"Let Them Come Home" by Abraham Piper

"If I could hear Christ praying for me in the next room, I would not fear a million enemies. Yet distance makes no difference. He is praying for me."  (Robert Murray M'Cheyne)

Confused about the parable of the wedding feast

I read a blog recently where someone posted their "issues" with the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22.  I'm going to post the parable first, then I'll provide some of the post's responses.  Last, I will try to clear things up by posting my own explanation.

Here's the parable:

1 And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:1-14

Now the responses:

Bart said (to Evelyn):
Evelyn, that passage is a perfect example of why I couldn’t use the bible as a moral compass, or as a path to some sort of salvation. Tossing someone out into the darkness where there is weeping and grinding of teeth, just because they wore the wrong clothes? The murderers should have been caught and punished for killing the servants, but burning the city? Isn’t that a bit harsh? Weren’t there children in that city?
It’s all a bit too crazy for me.

Erick said:
Bart, someone I think is taking the story way too literally.

Jubal said:
From a plain reading it seems the parable is saying that God invites many (not all?) into Heaven, but even if you’re invited you must do certain things. If you ignore the invitation you too will be ignored, if you do evil things you will be punished harshly, and if you do show up but haven’t done all of the things you’re supposed to, you will be punished.  Is there any other reasonable interpretation? That seems to confirm the problem Bart originally pointed out.

My response:
I understand the confusion with this parable but maybe this will help it make sense.  In this parable Jesus is referring to the Jews who were invited to the wedding with Yahweh.  The wedding refers to the covenant between God and His people (made with Abraham in Genesis 17:1-13 and Moses in Exodus 19:5).  "A king" is God the Father; "for his son" refers to Jesus Christ; "sent his servants" is referring to the prophets; "all those invited to the marriage feast" is a reference to the Israelites.  The Jews to whom the law was given did not come to the wedding, instead they rebelled and each went his or her own way (Judges 17:6; Judges 21:25).  "...the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them" refers to how the Jews treated the prophets and would soon treat Christ.  "...he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city" refers to the impending destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Titus.  "those servants went out into the roads" refers to the disciples.  "and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good" refers to God inviting everyone regardless of their good or bad deeds to the wedding, meaning his invitation is by grace alone and not a works-based invitation.  "he saw there a man who had no wedding garment" refers to a person who is not wearing the garment of salvation (see Isaiah 61:10 "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation"). "cast him into the outer darkness" refers to exclusion from eternal life of those not having salvation by grace through faith in Christ.  Hope that clears up the parable for you.

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

The longest months

My wife and I were walking not long ago and I was lamenting that the time change was coming up.  We typically walk after work in the evenings and the looming fall time change meant we would be walking in the dark.  Following this train of thought I made the comment, "I don't mind the winter until Christmas or New Year's, but January and February are the longest months."  Shortly thereafter I began thinking about that comment--"January and February are the longest months"-- and how a comment like that might be interpreted and debated if it were found in the Bible.  Perhaps you can imagine...

The skeptics would read that and say, "See, the Bible is not historically accurate.  January is a long month, sure, but February is actually the shortest month of the year.  The Bible is not true!"

The fundamentalists would say, "January and February must have been the longest months of the year when the text was written.  At some point February must have been shortened because the text is without error!"

At some point hopefully somebody would chime in, "I think we should try to figure out what the author actually meant."  By this they would mean we shouldn't understand the text as word-for-word literal, rather we should seek to understand what the author literally meant when it was written.  And then hopefully someone would suggest the author actually meant January and February feel like the longest months of the year because of how bleak they tend to be.

An update to "The maleness of Christianity"

For background, see my original post "The maleness of Christianity".

Me to blogger:

You said, “I would argue that God did not appoint all priests in the OT to be men; society appointed all priests to be men. The Son of God was a man yes, but he came in the world to be human (there is a significant difference).”

