It's the Same Prayer

I was at a men's Bible study tonight at our church, a study hosted by our Sunday School teacher. We were at the end and about to close with prayer and each one of us was mentioning specific things that we wanted the group to pray about. I mentioned someone I know who is a troubled individual and who needs prayer to be turned and brought back to God. "Are they a Christian?" was asked. "Well, this person made a profession of faith way back when, in childhood, but if you were to ask him now, he would say he doesn't believe in God." Then someone said, "Well, if they really were saved and had the Holy Spirit they wouldn't say that." To which I responded, "I think it is possible that he doesn't really believe what he said, but that he was simply being rebellious when he said it. But either way, it's the same prayer."

Is it not? Think about it.

When an individual apostatizes (leaves the faith) one of two things has happened. Either this is temporary and God by his grace will bring him back. Or this is genuine and his previous profession was a sham. Consider:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.  

Philippians 1:6 (NKJV) being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

Just because we are born of him does not guarantee that we will never wander, fail, or fall. But it does guarantee that we will not fall finally if we genuinely belong to him.

So how are we to pray for those who have once made a profession and have now fallen away from it? How are we to know whether or not their profession was genuine? Well, we can't know, not until the end. However, when an individual disavows his profession he should be taken at his word and treated as an unbeliever. How, then, are we to treat unbelievers? We treat them with love, compassion, and truthfulness. How do we pray for them? We pray that God will bring them to repentance and faith, for that is the greatest need that they have.

That is also our need.

We tend to think of salvation in terms of conversion. "I was saved on such and such a day and it happened like this . . ." we would say. If someone were to ask us what one must do to be saved we would tell them one must repent and believe. But repentance and faith are not tools used in conversion and then laid aside. Repentance and faith are daily attributes of the Christian's life. As Christians we are always repenting and believing. Repentance is the state in which we live and belief is the state in which we live. So when we see an individual away from God, away from a state of repentance and faith, we pray that God will bring them to this state whether they have ever made a profession or not.

So the prayer for the wayward Christian is the same as the prayer for the unbeliever, because in practice at least, they are both unbelievers in need of repentance.

It's the same prayer: "Father, take this individual and bring him to the place in his life where he repents of his sin and turns to Christ in faith determined to follow Christ every day till the end of his days."

That prayer is pleasing to God and will work for anyone, regardless of what we think we may know about his spiritual condition. In fact, you could feel free to pray that prayer for me anytime you wanted. As the hymn-writer once penned:

Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it
Prone to leave the God I love.
Take my heart, Lord, take and seal it
Seal it for thy courts above.

Philippians 1:19 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance,

Who knows who shall be delivered through your prayers? Or mine?

"Our Father in Heaven"

Pray then like this:  "Our Father in heaven . . ."

I imagine the conversation going something like this:

"What should I call you?"
"Call me dad."

This invitation to familiarity with the Almighty is something we take for granted today, but it was not so common in the days of Christ. If anything, our tendency with God is to be too familiar and not sufficiently reverent. But for the people in those days the opposite was true. They feared God to the point of being afraid to approach him. And no wonder. Everything in the Mosaic system of worship given them by God was designed to let them know that God was holy and they were not, that they were unworthy of him, that they should fear him greatly, that if they approached him the wrong way they would die.

And all of that was true. In fact, it is still true today. But it is not all that is true about us and God. Jesus invites us to pray to God and to do so in this way: "Our Father in heaven . . . "

God is like an earthly, human father, but as a father he transcends mere human fatherhood. He is a heavenly father. He embodies (if I may misuse that term) the very ideal of perfect fatherhood. As Paul implies in his first letter to the Corinthians, this idea of God as Father signifies that we are both from him and exist for him (1 Cor. 8:6).

We belong to him. He is responsible for us. He loves us.

Rather than go about trying to think up every benefit that this relationship to him might entail, let me give you the immediate application that Jesus gives to his disciples over in Luke 11:11-13.

"What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

We do not always know our needs, do we? Like children, we know what we want, but not necessarily what we need. Our Father knows. Our Father always gives us what we need. We need not fear to go to God and ask--because we are children and he is our Father. He is committed to caring for us. If evil, human fathers are decent enough to give to their children the good things they need, how much more the gracious heavenly Father who loves us with incomparable love? Right?

But did you pay attention to that last line?

