Free to Forgive

There are many verses in the Bible that command Christians to forgive one another.  Jesus himself emphasized the importance of interpersonal forgiveness in order to restore relationships and demonstrate the spirit of Christ to one another (see, for example, Matthew 6.14-15, Luke 6.37, Matthew 18.21-22, Mark 11.25, etc.).  Moreover, the New Testament is full of commands to members of the early church to be characterized by a spirit of forgiveness.  But perhaps the most important verse in the entire Bible when it comes to forgiveness is Hebrews 9.22: “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”  While this verse does not command forgiveness in any particular context, nor does it expound on the peace and wonder of having been forgiven, it is foundational when it comes to our own thinking on forgiveness.

Hebrews 9.22 reveals to us that in order for there to be forgiveness of sins, something else has to happen: blood has to be spilled.  In the Old Testament, God’s people achieved temporary forgiveness through the shedding of the blood of animals.  In order for them to be forgiven by God, something had to die as a penalty for their sins.  New Testament believers find themselves in a similar situation.  They likewise have sinned against God and need to be forgiven, and as it was with Old Testament believers, blood still needs to be shed in order to obtain forgiveness.  Except in the case of New Testament believers, the blood that is spilled is not the blood of animals, but the blood of the Son of God himself.  He sacrifices himself; he sheds his own blood; he receives the punishment for sin that is required in order for forgiveness to be possible.  And so, Christians rest in the security of the forgiveness of their sins because atonement has been made through Christ – the perfect God-man sacrifice.  And his atonement is made permanent because he is alive eternally.

This is the glorious truth of Hebrews 9.22: blood has been shed and we can be forgiven on account of that shed blood.  But this is not the end of the implications of this reality.  Additionally, Hebrews 9.22 explains the means by which we as believers can forgive one another, thereby fulfilling the commands of Jesus and the apostles. 

Usually when we are offended, our first response is to desire vindication – revenge.  This is a natural inclination.  After all, Hebrews 9.22 says that in order for there to be forgiveness, blood has to be spilled – there has to be some kind of justice served for the wrong that has been done.  So when we are wronged, we want to get the person back as good as they got us before we consider things to be even between us.  Forgive someone who has wronged me?  Not until I level the playing field; not until they get what’s coming to them.  Then, once we’re even, then I can forgive.  The glorious truth of the gospel, however, is that blood has already been shed so we don’t need to exact vengeance or seek justice when we are wronged.  Rather, we can and should simply forgive because justice has already been satisfied through the cross. 

For example, when my wife sins against me, my natural inclination is to get her back in some way – to make her pay for how she has wronged me.  Whether I use harsh words, lose my temper, or just avoid her and give her the silent treatment, what I am doing is punishing her for her sin against me.  I want her to feel bad because she has made me feel bad.  The cross, however, instructs us that her sin is already paid for.  God has forgiven her for the sin that she committed against me.  So any punishment I inflict on her not only implies that the punishment that Jesus suffered for her sin wasn’t enough (it implies that I need to give her a bit more), but it completely forgets the reality that instead of being bound to justice, I am free to forgive.  Blood has been spilled – Jesus’ blood – and so forgiveness is possible.  I am free to forgive her because her sin has already been paid for – justice has already been satisfied – when Jesus suffered for her sin on the cross.  Therefore it is not necessary for me to exact justice from her in order to give her forgiveness, and in fact, to demand more punishment for sin that was already paid for by Jesus on the cross would be sinful and wrong, and incredibly short-sighted.  The question now becomes: since justice has been satisfied on the cross, why wouldn’t I forgive?  It is in this sense that the justice-satisfying sacrifice of Christ on the cross gives us the freedom to forgive. 

If you think about it, the Christian freedom to forgive is an utterly counter-cultural, revolutionary thing.  Think of how strange the command to “turn the other cheek” sounds on its face.  “But Jesus, that guy slapped me!  I need to get him back!”  Jesus’ response: “No you don’t.  His sin has already been paid for.  Blood has been spilled.  So now, you are free to forgive.” 

And this is why the unity of the church is a witness to the unbelieving world: not only can we forgive those who have wronged us, but we desire to forgive because Christ has forgiven us through his shed blood, and we forgive others through that same blood.  

