The Good News of Psalm 110: An Easter Sermon

If you follow me on social media you’ll note that I frequently promote what I’m reading, watching, and listening to. I love to talk about my favorites. My favorite music albums? Abbey Road, by The Beatles; London Town, by Paul McCartney; Tommy, by The Who. My favorite films? Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. My favorite books? The Alice books, by Lewis Carroll; Hamlet, by William Shakespeare; The Lion, the Witch, the Wardrobe, by C.S. Lewis.

Did you ever wonder which books of the bible were Jesus’ favorites? If we based it on the books he references the most, they would be Exodus, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and the Psalms. When Jesus wanted to explain who he was, what he was doing, and what the gospel meant, these are books he most often mentioned. In terms of passages, Jesus’ favorite would be Psalm 110. In fact, Psalm 110 is the most quoted and referenced passage in the entire New Testament. You can find it in the following places:  Matthew 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42,43; 22:69; Acts 2:34-35; 5:30-31 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; 1 Corinthians 15:24-25; Ephesians 1:20, 22; 2:6; Colossians 3:1Hebrews 1:3, 13; 5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21; 8:1; 10:12, 13; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:21-22; Revelations 3:21.

Given its frequency you might expect that Jesus and the New Testament writers believed that this particular psalm was quite important to their understanding of what God was doing in and through Jesus. Consider the passage:

The LORD says to my Lord:

“Sit at My right hand

Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,

“Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”

Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;

In holy array, from the womb of the dawn,

Your youth are to You as the dew.

The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,

“You are a priest forever

According to the order of Melchizedek.” The Lord is at Your right hand;

He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations,

He will fill them with corpses,

He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside;

Therefore He will lift up His head.

The Hebrew wording of the psalm is difficult, and its metaphors are multi-layered and complex. Like with most foreign language poetry, different scholars will translate it different ways depending on what they think is most essential to the point of poem. It is generally identified as a royal psalm, dealing with the king of Israel, and has affinities with Psalm 2. It seems to be written in celebration of a king’s military victory over foreign enemies. It is either a psalm written by David, written about David, or written in the style David wrote psalms. David, of course, was well-known for being a musician and wrote psalms. There is no reason why he couldn’t have written this particular one.

Regardless, the subject of the psalm is a kingly figure who has been given a place of honor by being enthroned spiritually close to God. In the ancient near east, it was a common idea that the king of a people would be seated next to their invisible god. Furthermore, it was also a common metaphor that a king’s foreign enemies would be made a footstool in defeat, showing the king’s power. In this psalm, the god Yahweh himself is the forger of the king’s power, he is the God of Jerusalem and the king’s power extends from that city, hammering the enemies. All the king’s authority is given by God, as well as life and youth. Interestingly, the king is also a priest, like Melchizedek, who reigns forever. The Lord will thus execute judgment upon the gentile nations and will be lifted above his enemies.

As you can see, there is a lot going on in this passage and much ambiguity. Later Jewish scholars wondered who the figure in the psalm was meant to be. There were various opinions. Naturally, David was a favored interpretation. Others thought it might refer to a king like David. Still others looked at the reference to Melchizedek from Genesis 14 and supposed the psalm was a reference to Abraham’s victory again his enemies in that chapter. Importantly, there was a significant strain of interpretation who speculated it might refer to a specific king, a coming king, who would rule like no other. They read this psalm in the light of 2 Samuel 7 about a promised king whose throne would last forever. They also combined it with Daniel 7 and the vision of a Son of Man who was given dominion over the world by God. So, looking at these passages and others, people in the first century CE began to speculate on whether they referred to the same figure – a coming king – and, if so, who he might be. The common interpretation was that it would be a coming king who would defeat Israel’s enemies.

The reference in Psalm 110 to Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is very unusual. It is the only other reference to this figure in all of the Old Testament. He is described as a pagan priest-king of El Elyon, or God Most High, who rules the city of Salem, which later became Jerusalem when the Israelites conquered Palestine. His name or title means “king of righteousness” and is a mysterious figure. In Genesis 14, Abraham has partnered with the kings of Sodom and other cities to defeat enemies and save Abraham’s nephew, Lot. After the coalition is victorious, Melchizedek honors Abraham, saying God Most High has made him victorious. Abraham eventually corrects things, noting that he worships Yahweh El Elyon, or the Lord God Most High. He then refuses to accept the gifts of the pagan king of Sodom, noting his oath to the Lord. Here Abraham shows quite an exemplary character. While he cooperates with pagan government powers for a specific task and shows toleration towards a pagan religion, he nevertheless never abandons his principles in doing so. In fact, he openly states the supremacy of his god, Yahweh. In this sense, he is quite like Daniel, who was forced into serving the kings of Babylon. He did so while never abandoning his religious beliefs or his understanding that there was only one god who he could worship. It is ironic then that Melchizedek lauds Abraham for his military victory over enemies (v. 20) while Psalm 110 is about an Israelite king’s victory over idolatrous pagan enemies.

When you get to the 1^st century CE, you have a Jewish nation being oppressed by pagan gentile enemies, the Romans. The people of God are longing for a king, a Messiah, who will defeat the enemy, liberate them from oppression, and set up an eternal rule. Enter Jesus.

Jesus appears on the scene and begins referring to himself as the Son of Man. Now this title could simply refer to a human being, but it could also refer to the figure of Daniel 7. Jesus then makes cryptic references to the identity of the Psalm 110 figure, identifying him with the coming Messiah (Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42,43). Then during his trial, Jesus triumphantly identifies himself as the Messiah, combining both Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:

“You shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69).

It was this declaration that sealed Jesus’ fate. Jesus was openly declaring himself to be the Messiah, the Christ, the King of the Jews, the one who God was giving dominion over the world, and the one who would subject enemies under his feet. It was because of this pronouncement that he was found guilty of being a false prophet and false Messiah and handed over to the pagan enemies. In the most shocking moment in history, Jesus is “coronated” by the Romans.

“Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole Roman cohort around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him. And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they knelt down before him and mocked him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ They spat on him, and took the reed and began to beat him on the head. After they had mocked him, they took the scarlet robe off him and put his own garments back on him, and led him away to crucify him” (Matthew 27:27-31; cf. Mark 15:16-20; John 19:1-5).