". . . how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

What does that mean, anyway? I have often wondered myself. But upon reading this scripture this evening I was reminded of the passage on prayer in Romans 8 and the meaning became clear. Tell me if it does the same for you. First there is this:

Romans 8:14,15: For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 

Those who may go to God as Father are his children by covenant and by promise. They have been given the Spirit as an earnest of their inheritance among the saints (Eph.1). It is by God's Spirit that we are enabled to cry to God as little children "Abba, Father!" The word chosen here by Paul is a sweet Aramaic word that every Jew would recognize as that used by little children for their father. The English equivalent would be "dad", "daddy", "papa" or something similar. We have been brought--by the Spirit--into tender familial relationship with God. Goes right along with the beginning of our model prayer, does it not? But there is more. Further down he says:

Romans 8:26,27: Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 

So we don't know what, specifically, we should ask for in prayer. That's okay. Our Father, who is dedicated to supplying our needs, has given us the Spirit. The Spirit intercedes for us according to the will of God. That same Spirit which teaches us to cry "Daddy, Father" also makes intercession for us! He turns our misguided prayers into good prayers. We ask for toys and comfort. He gives us shelter, and food, and discipline. We ask for ease and help. He gives us strength and encouragement. We want comfort from affliction. He gives us comfort in affliction. He gives us what we need.

". . . how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

If you belong to Christ you have the Holy Spirit. So go to the Father and pray. Ask. Ask and it shall be given you. What shall be given you? Your perfect idea of an answer to prayer? Now why would you want that? No, God will give you something better. He will give you his perfect idea of the best answer to that prayer. Why would your Father give you anything less?

Thoughts on Prayer II - God already knows.

Luke 6:7,8 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Empty phrases. Meaningless words. Saying the same thing over and over without even really knowing what you are saying. Sounds like what a lot of people do with the Lord's prayer, doesn't it? Think on the irony of that for a moment.

But what is the difference between doing that--repeating the words by rote over and over--and approaching God with one's own flowery formula equally unthought-out, making it up on the fly, without any real clue as to what one should say to God?

The heathen believed that their gods were busy doing their own things and that if one were to get their attention it would have to be done through a virtual flood of words and perhaps some sacrificial bribery. Long incantations would be repeated over and over in the hopes that the god would hear. Likewise, Jewish prayers of the time were full of flowery phrases stated one way, then another way, then a third way, so on and so forth, changed only by a re-ordering of the words in an attempt to either impress God or (more likely) those around them. But we are told not to pray that way.

Why not?

for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Sometimes the things that can most radically change the way we think (or in this case pray) are the things that are right there in front of us. We just don't see them.

Of course God knows what we need before we ask him. And as a Father to us he is dedicated to supplying those needs. He knows what we need better than we do and he knows it before we do. Don't miss this last part either. He already plans to give it to us.

Philippians 4:19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

So there is no need to try to convince or cajole him. It is not our job to persuade God to do something. He knows the need we have for it is he who has given us that need. Likewise it is not necessary to inform him of a situation or predicament. He gave us that situation or predicament.

So then why do we pray? We pray because we need God. Prayer is an act of faith in God and an acknowledgement of God's sovereign care for us. We approach God with the knowledge of his knowledge and wisdom, with a faith in his sovereign goodness toward us (Romans 8:28). Then we humbly ask him to magnify his great name and be true to himself by keeping his promises and being our Father. Prayer is about getting our hearts in line with what God is doing in our lives and honoring him with our faith in him.

"Father, I need you. Thank-you for reminding me of that. You know my need already. I ask that you will supply it according to your riches in glory in Christ Jesus. And do it for your name's sake and your faithfulness. Amen."

That is a biblical, God-honoring, God-pleasing prayer.

All of this does not mean that we do not need to be specific in our prayers. Of course we should be specific. But in the end we do not always know exactly what we need, do we? But God knows. So in the end we always say, "Nevertheless not my will, but thy will be done."

Again, prayer is not about convincing God that he should give us what we want. It is not about informing God of a situation in which he might want to intervene when he would not otherwise have done so. No, prayer is about acknowledging God's greatness in our lives as a Father and our utter dependence upon him for everything.

Thoughts on Prayer I - The Right Motivation

I filled in for our Sunday School teacher again the other day and I thought I would make more than one blog post out of the lesson this time. The topic is a very important and also a very practical one--prayer.

