This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
In many instances, the teachings of Jesus are counter-cultural, running against the grain of what the religious leadership of his day was teaching the people, but at other times, the problem wasn't a matter of changing minds but of changing hearts. While at a dinner hosted by a Pharisee, Jesus notices the scramble among the guest for the seats of honor at the table and uses that display of pride to tell a parable about guests at a wedding feast. The parable itself, and its moral, are both things that previous rabbis had taught, they were not controversial in any way, they just weren't being followed.
Pride is a tricky sin, one we may often miss seeing in ourselves, but one that must be dealt with because pride is at its most basic a form of ingratitude toward God. Why are we full of pride, because we don't give God adequate thanks as Creator, we don't recognize that our own accomplishment (or accident of birth) is not our greatness but God's grace. Throughout the Scriptures, God consistently opposes the proud and uplifts the humble, this principle is stated explicitly often enough, as well as being illustrated implicitly in the lives of prominent people in the Bible like Moses or Ruth, who exemplify humility, and Sampson or Nebuchadnezzar who reaps the penalty of pride.
So where are we prideful? What do we need to do in our lives to set aside pride and embrace humility? We have been called to be disciples of Jesus, as such we need to take seriously our need to imitate the man who had more cause to be glorified than any other, but was willing to take upon himself the role of the humblest servant for our sake.
Much has been written, any many a debate and/or argument had, over the issue of how the will of God fits together with the freewill of humanity. Is God entirely sovereign, and human choice simply an illusion, or has God chosen to allow human choices to truly matter? In regards to salvation, in particular, what is the key factor, the call of God or the response of man? Does it have to be an either/or question or can it be a both/and?
This is, of course, a complex topic, involving many Scripture passages, as well as the overall theme of God's Word, and one where you can find references in the Bible that seem to support both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. In the end, we won't be able to "solve" this question in this life, but because it is one that the Scriptures dwell upon, so must we.
Here in Luke, Jesus laments the rebellion of Jerusalem and expresses his desire to protect them from themselves, "but you were not willing!" Regardless of how the rebellion of man fits into your understanding of the issue of God's will and human freewill, the consequences of that rebellion are the same: desolation. Without God, man is doomed, without redemption, our terminal spiritual sickness will indeed become spiritual death. Our response, again regardless of how we view the issue, is the same, we must share the Gospel, we must do everything we can to show the Lost the love of Christ and their need for forgiveness.
There are certain things that some "Christian pastors" teach, and I don't use those quotation marks lightly, for it is no small thing to doubt the faith of someone who claims to be a Christian, especially when you don't personally know him/her, but there are some beliefs that go so far beyond the boundaries of a Christian-worldview that they call into question anything else that person might say about faith, Jesus, and the Gospel. Social media and Youtube have given such people a voice, and during the past twenty years we've seen the chaos and hate spawned by the people of Westboro Baptist Church as they protest at the funerals of American service members. The utter bankruptcy of their willingness to cause pain to the families of those who have given the 'last full measure of devotion" to their country is obvious to all who don't share their fanaticism. Alongside the people of Westboro belongs the "pastor" of the Faithful Word Baptist Church, Steven Anderson. I've known of Steven Anderson for some time, his shrill KJV only claims are well known on the Internet, as was his much publicized public prayer that President Obama would die of a brain tumor. On top of this foolishness is also added the damning title: Holocaust denier. There is no legitimate reason to deny the Holocaust that is not fueled by anti-semitism. The documentation of the Holocaust is so massive and exhaustive that to deny it stretches rationalism beyond its breaking point. There are few things that Islamic Jihadists and White Neo-Nazis agree upon, denial of the Holocaust is one of them, shouldn't that be a frightening group to join.