Intended by the Romans to be a macabre, mocking parody of the charge against Jesus, the soldiers dress him up as a king with robe, staff, and crown. They then put him on the cross and hang a sign above his head, “This is the king of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). In the most startling, scandalous, ironic event in human history, Jesus becomes King of the Jews and King of the world by being humiliated and executed on a Roman cross: the humiliating death device of the pagan enemy. This was his coronation and enthronement. When Jesus was resurrected it was then evident that God himself had reversed the verdict of the court. God himself had declared that, yes, Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ, the King of the Jews, the one who God was giving dominion over the world, and the one who would subject enemies under his feet. When Jesus stated that he should be understood in light of Psalm 110 and Daniel 7, God himself approved.

Therefore, in light of the resurrection and God’s vindication of Jesus’ claim, Peter, on the day of Pentecost, can proclaim to the crowds, that Jesus has been seated at the right hand of God and been made king over the world, citing Psalm 110 (Acts 2:33-36). Peter will cite this again in 5:30-31 and in 3:21-22 of his first letter. In 7:55-56 of Acts, Stephen will have a vision of this reality. Paul will apply Psalm 110 to Jesus in several of his letters (Romans 8:34; 1 Corinthians 15:24-25; Ephesians 1:20, 22; 2:6; Colossians 3:1). The author of Hebrews will cite 110 throughout his letter, explaining how Jesus is both king and priest like Melchizedek (Hebrews 1:3, 13; 5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21; 8:1; 10:12, 13; 12:2). But even when Psalm 110, Daniel 7, 2 Samuel 7, or other accompanying passages such as Zechariah 9, Malachi 3-4, and Isaiah 40-55, aren’t referenced explicitly, the idea that Jesus is king over the world permeates the New Testament witness.

First and foremost, the Gospel is the good news of the coming of the Kingdom of God with Jesus as its king (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Acts 8:12; 20:25; 28:31). It is the proclamation that God has enthroned Jesus as King of the world, following his death and resurrection. Having been made king over the world, all power and authority has been given to him (Matthew 28:18) and all powers and authorities have been subjected to him (Ephesians 1:20-22; Philippians 2:8-11; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Colossians 1:13; 2:10, 15; Jude 1:25; Revelation 2:26-27; 12:10; Matthew 9:8; 21:23; Mark 3:15; John 5:27; 17:2; Psalm 110). 1 Corinthians 15:24-27 is very explicit that Jesus will reign until he has put all things into final subjection. And, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 15, Ephesians, Philippians 2, the four Gospels, and 1 Peter, Christians are expected to take part in this process of subjecting the powers of the world to Christ’s Lordship. We are called to be faithful, Spirit-directed and Spirit-infused servants to bring idolatrous powers through sanctification and repentance back into allegiance of God’s leadership in Christ. In doing so, 1 Corinthians 15 also tells us that, in light of the Resurrection, the work Christians do in the Lord is not in vain (v. 58). God is using all our obedient work for the Kingdom purpose of bringing everything, all the corrupt powers, rulers, and institutions, into submissive obedience.

Indeed, in citing Psalm 110 in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul can refer to these powers, all these corrupt rulers and authorities, even death itself as the enemies. In Romans 5, Paul can go so far as to refer to sin and death as false rulers reigning and oppressing humanity. And that’s important. In light of Psalm 110, the enemies that Jesus defeated on the cross were sin, death, and the fallen powers that oppressing humanity. Now these oppressors were of humanity’s own making. We, through our sin, brought death into the world and corrupted the powers that govern humanity, imprisoning ourselves in cages of our own construction. Nevertheless, Jesus had to defeat sin, death, and powers to free humanity.

Again, the Jews of the first century were expecting a Christ who would defeat the pagan Roman enemies. Jesus shows up and says, “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27). Why? Though the Romans were indeed oppressors, Jesus understood that the real enemy was sin and evil, something deeper and more problematic than Rome itself. The same enemy that infected Roman oppressors also infected their victims. This is why Paul can say in Romans 1 and more specifically 3:23 that “all sinned and fell short of God’s glory.” Even more explicit, in Romans 5:10, Paul says that while we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God through Jesus’ death. We ourselves are enemies needing to be subjected to the rule and reign of Jesus. What it means to be a Christian is hearing the good news that Jesus is king and following him in faithfulness, trusting obedience, and allegiance to his rule. We turn away from our way of doing things, submit ourselves to his Lordship, and becoming obedient to his direction. And, as stated above, part of that obedience is bringing other individuals and the fallen institutions of the world, into obedience under Christ. We, who were once enemies, now enabled by the Spirit of Jesus, are to love, pray, suffer, and obey, in order to bring other enemies under Jesus’ rule. We are to volunteer freely in the day of his power as he rules in the midst of his enemies.

Now what does this mean for us?

First, we should be excited to share this. I myself have very few interests, but I am excitedly passionate about them. I want to talk about my favorite books, music, and films. I love discussing great restaurants and making great new recipes. At the same time, I’m even more passionate about the Gospel. It’s the solution! It’s the endgame! God is victorious in Jesus, and he is enacting that victory through his followers. The good news of the Gospel and the application of Psalm 110 to Jesus is the most important thing in the world. Yet, too often sin, delusion, and distraction has obscured and watered down this message in blindness, confusion, or a truncated message of personal escape from this world. We need to proclaim the good news of Jesus’ kingship with passion and excitement. This is the Easter victory.

Second, if we haven’t already done so, we should give our faithfulness, our trusting obedience, our allegiance to Jesus. If Jesus’ enthronement means anything, it definitely means that he is king over the world and no one else is; not Mohammed, not Moses, not Krishna, not Caesar, not anything else, including and especially ourselves. Everyone who wants to be saved or rescued from the powers of sin, death, and oppression, must show allegiance to Jesus (Acts 4:12). This is an exclusive claim that cannot yield to fashionable pluralism. While believers, like Abraham and Daniel, can be tolerant towards and even cooperative with other religions and governments, ultimately it is the unescapable and primary conviction of Christianity that all other religions are false and that all government must show allegiance to Jesus. If you haven’t already done so, give your allegiance to Jesus in the strong conviction of following him and his teachings in obedience.

Third, while it’s essential to show allegiance to Jesus and become an obedient follower of his teachings, we should fulfill our spirit-empowered mission of bringing the people and powers of this world in allegiance to Christ. On the one hand, this is about making followers of people and teaching them to live moral and God-honoring lives according to Jesus. On the other hand, it is about bringing power and institutions under the control of Jesus. It is about engaging the powers by fighting against violence, oppression, racism, sexism, poverty, economic injustice, expansive government, inequality before the law, privilege, nepotism, idolatry, abuse, inhumane treatment, abortion on demand, illness, illiberalism, environmental damage, and lies. Sin is both personal and societal and it must ultimately be brought to subjection under the feet of Christ so that the world might be reconciled to God.