I chose the topic as a challenge to me both because I do not pray often enough and also because I have lots of thoughts on prayer which would be beneficial to others if I were to actually coalesce them and present them in an orderly and challenging fashion. This I attempted to do last Sunday and this I will attempt to do here.

I am the worst example when it comes to faith because, while I easily presume upon God's goodness, I am often way too confident in self to actually depend upon God, or recognize the fact that I do. I suffer from a self-deluding conceit. I know as a concept that I depend upon God for everything (as does the entirety of the universe) but in practice I am far too often deluded by self-sufficiency. To a degree all of us are this way (though hopefully you are not as bad as me). This is why God often brings problems into our lives which are beyond our ability to solve. These problems remind us of our need for him.

Back to prayer. If we are going to learn to pray or how or what to pray, the first place we should go is to Christ. This is what the disciples of Jesus did as recorded by St. Luke in Luke's gospel chapter 11:

Luke 11:1 Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.”

John had taught his disciples to pray in a unique way as his disciples. Jesus's disciples want to know if Jesus has something similar for them--something unique as his disciples.

This is where our ears should perk up. What Jesus is about to teach is not just for them, but also for us, for we are his disciples as well. How should we pray? What should we pray? How often should we pray? How long should our prayers be? All these questions and more will be answered in this passage and in its cousin passage in Matthew 6. Let's look there now.

Matthew 6:5,6 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

First a few quick lessons.

(1) Prayer is not for our own glory. It is not a religious exercise designed to make us look good before others. This type of prayer is not prayer at all, it is pretense. The key phrase is, "to be seen of others." Here Jesus condemns the motivation, not so much the action. Motive is everything.
(2) Private prayer is more important than public prayer. There is a place for public prayer, but as Christians we also need a place for regular private communion with God.
(3) There is a real, heart-felt, genuine faith that motivates us to pray and commune with God. This faith, which comes from God, is the faith that will be rewarded by God.

In the Sermon on the Mount, which is quoted above from Matthew's gospel, Jesus is addressing an audience of self-righteous people. This is why he emphasizes true religious exercise over pretense. He is both teaching about prayer and also condemning their self-righteousness. But over in Luke 11 we have a private scene between Jesus and his disciples and in that passage nothing about the pretense is mentioned, presumably because the sincerity of the disciples was evident in their question.

"Lord, teach us to pray."

Personalize that. I challenge you. Make it your prayer, right now. "Lord, teach me to pray." Both the desire to pray and the knowledge of how to pray correctly come from God.

Grace in Regeneration

I filled in for our Sunday School teacher a couple of weeks ago and since I put the time in to prepare the lesson and then teach it orally I thought it would not take a lot more effort to put it down here in the blog also just in case anyone is interested.

The question had come up in Sunday School the week before. You know the one. It was (it seems) the eternal question. Did we choose God? Or did God choose us? Election, conditional or unconditional? Our Sunday School teacher came down on the side of unconditional election. God chose us, we did not choose God--at least not until God's grace found us. As a defense for his position he argued that God does not violate human will, that those whom God looks over and does not choose in election are people who reject Christ anyway. They are opposed to God and to Christ. They get what they want. If anyone has a gripe that their will was violated, said he, it would be those who come to Christ, because they were as opposed to Christ as the rest and then came God's grace. They were saved in spite of their initial opposition to God.

Class ended and I called him over and challenged him (just a little) with an assertion. Yes, election is unconditional and based on God's grace alone. No, God does not violate the will of those who are eternally lost. They do get what they want. They are sinners and Christ-rejectors and in the end what they get is the result of their own choices. But God does not violate the will of those whom he saves either.

I let that last statement just sit for a minute. Then I said that what God does, instead, is change their nature.

Keep in mind that I have been here and done this. I have had this debate over and over and over again. In fact, I have argued both sides of it. At one time the argument would get my blood flowing. Now, honestly, I almost want to yawn. But (I thought to myself) this could be an opportunity to offer some clarity to a subject that can sometimes seem very muddy.