An Orderly Account

This week at Riverview we began a new sermon series in the gospel of Luke (listen to the first sermon in this series here).  We looked at the first four verses of Luke’s gospel in which Luke guarantees his readers that the content of his gospel is trustworthy and reliable to the extent that a person can feel confident entrusting his or her eternity to it.  This claim is well-founded, as Luke describes that he has done the necessary research to be able to make such a guarantee.   He’s looked into written sources and talked to eyewitnesses in order to give the most reliable account possible of Jesus’ life and ministry.  There is no reason to doubt the veracity of his research and the finished product of the gospel that bears his name that is included in the New Testament.  This is an account of the life of Christ that you can trust and bank your eternity on. 

The same is true for each of the gospel accounts that exist in the Bible.  Luke is the only author who gives a written guarantee about his information, but Matthew, Mark, and John are all trustworthy as well.  In fact, from a strictly analytical perspective, they would probably be considered even more reliable than Luke’s account, as Matthew, Mark, and John were all eyewitness of Jesus’ life and ministry.  In other words, they don’t need to add a guarantee about doing the proper research and interviewing the relevant eyewitnesses, because it’s understood that they were there – they were the eyewitnesses.  They are a first-hand account, whereas Luke’s is a second-hand account (albeit it was constructed with the most vigorous of research methods, which should not cause us to doubt Luke’s account at all). 

In spite of the reliability and historical accuracy of the gospels, there are some who doubt that the gospels got it right, or that they are even close to the actual historical truth.  For instance, Richard Dawkins has said “Nobody knows who the four evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally.  Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history…. The gospels are ancient fiction.”  Aside from all of the presuppositions and undocumented claims that are loaded into Dawkins’ assertion, certainly Luke would disagree that what he wrote about Jesus was not an “honest attempt at history.”  In fact, Luke claims that his account of Jesus’ life is not only accurate history, but history that was vigilantly studied, researched, and fact-checked.  I wonder how Dawkins deals with Luke’s own claim that his gospel is reliable history.  What makes Dawkins more authoritative than the author himself?  Nothing that I can see. 

If Richard Dawkins is correct and the four gospel writers were all wrong about their account of Jesus’ life and their accounts of him are ahistorical, then Dawkins and his ilk have some serious questions to answer.  For instance, how did each of the gospels come to be so similar? (And not just regarding historical events, names, and places, but in the character and nature of Jesus and the central theme(s) of his teaching?)  What about all of the people who were purported to witness his miracles and even his resurrected body?  Was it a conspiracy?  If so, it would have been the most successful conspiracy in the history of the world.  What about the apostles, 11 of whom died for the things that they either made up or believed as unsubstantiated rumors or hearsay?  How do we explain that if this story isn’t true?  Maybe one of them would be crazy enough to die for rumors and hearsay, but 11?  In order to accentuate the problems with Dawkins’ disbelief that the gospels are not historical accounts of actual people and events, a writer at the Gospel Coalition wrote this poignant yet humorous hypothetical conversation between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as they sat down one day over drinks to cook up the Jesus story.  Take a look.  

As I write this post, it’s the beginning of the first full week of 2016.  Many people make resolutions for the new year, and many Christians specifically make resolutions related to Bible reading.  These are noble and admirable goals to set for ourselves, and it is a good practice to make these kinds of commitments.  But it’s important to note that the only reason resolutions to read the Bible are worthwhile is because of the kind of book the Bible is – namely,  the word of God.  If the Bible were just a bunch of fairy tales or collection of rumors and hearsay, there would be no value in reading it.  But because it is an historical book that accurately gives the account of the interaction between God and his people, chiefly through his Son Jesus Christ, it becomes the most precious thing we could ever read. 

In summary, Luke believed the accuracy of what he was writing, so much so that he encouraged his readers to stake their eternal destinies on it.  And so far there has not been one reason to doubt the accuracy of his writing, in spite of what Richard Dawkins would like to think.  So then, can you be certain about what’s written in the gospels in particular, and in the Bible in general?  Luke thought you could.  Is he wrong?  No one has been able to convincingly show that yet.  So look to the Bible, see what you find, and believe it.  

Follow the Evidence

In the sermon for this week we examined how we are to respond to the word of God by looking at Zechariah’s response to God’s message for him, found in Luke 1.5-25.  In sum, the angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah and announces that he will be having a son – fulfilling his prayer of many years – and that this son will be great in the eyes of the Lord, and that God will use him as an instrumental part of his plan of redemption for the whole world by having him prepare the hearts of the people for God’s Messiah.  Zechariah’s response to this wonderful news was: “Prove it to me.”  Listen to this week’s sermon here to find out why this was the wrong response.  