Finally, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:58, in light of the resurrection of Jesus and his victory, we should understand that our participation in that ultimate victory means that what we do now in obedience to him is not done in vain. It is not worthless. It is not an empty whistling into the wind. Our work in Jesus matters; it has eternal significance. When we witness to someone, when we share the good news of Jesus, when we fight against injustice, when we help the poor and needy, when we engage the powers by using the Kingdom methods of love, forgiveness, submission, servanthood, suffering, sacrifice, and turn-the-other-cheek justice, God is using all that work for his purposes in Jesus. We just have to be prayerfully obedient to his direction on the best ways to act.

This is why we celebrate Easter. This is why the first disciples were so excited. This is why they gave up everything, threw fear of death and persecution to the wind, and told everyone what God had done. This is what drove Paul of Tarsus back to the Old Testament Scriptures to reexamine Psalm 110, Daniel 7 and the other passages to see how God had been faithful to his promises to defeat sin and death and had done so in Jesus. The resurrection proved it! That’s Easter.

Did Jesus Intend to Grab People's Attention When He Taught?

I was recently asked the following question:

“Can you show me with chapter and verse where the intent of those acts [i.e., the miracles and parables of Jesus] was to grab attention?”

The context of this question comes in response to my rugged defense of Ed Young’s ministerial and preaching methodology. I will explain later why I believe such a defense is important. Nevertheless, in brief, my defense is in response to accusations that Young’s methodology is unbiblical. As I’ve shown over many years, Young’s approach is highly and fundamentally biblical. Significantly, accusers never counter my argument of the biblical evidence with their own evidence from Scripture. Indeed, theirs is a silent and begrudging admission that my argument is sound and that Young’s methodology is biblical. Rather, the response is an unspoken “okay, yes, Young’s approach is technically biblical,” followed by a spoken, “but Young is doing it for unbiblical reasons.” When I’ve countered with evidence from Young’s books and his interviews about his stated biblical reasons for what he is doing, the accusers respond by either stubbornly refusing to look at the evidence or stating that Young doesn’t mean it. Both responses are implicit accusations that Young is lying about his intended rationale, but both come from individuals who were previously ignorant of the biblical foundation of Young’s methodology. Thus, the mentality of the accusers runs as follows: “I don’t care what the Bible says, or what Young’s stated intentions are, or what the results are; Young is wrong.” I shall get to the subject of Young’s results later.

Nevertheless, the above question intrigued me, and I felt it deserved a more thorough response. It’s a good question. If Young’s stated approach is to grab people’s attention in order to preach the gospel, and if, as I maintain, this is a biblical approach used by Jesus, what is the evidence for it? Now assuming that the above question is hypothetical, in order to maintain there is no evidence of intent, you have to argue that either Jesus was a poor preacher (an ineffective communicator) or that he didn’t know what he was doing.

First, every preacher, every teacher, every prophet, every speaker, tries to grab the attention of his or her audience in order to communicate. That’s the entire point. And to do so you use examples, you use illustrations, you use a plethora of rhetorical devices at your disposal to get people to see and hear the meaning you’re trying to communicate. Jesus used numerous rhetorical devices:  chiasm (Matthew 19:30), allusion (John 8:58), hyperbole (Mark 9:43), paradox (Matthew 16:25), parallelism (Matthew 7:7-8), simile (Matthew 28:3), typology (John 3:14-15), wordplay (Matthew 16:18), and many others so that people would see and hear what he was saying. Seeing and hearing. That’s the key. For preachers, it’s about communicating the truth of the gospel with the specific intent of creating two results. The first result is repentance. The second result ... we will come to later. Both require grabbing people’s attention so that they will see and hear. And here is the point: Nobody thinks that Jesus wasn’t a masterful communicator. Everyone, including the hardest liberal scholars who believe most of the Gospels were made up, still believe that Jesus was a master communicator who was able to grip his audience’s attention and transform their thinking by his words, parables, and symbolic actions. As David Wenham notes:

“Anyone can devise banal and/or inappropriate sermon illustrations. Jesus' parables are consistently appropriate and powerful, capturing the listeners' attention and then bringing them face to face with some aspect of his message which would be far less effectively communicated through non-pictorial language. Sometimes the power of the parable lies simply in the use of a thought-provoking analogy, such as that of the new wine in the old wineskins. Sometimes it is in the unusual twist and challenge that a story contains, as in the parable of the good Samaritan, which has particular biting force because it is a Samaritan, a religious and social outcast, who is the kind hero, or in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, who work for different periods of time but all receive the same wage. Sometimes the story is one that stimulates thought and leaves people to make their own connections, as with the parable of the prodigal son, with its powerful portrayal of the runaway son, the loving father and the righteous elder brother.” (The Parables of Jesus, pp. 13-14)

So, based on an examination of Jesus’ teaching and preaching methodology, what was the result?

Matthew 4:24-25; 7:28; 8:1; 9:35-36; 12:14, 23, 46; 13:2, 34, 36, 54: 14:2, 13-23, 35; 15:10, 30-39, 17:14; 19:2, 25; 20:29, 31; 21:8-11, 12-16, 23, 45-46; 22:22, 33-34; 23:1; Mark 1:21-28, 33, 45; 2:1-2, 12-13; 3:7-10, 20, 32; 4:1-2, 26; 5:14-16, 20-21, 24, 31; 6:14, 33-34, 45, 53-56; 7:14, 17, 24, 33, 37; 8:1-2, 6, 9, 11, 34; 9:14-15, 25; 10:13, 17, 26, 32, 46; 11:8-11, 15-18, 27-28; 12:12, 37; Luke 4:28-29, 32, 36-37, 40-43; 5:1-3, 15-19, 26, 29; 6:17-19; 7:11, 16-18; 8:4, 19, 34-40, 42, 45; 9:7, 11-12; 11:14, 27, 29; 12:1, 13, 54; 13:17, 31; 14:1, 25; 15:1; 18:15, 36-41; 19:4, 37-38, 48; 20:45; John 2:2; 3:1-2, 26; 4:1, 30, 39-42, 53; 5:16; 6:2, 5, 14, 22-24; 7:12, 15, 31-32, 40-46; 8:30, 59; 9:11-34; 10:19, 24, 31, 39, 41-42; 11:45-57; 12:9-19, 29, 34.