So my Sunday School lesson was topical and the topic was regeneration. My initial Scripture reference was John 3:

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

A new birth, Jesus proclaims, is a prerequisite to entering Christ's kingdom. Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. But what does this mean? This is Nicodemus's question and we are glad he asks it because we are wondering also. Jesus explains that this new birth is a spiritual birth, that one is born into God's kingdom. Just like the wind, this new birth is something that is only seen through its results, through the effects it has on individuals.

It is interesting that Jesus uses a birth analogy to explain what happens to a person when he is "saved." There are two other analogies used in the New Testament which are similar. They are creation and resurrection.

We have seen an example of the birth analogy in the passage above. Here is an example of the resurrection analogy. Ephesians 2:

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 

And here is an example of the creation analogy. 2 Corinthians 5:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, . . .

Notice something about these three comparisons? In all three God is active and we are passive.

A creature cannot create itself. It may pro-create, but it cannot create . . . itself. It did not dictate the terms of its creation, the time, the place, nothing. It simply wakes up one day and is.

A dead man cannot resurrect himself. Lazarus, in the tomb, will stay there until judgment day. There is nothing he can do about his condition. He has no power over death. He has no power even to wish for new life. He is dead. If he is brought back to life it will be on Jesus's terms, when and where Jesus chooses. Lazarus is passive. Did Lazarus awake and then hear Jesus's voice calling him from the tomb or was it Jesus's voice that awakened him? In the end, it doesn't even matter, for without Jesus's voice there is no resurrection for Lazarus. But, and don't miss this, there was only one man raised from the tomb that day and it was the one Jesus chose to raise. Resurrection is something in which we are passive, not active.

It is the same with birth. When were you born? Where were you born? Now, here's a silly question. Why? Why did you choose to be born in the year you were born in? Why not wait? Why not choose an earlier date? Why be born where you were born? I imagine that there are multitudes of people born into horrid places in this world who could wish they had been born elsewhere. But we had no choice, did we? We were only passive in our birth, not active.

And that is the point of using these analogies. Until God regenerates us, until God creates us anew in Christ, until God raises us to walk in new life, we will never desire him, we will never desire righteousness, we will never desire holiness. But when God regenerates us, when he creates us anew, when he gives us new life in Christ, then we are new creatures with new natures and new desires. Then we awaken and choose him.

A dead man cannot breathe, but a living man breathes. Likewise a man who is dead in trespasses and sins cannot believe, but a man alive in Christ believes. Before God's grace, and apart from God's grace, we want nothing to do with God, not the true and living God. We may take an idol to ourselves if we find that convenient, but we are self-centered and self-serving and want nothing to do with the spiritual truth and true holiness that confronts us when we come face to face with the living God. We are at enmity with God, according to Paul in Romans 8. We are hostile toward him. This is true of everyone apart from grace. This is our fallen nature.

This is why God must change our nature, and when he does so, we turn to him.

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1 Peter 1:3 According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 

The implications of this, and there are many, I will leave for another time. For now, suffice it to say that it takes a miracle of grace to save a sinner and what we are asking God for, and what we are expecting from God when we proclaim his gospel, is that miracles will take place. But take heart. God has promised these miracles and it is for this reason that Christ came.

Is Satan Stupid?

It came up in Sunday School during a discussion of the rift between Paul and Barnabas at the end of Acts 15. Our Sunday School teacher asked the question, "What was Satan doing, or trying to do?" What ensued was a discussion of God's sovereignty, our accountability for our actions, and how God always takes what Satan intends for evil and turns it into something good.

In the specific case at hand there is a sharp dissension between Paul and Barnabas. The implication, because his involvement is never stated explicitly, is that Satan sees the great work that has already been accomplished by the two and chooses this avenue of attack to keep it from happening again. But God takes the dissension and subsequent division and uses it to make two missionary teams and include two new men in the work. So what Satan intended for evil, God meant for good.

Now look at the last sentence in the preceding paragraph. It is similar to, but not quite the same as, the last sentence in the first paragraph. The difference is minor but important. Think about this: God never reacts. To react implies that something new or unexpected has happened. This would preclude God's omniscience. Further, the fact that something happens--anything happens--means that God knows it is best that it should be that way. If it weren't he would stop it. God always gets his way and to pretend otherwise would be a denial of his omnipotence. (If God does not always get his way, then we need to find out who does and worship him.) So if God knows all, can do all, and always acts in wisdom, then everything that happens is according to his wise purpose--everything. Does Scripture back this up? Certainly.