In effect, Zechariah was telling God that the evidence he had already provided wasn’t good enough, and that he needed more.  Skeptics of Christianity fall into this trap all the time, as they reject the evidence of God’s word and demand some kind of miraculous display before they will espouse belief. People often  will say they would believe if God would appear to them and show himself, implying that the first time God did this through Christ wasn’t good enough.  God must do more in order for me to believe, in order for me to obey.  The problem is, how much proof will be enough?  

Sometimes Bible-believing Christians fall into this trap as well. They know what God’s word says; they know the commands and instructions; they know what they must do to be obedient; but instead of following through and acting on what they know, they demand more proof.  In my experience, Christians often mask this unbelief as “waiting for the Spirit’s leading.”  Rather than simply obeying what they read in the Bible! Many Christians are waiting for a spiritual nudge, or divinely ordered “right” circumstances, or a sense of peace before they will move forward in obedience.  To me, this is the same as demanding more evidence – more proof – that God actually means what he says.  

Think of it like this: God supplied proof to Zechariah that his word was true, in that he sent an angel to deliver the message.  What could be better proof than receiving the word of God directly from the mouth of an angel?  But this wasn’t enough for Zechariah, so he asked God to prove it again.  Similarly, God has supplied Christians with proof that he has spoken: the Bible.  This should be all the evidence we need to motivate our obedience to his word.  But instead of acting on what the word says, we look for more proof that the word is true; we wait on the Spirit to give us that special sense of direction or contentment then we will obey what the Bible already says to do.  God has already told us what to do.  If we wait for the Spirit to confirm what he has said through a special feeling, isn’t that the same as asking God for more proof?

For instance, I have talked to many, many people who have a desire to share their faith with others, and who readily affirm that God has commanded them to do so in his word, and they have a sincere desire to be obedient to that command.  But at the same time, these people also feel that they need to wait for the Spirit to lead them into the conversation, or the “right time,” or to create the exact right circumstances for this faith-sharing encounter with their friend to take place.  Regardless of the reality that interpreting signs and feelings from the Spirit is a completely subjective matter that is open to wide interpretation, I think this misses the point of trusting God at his word.  

God has told us what to do in the Bible, and we should be about the business of doing it.  Don’t be like Zechariah – don’t ask for more proof of what God has already told you in his word.  To do so would be to falter in unbelief, like Zechariah.  Instead, take God at his word, and just do something.  

There’s another important lesson that we learn from the story of Zechariah.  When Zechariah asks for more evidence that God’s word is true, God grants it to him.  After Zechariah asks Gabriel for more proof, he’s struck mute, and stays that way for close to a year.  Do you think that extra measure of proof convinced him that God’s word was true?  I bet it did.  So maybe the extra measure of evidence you’re looking for won’t be very comfortable. It’s always better to believe God at his word – the first time – and then to move forward and get busy with the work of obedience.  

Who's Right: Matthew or Luke?

For the past two weeks at Riverview we have examined the genealogical records presented in both the gospels of Matthew and Luke.  Both genealogies serve to prove to the reader that Jesus is indeed qualified to bear the title of Messiah and be the representative Savior of all those who will trust in him.  You can listen to the sermon on the genealogy in Matthew here, and the genealogy in Luke here.  

It doesn’t take a very close reading, however, before one realizes that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are quite different at points.  Some skeptics would use this as evidence that the Bible is contradictory, saying that the gospel authors can’t even agree on the members of Jesus’ own family.  Such a conclusion is very flawed, however, as there are numerous ways to resolve discrepancies of genealogical origin, and there have been several theories proposed by scholars and researchers that propose ways of reconciling these differences, all of which are possible.  These theories should negate almost any objection a skeptic of scripture has regarding the differences in Matthew and Luke’s genealogical data of Jesus.  In what follows I will briefly outline three possible reasons for the differences in the genealogies, and explain why the differences do not present a problem for those who believe the Bible.

1. First, the genealogical records can differ simply because of the way we communicate lineage in written discourse.  For instance, you could say that I am the “son of” my great-great grandfather, John Detlefsen, born in 1847.  I am not his direct son, but I am his “son” in a broader sense, in that I come from his line.  It could be that Matthew and Luke are focusing on different “sons” of Abraham (and Adam, in Luke’s case), and so they mention different names from different generations of Jesus’ genealogy.  This kind of selective genealogy was, and is, common in genealogical records.  This is probably the best explanation for the differences between Matthew and Luke’s genealogical records.