The Scriptural evidence is that Jesus’ teaching and preaching methodology resulted in people’s attention being grabbed. I would submit that Jesus was an effective communicator who had the ability to cause people to see and hear what he was saying.

Second, even if Jesus was an effective communicator who grabbed people’s attention, was it his intent to do so? Perhaps he wasn’t intentional about his approach. Perhaps he wasn’t trying to get people’s attention when he proclaimed the Gospel. Perhaps God-incarnate didn’t know what he was doing when he employed a specific methodology that resulted in people’s attention being grabbed. In truth, even hardcore liberal scholars who deny Jesus’ deity believe he intentionally employed his methodology to grab people’s attention so that he might effectively communicate. Indeed, Jesus himself said he did what he did so that people might believe (John 10:37-38). Elsewhere, Jesus pointed to his actions as evidence for his Messiahship (Matthew 11:2-5; Luke 7:22; John 2:11; 14:11; Acts 2:22). Importantly, in the Gospels, those who believe the gospel are said to see and hear. Those who do not are said to be blind and deaf. Seeing and hearing.

Therefore, we come to Jesus’ stated intention for why he taught in parables:

“Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;

You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;

For the heart of this people has become dull,

With their ears they scarcely hear,

And they have closed their eyes,

Otherwise they would see with their eyes,

Hear with their ears,

And understand with their heart and return,

And I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (Matthew 13:10-17)

So, Jesus states that his intention is to grab people’s attention with his parables for two results: first, so that they may see and hear, and second so that others may not. What were the results of his intention? First, many people saw, heard, believed, and repented. Second, many people refused to listen, refused to hear, refused to believe, and refused to repent. Indeed, when the latter group saw the ministry success Jesus was having, they resented it. They got mad when people’s lives were changed (Matthew 12:13-14; 21:15-6; Mark 3:6; Luke 5:21; 6:11; 13:14; John 5:16). They publicly claimed that God could not be behind the success of Jesus’ ministry and blasphemed the Holy Spirit in the process (Matthew 12:24-37; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 11:15-20; John 7:20; 10:19-21). All Jesus could do was weep (Matthew 11:20–24). In truth, the spiritually blind and the spiritually deaf didn’t like how Jesus was achieving his ministerial success and so rejected the legitimacy of his results.

Now I attended Fellowship Church for a number of years. I served in their ministries and went through their New Member’s Class. I participated in their Small Groups. I got to know and became friends with their pastors and staff. I’ve read Ed Young’s books. I’ve read interviews where he explains his methodology and the Biblical basis for it. I’ve listened and seen countless numbers of his sermons. The Spirit spoke to me in a very clear and decisive way through one of his sermons. I’ve attended numerous baptisms at Fellowship. I’ve heard numerous sermons on repentance and seen numerous people repent. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Yet, the accusers haven’t seen or heard. Indeed, they refuse to do so. They claim either that they don’t need to know the reason for Young’s methodology or that he is lying about his intentions for employing it. They look at the results of Fellowship Church’s ministry (2,000 baptisms a year) and claim it is illegitimate and, therefore, not from God. What is more, the hate of Ed Young is now so blind, that in order to delegitimize the success of his methodology, some are having to result to questioning whether Jesus actually knew what he was doing when he used similar methods.

Now why is this important?

There is nothing wrong with critiquing someone’s theology or methodology. I do so myself. See here, here, and here. Yet, if one is going to do so, 1) you better have adequate knowledge to do so, and 2) you better not blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the process.

In truth, my defense of Ed Young’s methodology is not a defense of Ed Young himself. He doesn’t need defending. The spiritually blind and the spiritually deaf are not hampering the effectiveness of his ministry. Rather, I defend his methodology because I am absolutely dedicated to the Gospel and want to see the advance of the mission to evangelize, to disciple, and to subject the powers under Christ’s lordship. That’s the mission. That’s the goal. So when I see fellow Christians (not unbelievers!) denigrating a methodology that is actually achieving the goals of the Kingdom of God in a spectacular fashion, yes, I’m going to speak up for the Gospel. I want to see missional success in ministry, and I want others to use what is actually working to achieve that success. What I'm seeing is not honest critique from knowledgeable individuals, but Christian leaders wallowing in their ignorance and ministerial failure with mockery while claiming the results of God’s work is invalid. Such behavior would be more shocking if it wasn’t so common. People forget how much many fundamentalist and fundamentalist leaders despised Billy Graham and his ministerial success. They accused him of worldliness, ecumenicalism, universalism, and being popular. They looked at how he was respected by the world, how he was able draw large crowds, how was able to grab people’s attention with his methodology, how we was able to evangelize thousands, and they claimed his work was illegitimate. They were blind and deaf to what God was doing.

So, yes, Jesus’ intent was to grab attention so that he could speak he truth (Matthew 13:10-17). He did so in order that people would either open their eyes in repentance or blind themselves to judgment.  

A Quick Diatribe

Over the past 5 years, the ministries which I lead reached almost 400 people for Christ - 396 conversions to be exact. That doesn’t include hundreds who made “re-dedications” and thousands who were discipled.

There were many factors that contributed to these successes for the Kingdom of God. Two of the most important was that I intentionally took the theology of N.T. Wright and applied it using the methodology of Ed Young.

Both Wright, Young, and those like them, with similar theologies and methodologies, have had tremendous and proven ministerial success for the Kingdom of God. But they are mocked and criticized. And not by the world, but by other Christians – mostly other Christian leaders.

Here’s the point: There are better theologies and better methodologies out there that are having tremendous, proven success for the Kingdom of God, yet Christian leaders are opening rejecting and ridiculing them and their practitioners.

At a time when the SBC is in a tremendous and predictable decline, ministers within it are publicly mocking the very ones who are actually producing the overwhelming bulk of the results.

It’s almost as if whatever’s motivating this criticism, mockery, and grumbling wants to discourage such success from occurring elsewhere. It’s almost as if Christian ministers are being unwittingly manipulated into hindering the Gospel. Funny that.

Creative Preaching: A Defense of Ed Young’s Methodology

Do you use sermon illustrations? Are they designed to draw people in to flesh out the biblical material, making it comprehensible? Do you ever use real world examples or illustrations drawn from culture?