Daniel 4:[34] At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,

for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
[35] all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”

With this in mind, the question then must be asked. Is Satan stupid? Does he not realize that everything he does contrary to God's plan winds up being used to further God's plan? Doesn't he know that he cannot defeat God? Does he think he can? Doesn't he know what his final destiny will be? Why doesn't he just give up and repent? These are some of the questions that were asked in class this morning. They were asked rhetorically. No answer was given.

I think I can shed some light. No, Satan is not stupid. Yes, he knows his destiny. Yes, he sees and realizes how God turns all Satan's works into His own glory and the furtherance of the divine plan. I don't think Satan is deluded at all. Satan is not stupid. Satan simply hates.

As humans we underestimate the depths of depravity in which we ourselves exist. We live in constant denial of what wickedness we ourselves are capable of. We see wickedness in others, but delude ourselves that we are better than that. Scripture says,

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?

If we have such a hard time seeing our own depravity, it is no wonder we have a hard time conceiving of the depths of depravity and what that causes in another. Satan is not omniscient, but he knows. He's been around a long time. He can see. He simply doesn't care. He does what he does out of a motive of hatred for God. Period.

Apart from God's grace you and I would be no different. The fallen heart and mind will not repent, not unless God does a work of grace. For Satan there is no grace. So, no, Satan cannot repent, will not repent (it is the same thing). Neither would you or I had God not granted it (Acts 11:17,18).

Realizing this should make us bow in wonder that God should be so gracious to us. We deserve no better.

Acts of the Apostles, the Early Church, Jews of the 1st Century, etc.

I correspond with my Sunday School teacher from time to time and the following post is gleaned from one of the emails I sent to him awhile back pertaining to our studies in the book of Acts. I hope it makes sense.

I wrote:
Anyway, I wanted to throw some things at you about Acts, the early Church, the Jews of the first century, the whole circumcision controversy, and why those Jews rejected their Messiah. That's way more of a bite than either one of us could chew in one sitting, but there are a couple of things that the average modern reader doesn't quite see or get that make the whole thing more understandable. Most of this you probably already know and some of it you may have already covered in class before I got there, but let's start anyway because it is interesting and important.

The religious Jews of Jesus's day were strong, strong, strong in their ethnic pride, probably stronger than anything we could compare them to in modern times. A lot of this had to do with their history between the Testaments.

Ever heard of a man named Antiochus Epiphanes? He was a Greek general, ruler, and descendant of Alexander the Great. He had conquered Palestine, sacked Jerusalem, appointed the high priest that he wanted, and then, in 167 BC, when he became angry and suspicious, he went on a murdering spree killing some 80,000 Jews--men, women and children--in a four-day span. This is recorded in the Maccabees. He then proceeded to desecrate the Holy of Holies by sacrificing a pig on the altar, following this up with the outlawing of such quintessentially Jewish things as sabbath-keeping and circumcision. Several Jewish mothers who had defied this law against circumcision were paraded through town with their infants at their breasts and then pushed off the city wall to their deaths. Many such atrocities were committed including the burning of sabbath-keepers--I could go on.

All of this served to solidify his victims in their zeal for those rites which made them uniquely the children of God. Thus, when we get to the New Testament, these Jews are brazenly proud of their nation, their law, their religion, their circumcision, their Jewishness. No one was going to take that away from them and they despised these foreign intruders and everything about them.

According to Alfred Edersheim, Jews of the first century were so proud of their ethnicity and their homeland that immediately upon return from a Gentile-occupied territory they would ceremoniously shake the dust off their feet, not wanting to pollute their own holy land with dirt from the Gentiles. (Sort of gives you an enlightened perspective of Jesus's command to his disciples to shake the dust off their feet when leaving the house of anyone who would not receive them in his name, does it not?)

What did they think of Gentiles? Gentiles were dogs. And "dog" was the worst pejorative you could call anyone. With that in mind take a fresh look at a passage like . . .

Mark 7:

[24] And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. [25] But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet.

[26] Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. [27] And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” [28] But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.” [29] And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” [30] And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone. (ESV)

Tyre and Sidon were heavily populated with Gentiles and this woman was a Gentile. She begs for Jesus's help and he responds to her the way any Jewish rabbi of his day would have--he gives her the Jewish attitude toward Gentiles . . .

And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.”

