Natural Causes
By Tim Etherington | May 12, 2012
Why did Jesus die? He was beaten brutally, had a crown of thorns put on his head and beaten with reeds, he carried a heavy cross in this weakened state and was finally nailed hand and foot to it where he hung for hours. When they came to break his legs so his death would come quickly they found him already dead and when a soldier stuck him with a spear, blood and water flowed out of the wound. Apparently he’d suffocated. But Jesus didn’t die of natural causes like the criminals he was been crucified with did.
So if it wasn’t these brutal physical abuses that killed Jesus, what did? Jesus said,
“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” – John 10:17-18 (emphasis mine)
Jesus laid down his life, no one took if from him. It looked like he was lead away as if he were not in control of his final hours, but he was. He laid down his life and he did that because the Father gave him authority to do so.
Also take a look at Psalm 69. It is pretty clearly a Psalm about Jesus. The New Testament applies verse 9 to Jesus in John 2:17 and Romans 15:3. Jesus applies verse 4 to himself in John 15:25. There are a few other passages that are cited from the Psalm that don’t directly apply to Jesus himself but indirectly to his enemies. Psalm 69 pretty strongly applies to Jesus. And in it, the Psalmist says:
For they persecute him whom you have struck down,
and they recount the pain of those you have wounded. – Psalm 69:26 (again, empahsis mine)
If we read Psalm 69 the way the New Testament does, you can’t help be notice that God struck down Jesus. As horrible as the physical punishments were, they weren’t what killed Jesus. He didn’t die of natural causes from his wounds. God placed the sins of all on him, turned his face from him and Jesus died. It is as if at the right time the Father said, “die for those sins now Son” and the Son said, “Yes Father” and he died. Jesus was never out of control. He entered Jerusalem at the right time knowing what was coming. He selected Judas knowing what he would do. He offered no defense against the false accusations of the Jewish leaders and wouldn’t excuse himself to Pilot. God gave Jesus authority and charge to lay down his life and take it up again. They and they alone were in charge of his death and resurrection. And they didn’t do it to be cruel but to save.
For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
that dishonor has covered my face.
I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons. – Psalm 69:7-8
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed. – Isaiah 53:4-5
Tags: Cross, Crucifixion, Jesus, Sacrafice | No Comments »
Infallible Revelation, Fallible Interpreters
By Tim Etherington | May 4, 2012
RC puts it really well. Humility must be part of the hermenutic.
Tags: revelation, science | No Comments »
What Do You See?
By Tim Etherington | April 16, 2012
“What Dana [Tierney, writer for The New York Times Magazine] observed about believers–their wonder over the creation–is at the heart of why we even have science. If the stream is a result of accidental natural forces, then you just see water, rocks, and dirt. If God equals the stream, then you worship the stream god, not the creator of the stream. But if God created the stream, then wonder and curiosity naturally flow into study.” – Paul Miller, A Praying Life
“The contemporary atheist movement has a scorched earth strategy – chop down Christianity, root and branch. I don’t believe in God either, but this strategy is entirely counterproductive.
“Not satisfied to point out that elements of Christian belief are historically implausible, or that religion is scientifically unsubstantiated, the New Atheist movement wants to prove something more. That Christianity has been a force for bad, that there is something fundamental about religious belief that holds back progress, approves of oppression, and stokes hatred.
“Yet virtually all the secular ideas that non-believers value have Christian origins. To pretend otherwise is to toss the substance of those ideas away. It was theologians and religiously minded philosophers who developed the concepts of individual and human rights. Same with progress, reason, and equality before the law: it is fantasy to suggest these values emerged out of thin air once people started questioning God.” – Chris Berg, Secular World Has A Christian Foundation, Brisbane Times, 4/15/2012
Tags: religion, science | No Comments »
Only Jesus
By Tim Etherington | April 15, 2012
In his resurrection Jesus did what was impossible for humanity and in his death he did what was impossible for divinity. Only in Jesus could two impossible things be accomplished.
Tags: anthropology, Christology, Theology Proper | No Comments »
What You’re Told To Say
By Tim Etherington | March 6, 2012
And God came to Balaam at night and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise, go with them; but only do what I tell you.” So Balaam rose in the morning and saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab. – Numbers 22:20-21
But God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as his adversary. – Numbers 22:22
Then Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you stood in the road against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in your sight, I will turn back.” And the angel of the LORD said to Balaam, “Go with the men, but speak only the word that I tell you.” So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak. – Numbers 22:34-35
Setting aside the talking donkey for a moment, what is up with this? Balaam asked once and God said no so he didn’t go. Then better princes come and he asks again and God said to go. So he goes and God gets mad and sends an angel to kill him. Balaam admits he’s wrong and offers to not go but the angel says to go. Anyone else get whiplash following that?