I thought of these questions the other day while witnessing the latest round of criticisms aimed at Ed Young, senior pastor of Fellowship Church (FC), in Grapevine, TX. Fellowship started in 1989 as a mission of FBC Irving with 150 members. Today it is a multi-campus church with around 24,000 in weekly attendance. It is a highly contemporary church, known for its innovation, excellence in ministry, and creativity. Young himself has the reputation of being a “showman” – well-known for his onstage antics and what people refer to as publicity stunts. This week, he and FC posted pics and video on social media from the beginning of last week’s sermon series. In those posts, FC had constructed a full-sized basketball court in the sanctuary and had the mascots of the Dallas Mavericks performing trick slam-dunk stunts during the worship service. Traditionalists, discernment bloggers, and many Christian pastors and ministers stood aghast at the posted evidence of the spectacle, criticizing Young once again for his antics, and saying, “You’re supposed to go to church to worship God, not be entertained.”

In 2006, I was finishing up my education at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX, when my wife and I moved to Euless, just a few minutes away from FC. We had been visiting several churches in the immediate area when our new apartment manager invited us to attend Fellowship. We hadn’t considered a megachurch, but I knew of Young by reputation and the criticisms he received from seminary professors and students for the size of his church and his on-stage stunts. Nevertheless, we gave it a try and were thoroughly impressed. As a minister I was awed by the excellence and professionalism I witnessed. The worship was perfect, the sermons were engaging, the staff were tremendous, the volunteers were competent and well-organized. Everything was superb. Granted, my wife and I continued to explore other options, preferring to be where God wanted us to be. Nevertheless, we ultimately, strongly believed that this was Fellowship. So, we joined the church, took the best new members class ever, toured the facilities, and immediately volunteered to serve wherever they needed us. I served in the junior high ministry and, because of my seminary education, was asked to help write some of their in-house bible study materials. I served for a few years there, making friends with the staff and members, and learning all I could about effective ministry. I wanted to learn what they did, how they did it, and why. Most importantly, I really wanted to figure Ed Young out and uncover the underlining principles of his methodology.

In fact, understanding Young’s methodology was not difficult because he was so frequent in explaining it and because its evidence was everywhere: creativity and art. Creative art is everywhere at FC and in Young’s ministry. He himself has mentioned his artistic background and once painted a portrait of Jesus on stage as a sermon illustration. Note the titles of some of Young’s books:

The Creative Leader: Unleashing the Power of Your Creative Potential

Can We Do That?: 24 Innovative Practices That Will Change the Way You Do Church

The Creative Marriage - The Art of Keeping Your Love Alive

I own the first two books and have used them as ministerial resources for years.

Every year Fellowship Church holds the C3 Conference: Creative Church Culture. Early in the church’s existence, they met in an arts center. Furthermore, Young refers to his sermon preparation team as Team Creativity.

Here are some choice quotes from Young on creativity:

“I just feel so strongly that the church should be on the crest of creativity – that the most creative things out there should be the local churches. To me the exception should be when the church is not creative. But sadly, so often you find churches have somehow taken the Bible – the most exciting book – and made it boring. I tell people don’t blame God because God’s not boring. Blame the person speaking.”

“Creativity is not bouncing off the walls. It’s not gimmicky. It has to be biblically-driven. We’re not above the Bible or on the same level as the Bible. We’re under the Bible – we’re under scripture. So it has to be Biblically-driven. And I believe when its biblically-driven you’re going to find that sweet spot of communication.”

Here two more revealing quotes about the creative principles of Young’s methodology:

“God says create. Every time we do, it’s an act of love and worship to God. A lot of us get creativity cramps. We trade in creativity for dogma.”

“Why be creative? Because God invented it. Ephesians 5:1 calls Christians to be imitators of God. Jesus modeled creativity, using illustrations and stories to drive home a point.”

This last quote is of particular note for the purposes of this article. There is a very long biblical tradition of preachers throughout the Old and New Testaments performing stunning, sometimes provocative acts to seize audience attention and then hit them with the Word of God based on the acts underlining meaning. These are often referred to as sign-acts or symbolic actions, forms of communication in which a message was delivered by performing symbolic actions. As one person noted, “Sign acts are nonverbal actions and objects intentionally employed by the prophets so that message content was communicated through them to the audience” (Friebel, Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets). Therefore …

The prophet Ezekiel lays siege to a brick, tied with ropes (4:1-8), bakes bread over dung (4:12-17), shaves his head and strikes some of the hair with a sword (5:1-2), covers his face and digs through a wall (12:3-7), and performs several other shocking acts. The prophet Jeremiah shuns marriage (16:1-9), buys a clay jug and breaks it (19:1-13), wears an ox yoke (27-28), purchases a field (32:6–15), and offers wine to those forbidden to drink it (35:1–19). The prophet Isaiah gave his children odd, symbolic names (9-12) and preached naked (20:1-2). All these acts were performance-artist acts used as symbolic sermon illustrations. The act was followed by explanations of what they meant. Similarly, Jesus himself performed many symbolic acts designed to illustrate a deeper meaning: feeding 5000 people, withering a fig tree, riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, washing feet, and clearing the Temple. All these acts were provocative, creative illustrations designed to draw in and audience and then drive home a particular biblical point. Again, this method of communication has a long biblical history, even in the church. Therefore ...

Ed Young does a bed-in with his wife on the roof of the church and uses a Big Bed vs Little Bed on stage to talk about sex issues. He brings a sheep on stage while preaching on the 23rd Psalm. He brings in WWE wrestlers to talk about “wrestling with God”. He brings a real lion and a real lamb on stage, he drives a car on stage, he brings on a door, he chops up cantaloupes, he paints a portrait of Jesus on stage … and then there was the week of “congregational copulation”. On another occasion, a crew filmed him ordering a meal at McDonald’s. Young compared that to “drive-through Christians” who cruise through church for a quick serving of grace but who never commit to serve. Such creative acts are part and parcel to Young’s methodology. He draws people’s attention in with an entertaining, bizarre stunt, which turns out to be an object lesson. It is an object lesson – a visual, learning aid – to address the congregation’s current needs by challenging their faulty assumptions based on the biblical teaching. He aims to use these performance acts so that people’s minds can be renewed. Therefore …

Young gets with his creative sermon team. They note the up-coming March Madness season. So, they decide to use their resources to build a basket ball court in their worship center, bring in a few basketball-trick artists, have them perform stunts, then use “the game of basketball as a powerful metaphor … to help full court followers of Christ win over trials in the game of life.” He uses the book of James to get people off the seats and onto the court to be more effective Christians. Here Young is using his using artistic background, his theological education, and his experience playing basketball (1979-1981) at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, where he received a basketball scholarship. See here for the first part of Young’s sermon series.