Please be careful not to undermine the reason why God gave the priesthood to Aaron and his sons (all male) (Numbers 3). The priests were to be male because God was sending his Son (who was male) to be the everlasting high priest and all other priests were simply types pointing to Christ (Heb 4:14). Similarly, when God told Moses in Exodus 12:5, “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old” He was also creating a pointer to Christ. Christ would be a male without blemish.

As much as people want to make this a male vs female thing, this “male requirement” has absolutely nothing to do with how much God values males or females. It has everything to do with pointing us to Christ. The maleness of the priests and the lambs was important, not trivial, God-dictated, not society-dictated. To say otherwise misses the point in it all.

Blogger:

Thank you for your response!
Your hermeneutic is valid, yet one that I disagree with. Typology removes the human element from scripture, and reduces it to nothing more than divine dictation.

Me:

I never cease to be amazed by the diversity of opinions among Christians. And yours is quite interesting indeed! It seems clear enough you mean for “divine dictation” to be derogatory, as if words from God are somehow less personal and meaningful than words from humans. Yet, “divine dictation” (words that proceed from God’s mouth) is exactly how Paul describes Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 and Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21. Oh that everyone would see the Bible as divine dictation! We’d all take the Bible much more seriously then! Seeing the Bible any other way is what reduces it. I’d embrace truth sourced from God over “truth” sourced from humans any day.

That said, types are used rather explicitly in the Bible, and for good reason:

the flood is a type of baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21)
the tabernacle where the priests served was a type of what is in heaven (Hebrews 8:5, 9:24)
the entrance procedure into the Most Holy Place by the High Priest was a type of the present time (Hebrews 9:8-9)
the veil of the tabernacle is a type of Christ’s body (Hebrews 10:19-20)
the feasts and Sabbath are a type of things to come (Colossians 2:16-17)
the whole sacrificial system is a type (Hebrews 9:19-26)
the Passover lamb is a type of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7)
Adam is a type of Christ (Romans 5:14)
the bronze serpent, lifted up in the wilderness for physical healing of the people is a type of the lifted-up Christ (Numbers 21:8, John 3:14, John 12:32, Isaiah 53:5)
Melchizedek was a type of Christ….(Hebrews 7)
the rock the Israelites drank from was Christ….(1 Corinthians 10:4)
the bread at communion is a type of Christ’s body (Matthew 26:26)
the wine at communion is a type of Christ’s blood of the covenant (Matthew 26:28)

Is the significance of the wine I drink at communion “reduced” because it is a “type” of Christ’s blood? No, in fact the only reason the wine has significance at all is because it is a “type” of Christ’s blood.

The laws in the Old Testament

I have recently been reading through the first five books of the Bible and am now mid-way through Deuteronomy.  Throughout my reading I've been paying particular attention to reasons for the law and the laws.  When I say "the law" I mean the whole Law in a big-picture sense.  I'm looking at the whole forest.  When I say "the laws" I'm looking at individual trees.  So I'm asking myself, for instance, why did God give the Israelites specific laws dealing with how to handle skin diseases?  The reason, in this particular case, seems obvious to me.  But some other laws are harder to figure out.

The impetus behind my focus is I've found the main critique leveled against the Old Testament is that it alienates people.  Most of the laws are so antiquated and the punishment for law-breaking seems overly harsh.  Even this morning I read a blog post from someone claiming that Jesus himself proved the worthlessness of the Old Testament law.  He was the biggest law-breaker of them all, they argued.  Their evidence was when Jesus refrained from stoning the adulterous woman while the law required it (John 8:1-11)  But then I read Jesus say, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)  Then Jesus follows that statement up with a series of clarifications:

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. (Matthew 5:33-37)

When Jesus says "you have heard that it was said..." he is referring to statutes in the Old Testament law.  So what he is doing is clarifying the Old Testament for us.  He's not watering down the law, in fact, he's making it more difficult to obey.  Whereas before someone had to physically commit adultery to be guilty, now all someone has to do is look at another person lustfully!

