Friday, May 25, 2007

Was Jesus in the Old Testament, pt. 1

After the resurrection, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking back to Emmaus feeling sad and dejected. Jesus came to them while they were walking, keeping his identity hidden. They began to tell this ‘stranger’ the story of the crucifixion and the possibility of the resurrection, but their sadness indicated that they remained doubtful. Jesus then said to them, “’O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:25-27) Jesus confirmed that He was the theme of the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament there are many prophecies concerning Jesus. The first is Genesis 3:15, which prophesies that a male child of the woman will crush Satan’s head (a fatal blow) while Satan will only crush his heel. Jesus stomping on the head of a snake in the opening scene of Mel Gibson’s movie was an allusion to this prophecy. This death blow to the head of Satan was rendered by Jesus on the cross.

Many prophecies seem to indicate that God himself will come to the earth in the form of a man. Isaiah 9:6 says, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”According to this prophecy, Jesus would be a child born to humanity, but He also would be the Mighty God from heaven.

Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].” Some suggest that ‘virgin’ here should be interpreted young woman, but a young woman conceiving and bearing a son would hardly be a significant sign.

Micah 5:2 says, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.” In Daniel chapter seven the term Ancient of Days is clearly a reference to God.

Zechariah 2:10-11 says, “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the Lord. And many nations shall join themselves to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you.” Notice that the Lord will dwell in our midst because the Lord of hosts sent Him. This passage is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus--Jesus confirmed this when He said, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” (John 8:42)

Next week we’ll look at more passages and discuss the use of the word ‘Lord’ in the Old and New Testament.
a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels: ,

posted on  Friday, May 25, 2007    |  0 comments

Friday, May 18, 2007

Where Did God Come From?

This question begins in our childhood, and if not given a proper answer, it can linger into adulthood. The reason it seems so difficult is that we live in a world of beginnings, so we assume that everything must have a beginning—including God. Genesis 1:1, however, clues us in to the answer: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The very first verse in the Bible tells us that before the heavens and the earth (the universe) were created, God existed. God is a non-contingent being, meaning His existence does not depend on anything else. He was not created; He has always existed. Psalm 90:2 says, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” Revelation 1:8 says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Some may improperly cite the scientific principle of causality by saying everything must have a cause, which they assume would include God. However, the principle of causality states that every effect must have a cause. By definition God is not an effect of something else (otherwise there would be something greater than God), so the principle of causality would not apply to God.
This question is hard to grasp because we are finite and therefore limited in our understanding. We would have to be infinite like God to understand God’s eternal nature. But we can understand what God has revealed: that He has always existed and there was never a time when He was not.

If all of this is too hard to believe, then it must be understood that the existence of something eternal is not just a religious problem; it’s a problem for science as well. There’s a basic scientific axiom which says ex nihilo nihil fit –“out of nothing, nothing comes.” This axiom reminds us that if there was ever a time in which there was nothing, there would still be nothing. The fact that you and I (and the universe) exist is proof that there’s something eternal—something has always existed.

Since logically we know that there is something eternal, the real question is whether this something is an impersonal force or a personal being. If it is an impersonal force, how did it produce personal beings? If this force is lifeless and unintelligent, how did it ever produce life and intelligence? Can the creation be greater than its creator? Again, Genesis 1:27 tells us why we are intelligent and personal beings: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” We are personal and intelligent beings because we have been created in the image of an intelligent and personal God.

No doubt it’s difficult to explain God’s existence, but it’s also very difficult to explain our own existence without God.
a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels:

posted on  Friday, May 18, 2007    |  0 comments

Friday, May 11, 2007

Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

Hypocrisy is commonly cited as a reason for not attending church. Admittedly, hypocrisy is not hard to find in church. But in reality, hypocrisy is not hard to find anywhere. The human heart is bent toward hypocrisy. Jesus warned us about judging hypocritically when he said, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matt. 7:3,5) In this context, Jesus was not condemning all judgments (he was not taking away our ability to call things right and wrong), just hypocritical judgments.

Hypocrisy abounds even among secularists who have attempted to establish certain key principles that they themselves have failed to follow. Two examples of these principles are religious tolerance and moral relativism. According to Webster, tolerance is, “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.” One tolerates those with whom he disagrees. However, tolerance in our society is now intolerance in disguise. In the name of religious tolerance, Christmas trees are removed, prayers are forbidden, Bibles are disallowed, and the name of Jesus cannot be mentioned; these actions do not exemplify religious tolerance. When someone desires to limit the free exercise of religion because it is offensive, they are clearly being intolerant. The courts should not limit the freedom of religion (as is the trend) because of the offended; they need to direct the offended to grow up, and suggest they look up the definition of tolerance. For the secularist to desire the appearance of tolerance, when they are in fact intolerant, is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Moral relativism is another example of hypocrisy in our society. A moral relativist is one who suggests there are no objective standards of right and wrong. A relativist might say something like, “that might be wrong for you, but it is not wrong for me.” In reality, however, there’s really no such thing as a true moral relativist. The idea of moral relativism is just a ploy in an attempt to tear down an old morality (the Judeo/Christian ethic) and establish a new morality. Many who claim to be moral relativists will protest the war, push for acceptance of certain lifestyles, and denounce the use of fossil fuels as a source of energy. Having an idea of what’s right, expecting others to agree with oneself, and desiring to impact laws and public policy are not the activities of a relativist, but of an absolutist. An absolutist who attempts to pass himself off as a moral relativist is in reality a hypocrite.

All of this is to show that hypocrisy abounds everywhere. If someone uses hypocrisy as an excuse for not attending church, then it should also be an excuse for not leaving the house. And if they choose seclusion to avoid hypocrisy, they should, by all means, avoid looking in the mirror.
a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels: ,

posted on  Friday, May 11, 2007    |  0 comments