Ed Young’s preaching methodology is a profoundly biblical and effective methodology that was used by Jesus himself. This is what Young does, this is why he does it, and this is where he got it from. And the results are over 2,000 baptisms a year and thousands more discipled. Indeed, his and Fellowship’s Kingdom success is the kind that every Christian – let alone every pastor! – should be celebrating. Ministers should be stumbling over themselves to read his books, attend the C3 Conferences, and visit FC to understand how they can be more effective in ministry. At the very least, let’s not allow our ignorance, envy, and old methodologies to cause us to criticize those who actually are making a large, positive impact on the Kingdom of God.

Memoirs of Hadrian, Antisemitism, and the Gospel

I’ve been reading Marguerite Yourcenar excellent novel, Memoirs of Hadrian. I’ve noticed how Yourcenar adeptly uses Hadrian as a mouthpiece for her philosophical and social concerns while still maintaining a historical realism that doesn’t devolve into crass anachronism. Nevertheless, she is not so adroit as to mask her own ideology; I quite suspected she was of a socialist bent and subsequent research proved this. Indeed, there is an air of the socialist sophisticant throughout the pages of the book. There is the dream of using the resources of government (in this case the Roman Empire) to reorder society along particular socio-economic standards, many of which have a noticeably leftist bent to them. In the book, there is the urge for social, economic, and cultural conformity of society and the world, so that everyone comes together as one. Naturally, what’s left unstated in this idealism is that it can only be achieved by force of government and its inherent violence.

Having understood the book in this light, yesterday I read its account of the famous Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–136 CE) and Hadrian’s fictional musings about the events and circumstances. The revolt was a rebellion by Jewish Zealots led by Simon bar Kokhba, against the Roman Empire, for the liberation of Palestine. This was the final revolt that led to the complete dissolution of the Jewish state. Hadrian was Roman Emperor at the time.

In his account, Hadrian notes how he and his subordinates attempted use the Roman army to revitalize Jerusalem as a Roman city, to establish religious pluralism, to spread Greek culture, and ending barbaric practices such as circumcision. Hadrian admits that he underestimated the Jews’ resistance to change, but nevertheless criticizes their religious “fanaticism” and unwillingness to conform to society for the greater good. Jewish resistance to conformity eventually leads to the utter destruction of Judea.

Now, based on my reading of the book and my research into Yourcenar, I do not believe that this account of the revolt has been written with ironic disapproval with regards to Hadrian. While I do not think that Yourcenar approves of violence, she nevertheless appears to approve of government-enforced conformity to society and to disapprove of resistance to it, typified in 2^nd century Jewish zealotry.

Even before I read this account, I had been thinking about the rise of anti-Semitism amongst the Anglo-Left, particularly the more various individuals and aspects of it embrace socialism. In doing so, I was reminded of the following quote by Kevin D. Williamson:

"For the Jew-hater, this is maddening: Throw the Jews out of Spain, and they thrive abroad. Send them to the poorest slums in New York, and those slums stop being slums. Keep them out of the Ivy League and watch NYU become a world-class institution inspired by men such as Jonas Salk, son of largely uneducated Polish immigrants. Put the Jewish state in a desert wasteland and watch it bloom, first with produce and then with technology. Israel today has more companies listed on NASDAQ than any other country except the United States and China.”

The ancient Hebrew anthropological conception insists upon the idea of the individual, though in balance with the community. Monotheism necessitates moral and ethical standards that are understood to be universal. Combine this anthropology and theology, along with election and the covenantal requirements of Torah, and you get a people who, when appropriately applying their principles, will succeed even in the midst of persecution and who will stubbornly resist conformity and the abandonment of those principles, even to the point of death. The early Roman emperors understood Jewish nonconformity and made allowances; Hadrian did not. But then neither did the Pharaohs of the Exodus, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the socialists of the 20^th and now 21^st centuries. The common thread of all has been the pursuit of an established, cohesive order of society and culture, either for the blatant securing of power or for the professed reasons of a greater, harmonious society. Unfortunately for the conformists, Jews stick out as an embodied contradiction to whatever ideology many conformists hold.

Jews continue to be the most persecuted minority in history, yet they’ve continually excelled in market-based capitalism amidst suffering, not with government help but despite government oppression. This defies much thinking in contemporary socialist and intersectional thought. Small wonder Jews are often excluded from leftist considerations of minorities; they don’t often fit within socialist formulas explaining the causes of minority oppression. Asians often face a similar exclusion. Instead, Jewish persistence - and even their existence - becomes embodied defiance of particular ideologies. Thus, in order to explain the discrepancy, Jews become subject to conspiratorial theories of manipulation and collaboration. Thus, when Jews did not fit within National Socialism’s reasons for the suffering of post-WWI Germany, they became part of the reasons for that suffering instead of a part of aggrieved victimhood. Small wonder Adolf Hitler justified his anti-Semitism to Otto Wagener on the grounds that “the Jew is not a socialist.”

I note this as an example of a profound truth essential to how we as Christians are to proclaim and enact the Gospel of Jesus as Christ and Lord and how we are to take part in his subjection of the powers to his Lordship. The powerful, and those pursuing power, seek greater control and conformity in order to attain and secure that power. Frequently, they must embrace, believe, and promulgate lies in that process. But lies, by their very nature, stand askew in the presence of reality; they must be repeated endlessly without opposition to be successful. On the other hand, truth by its nature aligns with reality and shines in the darkness and exposes the darkness for it is. Truth destroys lies by merely being spoken and is thus a threat to the powerful. That is why the powerful frequently seek to suppress the truth and seek to destroy all those who speak it. And the most threateningly effective means of speaking the truth is not merely by proclaiming it but also by living it. Those who embody the truth in their behavior and with their words live not by lives but shine like lights in the darkness. They are walking contradictions to a world ruled by lies, control, conformity, and abusive power. As Walter Wink put it:

“When anyone steps out of the system and tells the truth, lives the truth, that person enables everyone else to peer behind the curtain too. That person has shown everyone that that it is possible to live within the truth, despite the repercussions. ‘Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal.’ Anyone who steps out of line therefore ‘denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety. … If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living the truth.’ That is why it must be suppressed more severely than anything else.”