The "children", of course, are the Jews and the "dogs" are the Gentiles.  This is a test.  She, as a Gentile, has approached a Jewish rabbi seeking a miracle.  Will she get it?  Will she pass the test?  How will she respond?

But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

She responds in humility and faith.  She is undeserving and admits as much, yet she asks anyway. Her request is based, not on her own merit, but on the mercy and goodness of the Giver.

(There's a lesson in that, though none of it, of course, has anything to do with your Sunday School lesson--ok, maybe a little--but I get easily sidetracked.)

My point is that pride was the sin of the Jews of Jesus's day.  It blinded them to what God was doing at the time.  True, they expected their Messiah to come very soon. They may have understood Daniel's prophecy of 70 weeks, even. They knew the times and seasons, but they expected the Messiah to come, partly, because they believed they deserved him. He was going to come and throw off this Gentile rule and re-establish the throne of David in perpetuity. Now was the time.

O come, o come Emmanuel

And ransom captive Israel.

They had no idea of their spiritual destitution. Neither did they understand the nature and scope of the Messiah they were getting. Their hatred of Gentiles blinded them, even, to the numerous passages indicating the world-wide messianic kingdom that was coming. What they got was the opposite of what they wanted in almost every respect.

But there was one more thing about Jesus that sealed the deal for why no self-respecting Jew would ever follow him, something that should be obvious but doesn't even stand out to you and me. Something that was a complete deal-breaker for them. You might already know what it is, but I'll save it for the next email.

Who Made God? - The Cosmological Argument

Who Made God?

It is a question often asked by children but seldom asked by adults. It is a good question, nonetheless, for it presumes something which I would like to discuss in this post. What it presumes is known as causality or what you and I know intuitively as cause and effect.

How and why are questions we have been asking since we were old enough to speak. The very questions themselves demonstrate this intuitive knowledge of cause and effect within us. There is a reason for everything, and just as there is a reason for everything there is also a reason for everything to be.

We know this both intuitively and by our experience. Every effect must have a sufficient cause. Things do not happen for no reason. Effects do not spontaneously come into being. There is a cause. How did this milk get on the table? It was spilled when a glass was knocked over. How did the glass get knocked over? It was knocked over by Jimmy's elbow when he was reaching for the mashed potatoes. How did the milk get in the glass? It was poured there by mom. Where did she get it? She got it from the gallon jug which was in the refrigerator. How did the jug get into the refrigerator? Dad brought it home from the store and put it there . . . and so on ad infinitum.

How long could we play that game? How far back does our chain of cause and effect go? That is the question at hand and the answer to that question is a valid, effective, and reasonable argument for the existence of God.

For the universe to exist there must be a sufficient cause outside of that universe to account for its existence.

Either that or you must confess that there is an infinite chain of cause and effect, that we could play our little game for eternity and never come to a first cause. But would that be logical? Theists contend that it is not and here is why.

I pose the question to those who might contend that there is no first cause, that our chain of cause and effect goes infinitely into the past. What caused that chain of events? Something did. An infinite series with no beginning involves a contradiction. It goes against the assumption that allows for the existence of the chain in the first place, to wit for every effect there is a cause.

We have a universe. That universe consists of matter and energy. It consists of space and it consists of time. What caused those?

While science cannot answer that, philosophy says that something must have caused them or they could not be.

And that is where it stands. Either you believe that matter is eternal, that it has always been (for it cannot have spontaneously generated), or you believe that there is an extra-mundane cause that brought it into being. The same for energy, time, space, and life, for none of those things can be explained as having been spontaneously generated without a cause.

An infinite chain of cause and effect is a logical absurdity. If a chain of three or four events cannot exist without a sufficient cause then no chain of events can exist without a sufficient cause, even if it is a chain of a million or a billion or a trillion events. As Charles Hodge put it,

"Nothing multiplied by infinity is nothing still. If we do not find the cause of our existence in ourselves, nor our parents in themselves, nor their progenitors in themselves, going back ad infinitum is only adding nothing to nothing. What the mind demands is a sufficient cause, and no approach to it is made by going back indefinitely from one effect to another. We are forced, therefore, by the laws of our rational nature, to assume the existence of a self-sufficient cause, i.e., a Being endued with power adequate to produce this ever-changing phenomenal world. In all ages thinking men have been forced to this conclusion. . . . The theistical argument is, that if everything in the world be contingent, this eternal and necessary Being must be an extra-mundane First Cause."