2. Closely related to the explanation above is that it is possible that, in his genealogy of Jesus, Matthew’s desire was to report Jesus’ direct lineage.  In other words, Matthew literally wanted to show Joseph’s (Jesus’ earthly father) direct line to Abraham.  This would mean that Matthew’s lineage of Jesus literally included Jesus’ direct (earthly) father, grandfather, great-grandfather and so on.  It is also possible that Luke’s purpose in his genealogy of Jesus is to communicate Jesus’ royal line.  This would mean that Luke is more concerned with noting Jesus’ ancestors who are official representatives of the throne of David.  Thus, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus represents his royal heritage, whereas Matthew’s represents his familial heritage.  Careful readers will note that Luke and Matthew even have different names listed for the man representing Jesus’ grandfather.  This explanation quickly resolves the apparent contradiction: the name listed in Matthew’s genealogy is Jesus’ actual grandfather, whereas the name listed in Luke’s genealogy is Jesus’ “royal” grandfather.  

3. A third option is entirely unrelated to the previous two, and asserts that the genealogy found in Matthew traces Joseph’s lineage, whereas the genealogy in Luke traces Mary’s.  This explanation would account for the differences between the two genealogies.  While unprecedented, I find this to be a very possible and realistic interpretation of Luke’s genealogy.  In first century Jewish culture, it would have been unheard of for a woman’s genealogical records to be officially recorded, as it was a patriarchal culture that centered mostly around the actions and lives of males.  However, one of Luke’s main points in his gospel is that this new kingdom that Jesus is building is a kingdom of equality between genders, ethnicities, nationalities, and so on.  In fact, Luke’s gospel records some very counter-cultural interactions between Jesus and women (see Luke 8.1-3, for example).  It is therefore not too much of a stretch to think that Luke is furthering this kingdom ideal to include the genealogy of Mary in his report of Jesus’ life and ministry.  Furthermore, Luke notes in his introduction that he has used eyewitnesses to formulate his account of Jesus life, and many scholars agree that most of the material in chapters 1-2 probably came from an interview that Luke conducted with Mary herself (Luke 1.2).  Thus, it is not unreasonable to presume that part of the information Luke gleaned from Mary was a detailed record of her lineage.  

On this side of heaven we will never know with certainty why the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are different.  In answering the question of which one is accurate, we can affirm that they both are, although we can’t definitively say how.  But we can be confident that there is a good reason for the differences, and a reason that does not call their (or the Bible’s) accuracy into question.  The three theories I listed here are only some of the dozen or so possibilities for the differences between the genealogies in the gospels.  Even in light of their differences, we can have confidence that they communicate the entrance of the Savior into the world and accurately express the continuation of God’s plan of redemption for all creation.  

A Peculiar Public Interest

I've been blogging here and there, on a semi-regular basis (with several month or even year gaps between posts sometimes!) since 2008.  Five years ago today, I wrote a post on this blog called "Hamstring the Horses and Burn the Chariots."  Little did I know when I wrote that post that, of the 507 published posts on my blog, it would become far and away the most popular and most viewed post that I'd write.  It's a comparatively short post, and not necessarily deep, but I suppose it is interesting - at least interesting enough to me for me to have written it.

That post has received more than 2,100 unique views since I wrote it (small potatoes for most blogs, but significant for mine).  In November alone the post was viewed 132 times.  The second most-viewed post I've written comes in at 831 total unique views, so the difference in views is significant.  How do people find this post on my blog?  It turns out that a lot of them have Googled a question about the text in Joshua that relays God's command to Joshua to hamstring the horses and burn the chariots of the opposing armies that Israel will face.  For instance, at least 129 people have clicked over to my post because they've Googled a question about those verses, with the search terms "hamstring a horse," "hamstring horses," and "hamstring horses in Bible" being the most frequently used.  Apparently people find God's commands to hamstring the horses and burn the chariots of Israel's enemies rather peculiar.

I've preached on this text before as well, and when I did I received a few comments from people at my church about how they cringe at the thought of hamstringing horses, as this seems to be a barbaric practice, at best.  Apparently a reader thought so as well, and commented on the original post: "...this method of hamstringing is nothing but torcher [sic].  If they were to take the time to hamstring these animals it would have been just as easy to kill them and put them out of their misery.  You can't even begin to realize the agony these animals endured."  I don't doubt that it was very unpleasant for the horses.  But regardless of how we feel about the animals, we need to realize the point of the command God gave: trust in me, not in horses.

Kind of neat, and a good reminder for me to continue not trusting in horses and chariots.