From the information I’ve summarized above I can’t see where Balaam did anything wrong. He asked God and didn’t go till God said yes and if a donkey crushed my foot against a wall it would probably get a good crack on the hinder too. So is God just being fickle here? May it never be! As Balaam himself says in the very next chapter, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.” So assuming Balaam is right here what gives? The Angel of the LORD tells Balaam and us:
And the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to oppose you because your way is perverse before me…” – Numbers 22:32
The problem wasn’t with Balaam going, it was with why he was going. It appears that despite what God had told him, he was planning on doing what Balak had asked him to do: curse Israel.
Look at Balaam’s response to Balak’s people. First, in verse 13 he says, “Go to your own land, for the LORD has refused to let me go with you.” Then in verse 18 when the second set comes he says, “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the command of the LORD my God to do less or more…” When God lets him go in verse 20 he says “But do what I tell you.” Then after Balaam’s encounter with the angel when he meets Balak in verse 38 he finally gets it and says “Have I now any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.” It looks like the meeting with the angel is what convinces Balaam that going or not going wasn’t the issue. He really has to do what God told him and will tell him. Period.
Okay, so what about the talking donkey? It is entirely possible that God temporarily gave the beast the ability to speak her mind. However, since her conversation during that brief interlude was so focused and the angel takes up her defense even though he says that his mission was to oppose Balaam, I kind of think that was the angel speaking to Balaam through the donkey. She doesn’t speak any more after the angel starts talking so perhaps he’s done with her. Even if the donkey were speaking of her own volition, she is doing what Balaam should have been doing. She was saying nothing more and nothing less that the LORD told her to say.
Tags: Balaam, inspiration, Numbers, revelation | No Comments »
Made by Not Made of
By Tim Etherington | March 3, 2012
And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. – Genesis 4:4-5
Why did God accept Abel’s offering and reject Cain’s? Some have said that it because Abel offered blood and Cain didn’t. That won’t work because in the law there were commanded grain offerings, even as sin offerings. (Lev 5:11) There’s nothing in Genesis 4 that indicates the offerings they made were supposed to be a sin offering, it was most likely a fellowship offering. No, the problem wasn’t the offering, it was the offerer. Hebrews 11 says that “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain”. By faith Abel did that. Cain lacked faith. And why did Cain kill Able? “Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.” (1 John 3:12) God rejected Abel’s offering because it was made by a faithless, evil man not because it was made of grain.
Tags: Abel, Cain, Genesis, Offerings | No Comments »
Piper on Edwards on the Trinity
By Tim Etherington | March 1, 2012
The Trinity in Two Minutes from Desiring God on Vimeo.
Piper perfectly summarizes Edwards conception of the Trinity in two minutes here and that is difficult to do! I think Edwards is correct and if so, it explains why we don’t see the Holy Spirit mentioned sometimes (often?) when the Bible speaks of the Father and the Son. The Spirit may be expressed there in other words.
If you’re interested in reading Edward original thoughts on this to see if Piper is accurate, I did some formatting on Edwards unpublished paper on the Trinity in 2002. It is posted here.
Tags: John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, Theology Proper, Trinity | No Comments »
Someone’s Libertarian Future
By Tim Etherington | February 21, 2012
Ron Paul is mostly libertarian. A lot of young folks love Ron Paul. A lot. Some are called Paulbots and if you question any aspect of the good senator from Texas’ philosophy they bury you under a pile of arguments. There’s nothing worse than a new convert to anything. I speak as one who has made that mistake in numerous other areas. So to summarize: Ron Paul = mostly libertarian, lotsa young ‘uns <3 Ron Paul.
Okay, with those broad, unsubstantiated generalizations firmly in place, I'd like to excerpt a post from Patrick Deneen which he excerpted from himself. It has been bothering me since I read it a few days ago.
What the data also demonstrates is [not only an increase in libertarian toleration, but] a keen and intense emphasis on the self. Today’s students simultaneously urge toleration toward others, but also expect to be left alone. Their overarching emphasis upon individual achievement–particularly in the area of career advancement–suggests that the message of “toleration” and “diversity” seamlessly co-exists with a self-centered focus on material success and personal lifestyle autonomy. At risk is a cultivated belief in civic membership, a sense of shared fate and even forms of self-sacrifice…
I fear that we are not ushering in a utopia of toleration and sensitivity, but one of indifference and self-absorption. Today’s young people have deeply absorbed the lessons that have been taught them by their elders. Do we truly think a civilization can persist when it teaches its young that the most important thing in life is indifference toward others and that the means to happiness is earning the most money?
Couple this with the fact that this generation is the one raised with iPods and TVs in bedrooms rather than family rooms and houses with large bedrooms and small general living spaces and I’m kind of nervous. It all fits together a little too nicely. That whole ethic of “its okay as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” fits right in there too.
