so yesterday we decided to change things up a bit at our service. what did you think? did it work? was it too long? was it weird? was it awesome? was it terrible?
let us know.
mark
-
Recent Posts
Categories
So I was reading Exodus today and I read this: “You shall make for them linen undergarments to cover their naked flesh. They shall reach from the hips to the thighs; and they shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they go into the tent of meeting or when they come near the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest they bear guilt and die. This shall be a statute forever for him and for his offspring after him” (28:42-43). Pretty awesome. Makes more sense when compared with Exodus 20:26.
(John 1:1-3)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made…
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
(John 1:14).
Think about it.
Dan Kline
The other day I read the crucifixion account as told by Luke and I noticed something I never noticed before. In all of the Gospel accounts (except John), at the end of the story, one of the centurions who crucified Jesus acknowledges Jesus’ divinity. Within these three Synoptic Gospel accounts, however, there is one glaring difference. In Matthew, the centurion (and those with him who crucified Jesus) says: “Truly this was the Son of God” (27:54). In Mark, the centurion says the same thing (15:39). In Luke, however, the centurion says something different: “Certainly this man was innocent” (23:47)! Innocent.
There are four people in Luke’s crucifixion story who agree. Pilate, governor of Judea, says, “I find no guilt in this man” (23:4). Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, did not found Jesus guilty of any of the charges laid against him (23:15). One of the criminals who was crucified with Jesus also agrees: “…this man has done nothing wrong” (23:41). And then we have the statement of the centurion: “Certainly this man was innocent.”
Innocent. The crazy thing about this is that these are the last people you would expect to make this statement. Pilate was a cruel and merciless governor. He had slaughtered some Galileans while they were offering sacrifices at the temple (Luke 13:1) and was known for his ruthlessness and greed. Herod was not a good guy either. He had John the Baptizer beheaded and had stolen his brother Philip’s wife who was also his niece. The criminal was exactly that and had apparently committed a crime worthy of death, as he himself admits (Luke 23:41). The centurion killed people for a living and carried out the murder of the Innocent One Himself, Jesus the Son of God. Again, not a good guy. Yet all these people declared Jesus innocent.
What does this tell me? Jesus was so innocent that even the biggest scumbags in the world could see that he was innocent. Jesus was so innocent that even the liars, the murderers, and the thieves could not deny it. You had to be blind to not see Jesus’ innocence. And that’s the irony of the whole story. The religious leaders, the “good guys” who were supposed to be honest and upright and true were so blinded by their hatred of Jesus that they sentenced him to death and gave him into the hands of the only people whose consciences were so seared that they could believe that a man was innocent and crucify him anyway. Jesus was so innocent that the hypocrites could only hate him. Their true colors were exposed when they were placed next to the light of the Innocent One and they hated him for it.
That’s why Luke records the centurion’s words the way he does. He wants to show the twisted irony of the whole situation. The perfect Son of God, the Innocent One, was so pure and innocent that the worst people in society were forced to admit it and this perfect Son of God, the Innocent One, was sentenced to death by the people who were supposed to be the best people in society and killed by the worst people anyway. Only the Son of God could be so innocent. Only the Son of God could be so hated. And only the Son of God could die for people like that, for the ones who unashamedly love the dark and those who hide that they do.
Dan Kline
So I’ve been reading through the Gospel of Luke and today I read the crucifixion account of Jesus of Nazareth. During this event, two criminals are crucified with Jesus and Luke records a fascinating dialogue between the two criminals and their reaction to Jesus. Luke writes: One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise (emphasis added).”
I’ve always been kind of intrigued by this passage and one of the reasons has to do with its relationship to Romans 10:9-10: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” Before I move on, I would like to make clear that a biblical view of salvation has two parts: 1) right knowledge and 2) right response. It is not just enough to believe that Jesus rose again and is Lord (for demons do and they are not saved). Rather, the Holy Spirit must reveal to the person that this event and this Lordship bring salvation to his or her self. While Paul explicitly makes mention of right knowledge, he chooses to implicitly imply right response in this passage. Now back to the relationship with the criminal on the cross. Notice the past tense here (God raised him from the dead). Yet when the criminal is crucified, the resurrection is not in the past, but lies ahead in the future. Does this event contradict what Paul is saying?