Now the Gospel is the good news of the Kingdom of God and Jesus as its King (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Acts 8:12; 20:25; 28:31). In particular, by virtue of his Messiahship (Psalm 110 and Daniel 7), Jesus is actively at work in this world through his Spirit and his Spirit-empowered followers bringing all the corrupt powers of this world into obedience under him (Ephesians 1:20-22; Philippians 2:8-11; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 15:24; Colossians 1:13; 2:10, 15; Galatians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:25; Revelation 2:26-27; 12:10; Matthew 9:8; 21:23; Mark 3:15; John 5:27; 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 17:2; Luke 20:43; Hebrews 2:14; 10:13; 1 John 3:8; 1 Peter 3). Indeed, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Peter, Christians are expected to take part in this process of subjecting the powers of the world to Christ’s Lordship. We are called to be faithful servants in bringing idolatrous powers through repentance back into allegiance to God.

There are a few ways in which we go about this. One of the most important is through truth and for the reasons stated above. This is why 1 Peter, Ephesians, and the Sermon on the Mount stress the importance of moral behavior and suffering as a means for defeating oppressive powers. The truth is a powerful weapon and living it, embodying it exposes the darkness of the fallen powers for what they are. It brings the powers and the people under its oppression to the place of conviction where they either embrace repentance or continue following the path towards condemnation. That is why we are to live the truth (Ephesians 4:17-18; 1 John 1:5-7; 3 John 3-4). And while the results of this embodying the truth can lead to suffering, God uses that suffering and persecution for his redemptive purposes, as 1 Peter teaches (1:7-11, 21; 2:5-10, 21-24; 3:22; 4:1, 13-14; 5:1-10). When we embody the truth against the oppressive powers’ forces of control, conformity, and lies, our work is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58).

An Answer to a Question about God’s Chosen People

[My teenage daughter] has been really struggling with why God has a chosen people...and why she isn't one of them.  Any suggestions on how I can explain this to her?

How about this?

God’s chose the Jews, the Israelites, the family of Abraham for a particular purpose - a particular task. They were called to be the tool that God used to deal with the problem of sin. They were chosen to be the light of the world. Their choosing wasn’t about God playing favorites. Indeed, God held his chosen people to a higher standard because they had received more knowledge of him than other nations. However, Israel as a whole failed in their task to be the light of the world. They failed in their task. But God wasn’t done with his plan. He had one Jew, one member of the family of Abraham, who would be the light of the world and be used to deal with the problem of sin: Jesus. Jesus was the real chosen one and summed up everything that Israel was chosen to do in the first place. Most importantly, all those who have faith in Jesus become children of Abraham (Galatians 3:7-9). Paul says non-Jews who have faith in Christ are grafted into Israel (Romans 11:11-31). This is why Peter can call Christians a chosen people (1 Peter 2:9). But that was God’s plan all the time. He chose Abraham and his family for their task so that all the world would be blessed (Genesis 12:2-3). You can see this idea of those who have faith in Jesus being considered chosen or elect in numerous places (Ephesians 1:3-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; 2 Timothy 1:9; John 15:16-17; Colossians 3:12-14; 2 Timothy 2:10). Therefore, if [your daughter] has faith, she is a part of God’s chosen people.

HOW I LOST 110 POUNDS [Updated]

Many people have been asking me how I was able to lose 100 110 lbs this past year. I do think different methods work for different people. It depends upon the person and his or her lifestyle. Personally, I really wanted to look and feel better, so this is the regiment I developed for myself. This is what has worked for me.

When I fasted a few years ago I noticed much of my eating was based on habits and rituals, rather than appetite. I realized I was more addicted to routines of when and where to eat than anything else. It was more mental than physical. “It’s this time of day; time to eat this.” “Game’s on; time to eat this.” “I always like to eat this when I do this.” My eating was more about the comfort of familiar repetitions than shear hunger. I concluded that, to lose weight, I would have train or retrain my mind to lose weight and then keep it off. Therefore, I established 9 rules from various sources to follow religiously in order to train my mind to naturally follow particular routines.

1)            Get on the scale every morning. Let what you see determine how you’re going to eat that day.

2)            Drink 3 or more bottles or glasses of water a day.

3)            Don’t eat after 7:00pm.

4)            No snacking (my only exception is eating popcorn at the theatre).

5)            No sodas (again, my only an exception is the theatre).

6)            Eat very small portions.

7)            Eat slowly, chewing your food, so you fill up quicker.

8)            Eat foods that fill you up quicker, like blue cheese.

9)            Eat out of aesthetics, not appetite.

This last one is peculiar to me but fits my personality. In the movie Ratatouille, the food critic Aton Ego states, “I don't like food, I love it. If I don't love it, I. Don't. Swallow.” I made this my credo. I deliberately chose not to waste calories on poor and mediocre foods. I chose to save my appetite for the food that’s best. For years, I’ve made a practice of not watching films and TV shows that are bad or mediocre just to watch them. Instead, I diligently do my research into a show or film to see if it meets my standards. The same is true for books, music, and restaurants. Now I only watch, read, and eat what is great. I no longer eat because I am hungry; I eat because it appeals to my aesthetic values of proper gastronomy. This is about delayed gratification. This is about making a bargain with the future. This works for me.

In everything, this is about loving being thin more than liking food. There are definite physical and psychological benefits from being thinner. Once you experience the benefits, it’s easier to appreciate the sacrifice. Having lost 100 pounds, I now feel better and enjoy some increased physical benefits. For example, for many years I found that I was having difficulty putting my socks on. I was unbalanced and couldn’t reach my foot. At first, I thought it was just my age. However, one day, after having lost 50 pounds, I suddenly found myself standing on one leg, lifting my foot up, and easily slipping on my sock. I was quite surprised. The cause had been weight all the time.

So these are the rules that helped me lose weight. Again, it was about changing my mindset and, therefore, my routines. It was about situating myself to run along new grooves until they became commonplace practices that I didn’t have to even think about. In essence, it was conforming to new patterns and being transformed by the renewing of my mind (Romans 12:2).

A Quick Appraisal of Glass

I really really liked Glass. In fact, I’ve become surprised by how much I keep liking it. I found myself pondering its meaning all the following day. Granted, it’s not your typical superhero film. It’s more of a psychological thriller that uses the comic book/superhero genre as a vehicle to mostly talk about other things. On a first viewing, I think the film is doing three things:

1)      The film explores the idea that childhood traumatic suffering can manifest itself in heightened abilities.

2)      “Super powers” have a rational, scientific basis and real-world explanation … but that doesn’t make them less amazing.

Interestingly, in combining these two, the film is odd in how it weds Freudian concepts of childhood trauma with Jungian concepts of heroic archetypes.

3)      And while there is only some overt criticism of the contemporary superhero genre, a subtle critique manifests itself suggesting that the psychological origins of "heroes" is more real and substantive than its popular conception.