I don’t think the future is all that bleak though. You never know how these things will play out in the long run and if you take a larger view of young folks, there are a lot of liberals who just love to get all up in your business. Hard to tell which way the pendulum will swing as these 20 something ages and have children of their own. Still, the thought bothers me because it seems plausible.
Tags: Libertarianism, politics, Ron Paul | No Comments »
Fascinating
By Tim Etherington | February 18, 2012
Leviticus has some fascinating spots in it. Chapters 13 – 15 are about skin disease on people, mildew buildings and about bodily emissions. Here’s what I find fascinating. We have this ritual required a few times:
[T]he priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop. And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water. He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field. – Leviticus 14:4-7
What is really neat to me is that this ritual isn’t given to make the disease or mildew or emission go away. The Bible doesn’t give magical spells for curing people. What precedes this ritual in ever place it is commanded are steps to be take to determine if the disease is only skin deep or commands to scrape plaster and remove rocks from buildings or specific time periods to allow after an emission is stopped but never is there a spell or ritual to remove these things. God does not command magic for his people to gain power over the natural world. It is, after all, the world he created and he expects them to live in it. His law gives them ways to live in the world, not power over it.
Tags: Law, Leviticus, Magic, Nature | No Comments »
One Small Step
By Tim Etherington | February 14, 2012
Roman Catholics, right or wrong, teach that artificial forms of birth control and any form of abortion is against God’s law and therefore wrong. It is a religious conviction, a belief that it is God’s will and that human life is sacred. Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred” distorts the teaching in order to lampoon and protest it. The teaching is not popular these days, even amongst practicing Roman Catholics. But it is official Roman dogma, part of their religion and the US constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion. It no longer is. Hunter Baker said it well,
The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that religious institutions (including Catholic ones) must include coverage for contraceptive services in the care insurance they provide to employees. This is not a big deal, we have been told, because Catholic churches will be exempted, and the organizations adversely affected will be given a year to make their peace with the situation.
He punctuates the summary this way, “Let that sink in for a minute. You’re a Catholic organization. You have just been purposefully placed on a collision course between your God and Caesar. But it’s okay. Caesar is going to give you a year to stop being so upset.” Our democratically elected government has decided that reproductive choice is more important than religious freedom. Sex trumps faith. It doesn’t matter what your church teaches about sexual ethics, the state has determined how it much act. That is chilling.
This is coming from two protestants (Baker and I) who are alarmed at how our government is stepping on the rights of a church we don’t completely agree with. I don’t know where Baker stands on contraception (though I’m fairly confident he is against abortion) but I disagree with how Rome prohibits it. But I disagree more with how Washington has now prohibited that prohibition. Rome has a right to be wrong.
And it isn’t just conservative, evangelical voices who are upset. John Kass is an editor at the Chicago Tribune and he expresses a similar concern, albeit from a different perspective. I don’t agree with his secular “religion in private” approach,1 but I do appreciate and agree with his concern that politics is stepping on even that here. Consider:
With great will and personal charm, Obama pushed through government-run health care. The problem was never with giving care to the needy. The problem was that this policy increased federal power. And now Americans are learning a terrible fact about what happens to freedom as federal authority grows…
Obama has sent the spinners and town criers galloping out of the White House to say, incorrectly, that this debate is only about contraception. It is not. It was always about federal power trampling religious freedom, and now the White House is panicking.
Kass is correct. Our federal government has been increasingly taking more and more power to itself and when it does that, it gets the power from somewhere else. At first the power was taken from States. Now it is coming from us. Small steps at a time. A little here, a little there. I hope this little step set off the burglar alarm because, folks, we’re being robbed.
It is fascinating that this is an election year and we see the federal government make such a huge gaff. I hope this kind of thing wakes people up. The Occupy Wall St. protest had good intentions but they were shooting at the wrong target. The problem didn’t abide only in Wall St., it real home is in Washington. We have got to stop electing those who promise us our wildest dreams and start electing those who promise to keep out of the way of us chasing those dreams. Including dreams of religious freedom.
But wait! The White House has heard our lament! They have proposed a compromise. After extending the kindness of giving organizations a year to get over it, the White House has gone even farther. Now the organization doesn’t have to pay for contraceptives. The insurance company must provide them free of charge. Religious freedom preserved, right? Not really. I mean, are all health care insurance providers going to, from this day forth, take a reduced profit based on how many pills they give away each year? Not likely. Rates will rise to compensate for this “free” service and still religious organizations are required to pay. Can we have our freedoms back? Please?
- And really, doesn’t this debate prove that the secularist “religion is a private matter” is unsustainable? Obama is trying to separate religious belief from public policy and failing. Religion belongs in the public debate not because we’ll all agree on it but precisely because we do not. We need to protect those we disagree with and ensure their rights are curtailed in a private, quite, dark corner. Ours might be next. ↩
Tags: Freedom, Government, politics | No Comments »