been available all along.

Scripture teaches us that man is made in the image of God. This was stated in the very beginning of the creation story. When Moses said man was made in God’s image the ancients would have understood what this meant—or at least should have. God was ordaining mankind as the image of himself set upon the earth. This underlies the command to Noah concerning the treatment of killers, “for in the image of God has God made man,” (Genesis 9:6 NIV). God made an image of himself. While the perfect expression of that image was Christ Jesus, the image of God nonetheless is seen in the face of every person you come into contact with. One reason idols were so offensive to God was because those who were supposed to be His image were twisting that image into replacements for Him.

The image and the object were so morally intertwined that action towards one was action towards the other. When you look at your fellow man you are looking at the image of God. Blessing him blesses Him (capital differentiates the divine “Him” from the human “him”). Cursing him curses Him. Honoring him honors Him. Interaction with our fellow persons is interaction with the image of the God who created us both. How we treat this image is how we treat God. Such questions as, “Is there a God?” or, “What are divine attributes?” are not the only ones central to our faith. We must also ask, “How must I treat those around me?”

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8 NIV). Notice that the first two define our treatment of one another. The third includes the first two. Proper devotion to God includes our treatment of the image he gave of himself—each other.

In my devotional reading I have been going through Galatians—a book very deep and interesting. In Galatians 6 there is a well-known section that some see as self-contradictory. I must admit, when simply skimmed, it causes one to double-take and ask, “Paul, what are you saying here?” This is Galatians 6:1-5. In 6:2 Paul commands, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (NIV). Then in 6:5 he says, “For each should carry his own load” (NIV). So which is it? Are we to carry each other’s burdens or carry our own? Interestingly, the answer is “yes and yes” (Sorry, but years of studying philosophy lead one to give answers like this). What appears to be a contradiction is easily explained and will be useful to show one of the most basic rules of Biblical interpretation.

It is natural to wonder if an answer can be found in the original language. The problem is that both Greek terms are, according to Verbrugge, used interchangeably. But this does help us understand a bit of what is happening. I find it interesting that in such a construction Paul chose to use two words that mean ultimately the same thing instead of just using the same word twice. He seems to want to trigger a sense of difference.

Just as important as word choice is the surrounding context of each usage. This is actually where we will find our answer. We forget that one word can have different meanings according to how and where it is used. This causes a common error in reasoning known as equivocation where a term is used two different ways in an argument without taking into account the differences in usage. One famous example that will help you to see this is:

• Premise 1: Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
• Premise 2: A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
• Conclusion: A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

In the example the word “nothing” has two different meanings. In Galatians 6:1-5, we have two different “loads” being discussed. One must be shared; the other, borne by the individual.

The first burden spoken about is the burden of a sinning brother or sister. In this case we are to lovingly lift them up and restore the sinner. Doing this, sharing this burden of sin and guilt, fulfills the law of Christ (6:1f). The second burden is the burden of our service for God (6:3-5). We are to judge our actions and self honestly, without comparison to the work of another. In this way we bear our own burden and not that of another.

To illustrate the second burden, look at something that is very common among pastors. When two pastors get together there are two things they want to know about each other before anything else is discussed. One, “How many people attend your church?” Two, “How many people can your church building hold?” We hear those numbers and do “holy math” to figure out who has the bigger church and is therefore the alpha dog. I see this as the pastoral version of two dogs sniffing each other. Often we determine our own success or failure by how our ministry compares to the ministry of another pastor. This is wrong though because I am responsible to bear my own burden and not his.

When interpreting scripture context is king! An old adage that I like is, “A text without a context is a pretext.” Words alone give little details of meaning; the complete picture is painted by the context.