On top of this are the verbal and plot clues to the meaning, including the cinematic shots. These are what I liked about Unbreakable. Of course, James McAvoy’s performance was once again sublime. I believe it was even better than that in Split. He seems to effortlessly jump between 20 different personalities, changing his facial expressions, posture, and mannerisms with each character.

Now I understand why critics may not like Glass. 1) It’s doesn’t neatly fit into the superhero genre, 2) it’s more of a psychological think piece than an action film, 3) it inevitably points out the shallowness of most other films. But these are the very reasons why I really liked Glass.

Top Ten Things a Seminary President Does as a NFL Coach

1. Fire all the old football historians first

2. Insist all players play the game based on the collegiate rules of 1920

3. Start a college team and several extension stadiums to increase game attendance

4. Fire everyone who thinks women can play football

5. Fire any woman in management who publicly explains the game of football

6. Fire anyone who associates too closely with those who practice the “Hail Mary”

7. Build a massive new stadium next to the old stadium even though the old one is at ¼ capacity

8. Spend millions of dollars on a fraudulent Vince Lombardi playbook

9. Let it be known: “It’s not enough to play his way; you have to believe his way is right.”

10. If a star player is accused of assaulting a cheerleader, bring that cheerleader in to “Break her down”

Brief Advice for Social Justice Christians

This comment is true. The problem is that the term "social justice" is now too closely associated with Marxism because socialists frequently use the term to promote specifically socialist agendas. What do we do?

 

Christians who want to support social justice, specifically its biblical form have two options: 1) either distance yourself from socialism by frequently denouncing it or 2) use a different term other than "social justice" but with the same content.

 

Personally, I prefer the first option. It takes back the term for Christ while denouncing an ideology that is one of the chief causes of social injustice. Regardless, if Christians are truly serious about biblically-based social justice, they need to adopt a strategy that makes their message and mission more palatable to those wary of socialism.

 

However, I have two concerns: 1) there is an apparent dearth of social justice Christians attempting to be palatable to more traditionalist/conservative Christians. The typical approach is one of criticism, shaming, and unproductive distancing. Such approaches come off as smug and fundamentalistic. It leads me to question whether the person really believes in social justice or whether he or she is just using the issue as a badge of personal and social approval. We social justice Christians need to better explain what we are doing and why we are doing it, so we can get more Christians on board.

 

2) I am concerned that there is a sense that social justice Christians are either hesitant or unwilling to criticize socialism, even to further the Kingdom. Whether because of peer pressure or general agreement, they prefer not to do so. This is a problem on many fronts but for this context such refusals to denounce socialism hampers the Christian social justice movement. Social justice Christians are rightly quick to denounce fundamentalism and Landmarkism as impediments to the Faith; we should be just as quick to denounce socialism. Otherwise, we feed the notion that one must be socialist, communist, or liberal to be for social justice.

The Use of Genesis 3 in Hebrew 5-6

Hebrews 5:11-6:8 is something of a digression from the author’s main argument, though this aside is still within the overall subject of apostasy, or the falling away from the Faith. Note these similarities with Genesis 3:

Hebrews 5:14

“But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”

This could be a reference to the knowledge of good and evil from Genesis 2:9 and 3:5, 22 (although see also Deuteronomy 1:39, 2 Samuel 14:7 and 19:35, 1 Kings 3:9, and Isaiah 7:15-16).

Hebrews 6:4-6

“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away”

This could be a reference to the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and having one’s eyes opened (Genesis 3:1-7, 11-13).

Hebrews 6:8

“but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.”

This also could be a reference to the results of Fall of Humanity in Genesis 3:18.

Hebrews 5:12 (6:1)

Finally, at the beginning of this digression, the author notes the need for someone to teach his audience the “elementary principles” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς) about God. The word “elementary” is ἀρχή and often means “beginning” and is the first, famous word the Greek Old Testament uses for Genesis 1:1.

If this passage is a digression I suspect that the author used the word ἀρχή and the Genesis 3 story sprung to his mind since the threat of falling away is central to his point.

In the Genesis 3 story, humanity is given the ideal garden environment in which to thrive with its work. However, the serpent tempts humanity into tasting the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “Knowledge of good and evil” means being able to make decisions for oneself. It is about claims of self-determination and personal autonomy. As is evident in the citations above, kings and judges are given such autonomy. Children do not have such autonomy until they grow older. God never intended humanity to have autonomy apart from his care and provision. Humanity is not capable of such self-determination because it only leads to destruction. In the terms of Genesis 3, such autonomy apart from God turns a thriving garden into a cursed ground of thorns and thistles.

The author of Hebrews (probably Barnabas) is concerned that his audience is in the precarious position of considering abandoning their allegiance to Christ and returning to a pre-Messianic form of Judaism. Barnabas attempts to encourage them in their faith in many ways and with many arguments. Three of those ways are references to the superiority of Christ, the dangers of falling from the faith, and urging them to mature in their faith. In this passage, he pinpoints that the root problem of their danger of apostasy is there immature faith. He tells them in frustration that by now they should have matured to the point where they were teachers and spiritual adults rather than spiritual infants who don’t know the difference between good and evil. Instead, they should move beyond elementary (ἀρχή again) teachings about Christ (6:1) and press on to more advanced teachings about Christ. In an ironic inversion of the Genesis 3 story, Barnabas is encouraging his audience to gain more knowledge. Indeed, he implies that the tasting (this time of the Holy Spirit) is a good thing and brings proper, God-ordained enlightenment (6:4-5), but that abandoning that taste and enlightenment will lead to an irreversible situation (6:6). Indeed, such falling away from enlightenment brings the same curse as that of Eden (6:8). Basically, Barnabas is saying that falling away from faith in Jesus is equivalent to the Fall of Humanity in Genesis 3.           

There has been a strain of Christianity that has argued that apostasy, the falling away from the faith, is basically impossible for the true Christian. The argument is that if any self-professed Christian does fall away from the faith and reject allegiance to Christ, then they were never really a true Christian to begin with. The problem with this view is that it flies in the face of the New Testament teachings of the matter, particularly the dire warnings of Hebrews. These are not empty warnings of whistling into the wind to falsely scare Christians to shape up in light of a danger that could never really happen. Barnabas (along with other Biblical writers) obviously rejects this idea and notes that apostasy results from wavering in spiritual immaturity. He will continue with this idea throughout the letter, offering further examples of apostasy and its dangers and further ways of getting beyond that point of danger.