Which brings us back to our original question. Who made God? And the answer to that question is that no one did, for he is the Uncaused First Cause. Without him nothing else in the universe makes sense. Without his existence, nothing else can exist. While everything in our universe is contingent, he is the Something standing outside that universe which is self-existent and contingent on nothing else.

Did Jesus establish a new religion?

I have a good Sunday School teacher and when he is gone he has a very good relief pitcher to take his place. Sunday School is always intelligent and spiritually challenging in our class. From time to time I email some thoughts to them about topics brought up in Sunday School sometimes to provoke thought, sometimes just for encouragement. The following is one of those emails from a few weeks back. I changed the names to take the personal element out.

Did Jesus Establish a New Religion?

Guys,

This is just something that has been in the back of my mind for a few weeks and I thought that now that we are taking a break from Acts it might be a good time to bring it up. I welcome discussion.

(Why the synagogue?)
Billy Bob, you brought it up and Jethro you echoed it, though I think both of you did so as a sort of reminder and I got the idea it was originally discussed in fuller detail in a class when I wasn't there. I'm talking about the question of why Paul would choose to proclaim the gospel first in the synagogue when arriving in a new town before taking it to the streets, as it were. I heard several reasons mentioned for this, things like how the Jews would already have a background understanding of the Scriptures and how the Jews would be better prepared to carry on in a new church after Paul left because of that Scriptural background, i.e practical reasons. Jethro, when you brought it up I think I raised my hand and mentioned Paul's great love for his people:

Romans 9:1-5 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (ESV)

Romans 10:1-4 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (ESV)

There were a couple of other reasons mentioned in class as well which I cannot remember at the moment. All of these, however, seem to me to miss the main point, sort of like pointing out the individual trees but missing the fact of the forest, to borrow from the cliche.

The forest is this. The Christian faith is the true Jewish faith. If the synagogues were to teach the Torah correctly, and with understanding, they would embrace the Messiah who has come and synagogue would now be church. This is and always has been the position of the Christian Church. If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah then the Jewish faith must embrace him or cease to be valid.

Paul was a synagogue elder and teacher before the road to Damascus. He was a known entity. He proclaimed a zealous brand of Pharisaism that was well-known throughout Judaism, even in these outlying areas. News of events in Jerusalem and Judea would have traveled slowly to the outer provinces (so to speak) and many of these places would have either not known about Paul's falling out with "orthodoxy" or may have been curious to know more about it or his side anyway. Paul had an open door to communicate in these venues and thus would use it (again the practical aspect).

But I do not think it was just pragmatism that drove them/him in this. I think all of the reasons brought up in class are accurate, yet mainly peripheral. The main reason would have been that ours is the true Jewish faith. We are modern Judaism. The Old Testament shows Christ's church in bud, the New Testament in bloom. The Old Testament shows Christ's kingdom in type, the New Testament in reality. Israel, as God's chosen people, were no different than we as God's chosen people. Outwardly they were all God's people, though inwardly it was only true of the remnant. In the same way, outwardly all who profess Christ are God's people but inwardly it is not so--we know that there are many tares among the wheat. We are the natural progression of the Jewish faith and in the most important aspect of all we are true Jews, according to Rabbi Saul of Tarsus.

Romans 2:28,29 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.  (ESV)

We are true Jews, you and I. Those physically descended from Abraham are not the children of the promise, Paul is very clear on this point. True Jews are those who are the descendants of Abraham by faith.

Galatians 3:7-9 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.  (ESV)

Follow Paul's thinking into all its implications and you will find that it is the Church and true believers who are the recipients of God's promises to Abraham, not unbelieving individuals who happen to be physically descended from Abraham.

Romans 9:6-8 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.  (ESV)

To go to a new town and not seek out its community of believers (for that's what a synagogue was) to proclaim to them that their Messiah had come would have been an act of horrid neglect. Just as the Father sent his Messiah to his own community of believers (Israel, ala John 1:11,12), so also Christ sent out his proxies to all the outlying communities of believers first. Those who embraced the Messiah showed their true colors as true believers. Those who rejected showed their true colors as well.

Jesus did not establish a new religion, he merely confirmed and expanded an old one.