What Jesus is saying here is that the written laws we read and understand with our heads are just the expression of spiritual laws we should have in our hearts.  Where the written law says "do not murder" the spiritual law says "do not harbor anger towards someone".  Where the written law says "do not commit adultery", the spiritual law says "do not lust".  These spiritual laws existed before the written law.  How do we know this?  Paul says sin was in the world before the written law was given to Moses (Romans 5:13) and this means there was lawbreaking before there was a written law to break.  So the law that was broken was the under-girding spiritual law, not the written law.

Why is this important?  Because it means that the written law in the Old Testament must be understood through the lens of Jesus Christ and what He revealed.  Paul says the law acted as our "our guardian until Christ came" but "now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." (Galatians 3:24-26).  Yet Jesus said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)  What Paul and Jesus meant is while the written law (our guardian) has passed away, the spiritual law is still in place.  Not one iota of it has been removed.  That's why we are told not to be angry with our brother, or lust, or make promises that we will not keep.  The two greatest commandments--love God and love your neighbor--are the spiritual law.  That's why Jesus said "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:40)

When we read the Old Testament and see the severity of God towards the people for breaking His law it should affect us.  First, we should understand that breaking God's law has serious consequences.  That's why Christ had to come and die to suffer the punishment for our lawbreaking.  Second, we should understand that every law serves a purpose.  Some are practical like the ones intended to prevent the spread of disease, some are intended to protect relationships with other people, and some are intended to protect relationship with God.  Finally, we need to understand that under-girding the entire written law is a spiritual law that God writes on our hearts through the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.  Romans 2:12-16

The maleness of Christianity

I recently read a blog post that argued Christianity is not supposed to be a "masculine" faith.  To make his point, the blogger said the following:

"I would argue that God did not appoint all priests in the OT to be men; society appointed all priests to be men. The Son of God was a man yes, but he came in the world to be human (there is a significant difference). He did have 12 disciples who were all men, just like other rabbis took men as disciples – another example of society at work, not divinity. Finally, what does it matter who the apostles appointed as overseers of the Church? That is again society, not divinity."

I have no current opinion on the masculinity of the Christian faith (other than that it makes for interesting discussion), but I did take issue with the comment above.  Here is my reply to this comment:

"Please be careful not to undermine the reason why God gave the priesthood to Aaron and his sons (all male) (Numbers 3). The priests were to be male because God was sending his Son (who was male) to be the everlasting high priest and all other priests were simply types pointing to Christ (Heb 4:14). Similarly, when God told Moses in Exodus 12:5, “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old” He was also creating a pointer to Christ. Christ would be a male without blemish.

As much as people want to make this a male vs female thing, this “male requirement” has absolutely nothing to do with how much God values males or females. It has everything to do with pointing us to Christ. The maleness of the priests and the lambs was important, not trivial, God-dictated, not society-dictated. To say otherwise misses the point in it all."

Saved not by works but by work?

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.  Ephesians 2:8-9

Suppose you agree with me that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works.  Now suppose you make the decision to follow Christ and that decision results in authentic faith that saves you.  Could you not then argue "I was not saved by my works but by my work of deciding"?  In other words, while Christ's death on the cross made you saveable, it was your decision to believe that actually saved you.  (I'm speaking hypothetically)  And if you can claim that, is that not something you could boast about?  How then is salvation "not a result of works, so that no one may boast" as Ephesians 2:9 says it is?

My point being, if our salvation is conditional on a choice (or even God's foreknowledge of a choice we would have made) and not on God's election then we are ultimately saved by our own volition.  However, if our salvation is conditional on God's election irrespective of anything we do or choice we make (though if elected you will respond to the call of the gospel with belief) then we are saved by God alone "and this is not [our] own doing".

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.  John 6:63

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.  1 Corinthians 2:14

"Watching this tree go down makes me want the roots of my life to be deep, not wide. Deep into Christ. http://dsr.gd/VFTWI2"  (John Piper, @JohnPiper)

Lead us not into temptation

And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.  Matthew 6:13

12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.  James 1:12-15

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.  Matthew 4:1

God does not tempt us to sin.  But God does put us in situations where we will be tempted to sin.  The Bible calls these tests.  Notice how James 1:12 says "when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life".  In Genesis 22, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.