I would say no. Here’s why. When I look at what the second criminal says to Jesus, I see several things. First, I see that the criminal believes that Jesus is a king with a kingdom (remember me when you come into your kingdom). This matches with confessing Jesus as Lord. Second, I see that the criminal believes that Jesus will come back after death. There are two options here. Either the criminal believes Jesus will be a ghost king or, more likely, he believes he will rise again from the dead. While this resurrection is probably in line with the common Jewish thought of the day that there would be a general resurrection of the righteous and wicked at the end of the age and not in line with the individual resurrection of Jesus first, it is still, nonetheless a resurrection. This fits with the second part of Paul’s statement (believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead). Thus, it seems as though the criminal’s knowledge, although limited, does contradict Paul’s description of the knowledge part of salvation.
Dan Kline
for those who came to our service last night… what did you think?
mark.
service this week.
sunday.
seven pm.
see you there.
marksantistevan
well we had another service this past sunday night…
if you were there let us know what you thought.
someday someone is going to respond to one of these posts. i just know it.
marksantistevan
In the 2nd century, a young man named Justin was walking to the seashore to do some heavy-duty contemplation, as was his usual practice. He wore the gown of the philosophers, and rightly so, for Justin was one of their apprentices, particularly of the school of Plato. After testing various other schools, he had decided to follow that of the Platonists, for he thought they, above all others, held in their hands the keys to knowledge of God and happiness.
So walking to this place of solitude, free from human distractions, Justin suddenly realized that he was being followed by another human being. Slightly annoyed, the young philosopher swiftly turned about and stared the man down, who happened to be quite old. Seeing this, the old man quietly asked him, “Do you know me?” Justin answered that he did not. Pouncing on such a response, the old man again questioned him: Why, therefore, do you stare at me so?” Justin replied that he was shocked to see anyone in such a desolate place and that this was the reason for his stare. With a slight smile across his face, the old man let Justin know the reason for his being in such a lonesome space, “I am worried about some missing members of my household, and I am therefore looking around with the hope that they may show up somewhere in the vicinity. But what brings you here?”
Justin did not have time to process what the man had said before asking his latest question and, thus, did not notice how odd his reason for being there was. Instead of thinking about this, Justin, quickly told the old man his purpose in being by the seashore that day. He told the old man about his love for philosophy. He told the old man about how he needed to think. He told the old man about how he liked to do this by talking to himself and about how he thought places without distractions such as this empty beach were the best places to do so.
And with this reply, a conversation ensued, a conversation that would last through the centuries. For you see, my reader, this conversation was the means by which Justin was converted to the Christian faith. This day the old man sparked in Justin an interest in the holy Scriptures and over time Justin became a follower of Jesus Christ. Through this encounter, Justin received true knowledge of God and true happiness. For the rest of his life, Justin wore the philosopher’s garb he had worn before his conversion, teaching others this knowledge of God and happiness, the truest philosophy, that which is found in the teachings, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In doing so, he became the first in a long line of scholarly defenders of the Christian faith, the first Christian apologist. Eventually, he would be killed for this same faith, thus earning himself the name Justin Martyr.
Perhaps the old man spoke more than he knew when he said that he was looking for a missing member of his household, for that day, Justin became a member of the old man’s household, the household of Christ. Maybe he didn’t. Whatever the case, the old man, whose name we don’t even know, was ready to introduce Justin the philosopher to Jesus Christ.
Dan Kline
For my history class I’ve been reading this megabook on the Reformation by this Oxford prof, Diarmaid MacCulloch. I only just started it, but it’s really tight. For those of you who don’t know, the Protestant Reformation was when the Protestant Church broke away from the Catholic Church. He paints a pretty fair picture of both sides, at least so far. There were definitely errors on both sides, but as a Protestant, I tend to side with the Protesters. In general I would say that the Reformation was a good thing because it gave back to the Church the key doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ and his death and resurrection on the cross and the key doctrine of the importance of Scripture. The crazy thing about looking at the circumstances surrounding this monumental revolution for change is that this movement should not have survived.
During the beginning stages of the Reformation, the Muslim Ottoman Empire was attacking southeastern Europe. Because of this, Charles V, the Catholic emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (the place where the Reformation began), had most of his focus on the invading Turks. If he didn’t he probably would have had the resources and the desire to wipe out the little movement. Thus, the Turkish invasion of Europe allowed the Reformation to gain enough momentum to start so that when Charles V did attempt to wipe out the Reformation later on, it survived. Kind of crazy, especially when I think about the fact that Jesus is the sovereign Lord of history and weaves it all together.
Dan Kline