It pains me that both of these examples are from those calling themselves "baptists". Please, those of you who don't know the difference between Christian denominations, or who don't know personally any baptists, please, don't think for a moment that the rest of us have anything at all in common with these who are profaning the names of pastor, baptist, and church. Sad, but true, this is a new low, lower than the last, that anyone calling himself a Christian would deny that millions upon millions of the descendants of Abraham were murdered in WWII, for shame.
In this passage, Jesus responds to a very important question that is asked of him, "how many will be saved?" Will the grace of God be triumphant, bringing in vast multitudes of the Lost into the kingdom of God, or will only a tiny remnant be saved with many who thought they were following Jesus disastrously mistaken? Those within the Church who tend toward universalism see the grace of God as victorious, perhaps even beyond the boundaries of the Church to include other religions and philosophies. On the opposite end of the spectrum from this optimistic viewpoint, lies those whose pessimism sees the holiness of God as victorious, even within the boundaries of the Church where they look and see mostly apostasy. Which is the correct view, should we expect a Church that is overcoming the World, or one that is hemmed in on all sides and persecuted?
Jesus doesn't, as usual, directly answer the question, but instead he offers an analogy about entrance into the kingdom of heaven, declaring that it is only through a "narrow door" that requires "every effort" to walk through. There are several ways in which the "door" to heaven could be thought of as "narrow". That there is only one door, one way to heaven, is one way, and that the door is only accessible to those who have been washed clean of the impurity of sin is another. It might also be that the door is narrow because only few will enter into it. While it is true that Jesus speaks negatively of the chances of the rich entering through such a narrow door, the end of his answer makes it clear that heaven will be filled with those who have come to accept the Gospel from all over the world.
The universalist is too optimistic, for there is only one door and those who have not put their trust in Jesus won't find it, but the pessimists on the opposite end of the spectrum are equally wrong, for the grace of God will surely save all those whose trust is in Jesus. After all, our hope is in Him, and in what He has done, not in our own imperfect understanding of it. The wisdom of Jesus' answer to the question is that heaven will be missing people who expected to be there, for whatever reason, but failed to trust in him, but at the same time, heaven will be overflowing with those who were written off by men, only to be redeemed by God.
While teaching in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus was confronted with the implications of a cultural/religious phenomenon known as expansion of piety. In this case, it was observance of the Sabbath that had grown more elaborate and restrictive over time to the point that by the first century, it was even considered to be a violation of the Law to heal someone of infirmity on the Sabbath. This has, of course, nothing to do with the original intent of the law of Sabbath rest, but is instead a result of small incremental steps of increasing piety/devotion over time and the eventual integration of those new facets of keeping the Sabbath into the accepted form of obeying the Law. Eventually, the traditions surrounding the Sabbath came to be accepted as being as sacred and binding as that which was contained originally in the Law of Moses.
This same phenomenon occurs in Church history, as pious scribes over time magnify the name of Jesus in the text that they are copying such that what was originally simply "Jesus" eventually becomes "our Lord Jesus Christ". Similarly, appreciation for Mary as the mother of Jesus eventually builds and grows until it becomes full blown Marian devotion in the Middle Ages, the same thing applying to the Saints and their relics. Likewise, the church liturgy itself, along with the church buildings, communion items like the candlesticks and cups, and the priestly vestments, all grew more elaborate and complex over time.
The problem with this tendency arises when a would be reformer seeks to return things to their original intent or purpose only to be viewed as a heretic for daring to attack the sacred when in reality he/she is only seeking to peel away the layers of human additions to what God instituted. Some such additions and growths are harmless, but others, like the change of how the Sabbath was observed that Jesus confronted, can lead to a twisting of what the original purpose was to the extent that it actually becomes harmful. The enhanced Sabbath observance not only led to hypocritical and silly extremes, but it eventually raised keeping the Sabbath above the needs of real people such that the crowd became indignant with Jesus when he dared to heal on the Sabbath.
In the end, what God had decreed, we have no right to change, what man has built upon that foundation, should always be open to reform, especially if what we have built puts tradition, rules, and preferences, above the needs of the people of God.