1 After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”  Genesis 22:1-2

Do you think Abraham was tempted to disobey God when God instructed him to kill his son Isaac?  We can infer it was extremely tempting (the text doesn't say) because the blessing that resulted from passing the test was so massive:

15 And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”  Genesis 22:15-18

So even though God lead Abraham into a situation where he would be tempted God did not tempt him.  The tempting was done by Abraham's desire to have a son.  As James 1:14 says, "each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire."

Our affections determine our direction.  Jesus said the greatest commandment in all the Bible is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).  If the desire of my heart tempts me or causes me to sin then it's a sign my desire is for something other than God.  Desire is not inherently sinful, misdirected desire is.  When our desire for Christ and His glory outweighs every other desire of our heart then all other desires will play second-fiddle to Christ.  I need to ask God to grow my affection for him so I can say with the prophet Isaiah "your name and renown are the desire of our hearts" (Isaiah 26:8b).  Many people who find themselves mired in a trial are quick to say, "God did not cause this trial I'm going through."  The assumption is since God does not tempt us he cannot put us in situations where we are tempted, but the Bible teaches otherwise.  Our trials are always purposeful.  When we refuse to believe God intentionally leads us into trials, we risk missing his loving purposes for those trials.

Do you know how to tell the difference between sheep and wolves in sheep’s clothing? Sheep eat grass; wolves eat sheep — it doesn't matter how prettily they are dressed. (Thabiti Anyabwile)

Stop projecting negativity! Think positive...

Hurricane Sandy has done a number on the Northeast.  The latest death toll I'm aware of is 98 people.  Staten Island is completely cut off from help.  Anger is boiling over.  People are getting mad at the Red Cross of all things because it's not helping them quickly enough.  Prior to the hurricane the actress Lindsay Lohan tweeted "WHY is everyone in SUCH a panic about hurricane (I'm calling it Sally) ... ? Stop projecting negativity! Think positive and pray for peace."  Had Sandy blown over like a bad thunderstorm I doubt the tweet would have made news, but due to the path of destruction left in Sandy's wake the tweet seems pretty naive.

There's a deeper problem in the world than hurricane Sandy--but like the hurricane most of the world is in denial about it.  If there's one thing I hope Sandy communicates to people is that the world we live in is fallen.  Who could have imagined New York City or the Jersey Shore would be the target of perhaps the largest storm to ever hit the United States?  And yet, it happened.  The fact that anyone has to keep a death toll is evidence to the broken world we inhabit.

While we live in a broken, fallen world where the only certainties are "death and taxes" I am grieved by the number of Christian pastors whose message is the same as Lindsay Lohan's.  They are effectively tweeting "WHY is everyone in SUCH a panic about SIN (I'm calling it Silly) ... ? Stop projecting negativity! Think positive and pray for peace."  Rather than leveling with people about their desperate need for the only Solution to our fallen nature they pad their church attendance with positivity, entertainment, and self-help band-aids to cover our mortal wound.  Is there a place for positive thinking?  Absolutely.  But only when positive thinking doesn't ignore or hide the underlying problem.  As C.S. Lewis said in The Great Divorce, "Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will not call blue yellow to please those who insist on still having jaundice".

There is a Solution to sin.  His name is Christ, and when we embrace reality we will run to Him.  Paul embraced reality, and he said, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:24-25a)

The 3-2-1 Gospel

One of the best presentations of the gospel I've ever seen:

http://321.revivalmedia.org/

A tale of two errors

23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Matthew 22:23-29

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection even though they knew what the Scriptures said.  Because of their unbelief Jesus faulted the Sadducees for 2 things:

a) not knowing, or rather, acknowledging (they knew what Moses said) the truth of the Scriptures

b) not believing the power of God

As a Christian I must ask myself, "Can Jesus fault me for these?"  Of course the answer is yes.  So I must always be asking God to help me know what is in the Scriptures, acknowledge that it is truth, and believe in His power as it is described.