Christian Living Today

Murray obviously believed a correct understanding of Christ’s atoning work is foundational to our faith and hope for eternity. He spent an entire book defining Christ’s redemption, breaking out what was accomplished, and then showing how this work is applied to believers. In chapter two Murray goes into great detail drawing us a clear word picture of the atonement. In my review I felt it would be an injustice to lightly cover such an important section. Thus I resorted to a two part post. For the sake of brevity, I will dive right in trusting you will read the prior post if you need to get up to speed.

Having looked at the sacrificial aspects in the atonement, Murray turns to the propitiation wrought in Christ’s atonement. It was interesting to note the word ‘propitiation’ (which means: to cover, placate, pacify, appease or conciliate) is most often translated atonement. This word is used in reference to sin. It refers to the cleansing and forgiveness which occurs before the Lord. Our sin makes this covering necessary.

Because of the propitiation aspects within Christ’s atonement, “. . .the sin, or perhaps the person who has sinned, is covered before the sight of the Lord. . .Vengeance is the reaction of the holiness of God to sin, and the covering is that which provides for the removal of the Divine displeasure which the sin evokes.” Thus “the doctrine of propitiation means that Christ propitiated the wrath of God and rendered God propitious [favorably inclined] to His people.”

A common error seen in relation to this doctrine is our misconception of an obedient Son appeasing an angry Father. This mental image produces the idea of a rift in the Godhead. Murray steps forward to correct this misunderstanding.

First we must understand propitiation does not cause or constrain God’s love. Secondly, propitiation does not make God loving. He was already loving. Remember 1 John 4:10? “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Instead we find propitiation to be the ground and channel for God’s love. Thus propitiation enhances our appreciation for God’s love rather than detracting from it.

To correctly understand propitiation, we must understand the atonement. Murray says, “To deny propitiation is to undermine the nature of the atonement as the vicarious endurance of the penalty of sin. . .to deny substitutionary atonement.”

Third Murray addresses the reconciliation aspect in Christ’s atonement. Reconciliation presupposes a rift between God and man. It “implies enmity and alienation. . .the cause [of which is]. . .our sin.” While many Christians believe the reconciliation wrought upon the cross addressed the alienation between man and God, Murray points out “the reconciliation [Christ accomplished] deals with the alienation of God from us on account of our sin. . .”

Consider Romans 5:8-11 in this light. “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.”

Murray shows how this verse reveals God making the first move toward sinners in Christ’s death. This act reveals God’s supreme love. Thus the Divine attitude is the starting point. Furthermore, the statement ‘reconciled to God through’ in verse ten is parallel to ‘justified by His blood’ in verse nine. Yet we know justification does not refer to any change in man’s disposition. So we see, as verse eleven clearly states, reconciliation is something we receive - reinstatement into God’s favor.

Murray would also have us consider 2 Cor 5:18-21 which reads, “Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Verses eighteen and nineteen make it clear reconciliation is God’s work. The verb tenses in verses eighteen, nineteen and twenty-one further reveal reconciliation is a finished work. Verse twenty-one identifies Christ’s work as the origination of reconciliation. Verse nineteen goes on to declare reconciliation is an accomplished fact. And, the phrase in verse twenty ‘be ye reconciled’ means “be no longer in a state of alienation from God but rather enter into. . .favor and peace.”

The redemption accomplished in Christ’s atonement, then, “presupposes a relation of alienation, and it effects a relation of favor and peace.” This is achieved by the removal of our sin and guilt which Christ’s vicarious work brought about. He became sin for us. We received righteousness from Him.

Finally Murray looks at the redemption aspects in Christ’s atonement. He says, “The language of redemption is the language of purchase and more specifically of ransom.” Jesus came to accomplish a ransom. His life was the ransom price. The ransom was His substitutionary act.

Redemption implies some kind of bondage or captivity. We were bound to obey the law. Christ’s redemption does not redeem us from the law’s obligations, but it does redeem us from the law’s curse.

We were bound to obey God’s law as we see in Gal 3:10. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” We failed in every respect. Thus we read in Gal 3:13, “Christ has redeemed us from the law’s curse, by becoming a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”),” Murray says, “It is from this curse that Christ has purchase His people. . .”

Furthermore, we have been redeemed from bondage to the ceremonial law (Gal 4:4-5: “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.”). “In Him the Mosaic law realized its purpose. . .He redeemed [us] from the relative and provisional bondage under which the Mosaic economy was the instrument.” (Gal 3:25-26: “But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”)

Finally we understand we are redeemed from having to keep the law to be justified and accepted by God. In Rom 5:19 we read, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”

Not only did Christ’s atoning work redeem us from our obligations to the law, it redeemed us from the many aspects from which we can view sin. It covers every aspect (Heb 9:12). It refers to Christ’s work in relation to guilt and justification (Rom 3:24, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, Heb 9;15). It refers to sin’s power and defilement (Tit 2:14, 1 Pet 1:18). Christ “interpreted the purpose of His coming into the world in terms of substitutionary ransom. . .this ransom was nothing less than the giving of His life.” He shed His blood to purchase the many for whom He paid the ransom.

Murray concludes, “. . .redemption from sin cannot be adequately conceived or formulated except as it comprehends the victory which Christ secured once for all over him who is the god of this world.”

I believe most Christians take their salvation lightly. We appreciate it. We trust it will keep us from hell. But, in the end it matters little, perhaps because we understand it little. I trust, as we continue to study this valuable book, you and I will grow in our understanding and be humbled thereby.

Having shown us, from Scripture, the necessity of Christ’s blood being shed for our sins, in chapter two John Murray looks more specifically at Christ’s work on the cross. What exactly did He do? What did He accomplish? Was He a victim or a participant in what occurred?

Scripture described Jesus as the suffering servant. In Phil 2:7-8 we read, “but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” Again in Hebrews 5:8 we read, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;”

Are these verses teaching us Jesus was passive in all He experienced? Was He forced? Did He have no say, no choice, no escape? Once He committed to come to earth, was He set upon a path which, although He sought to avoid it, He was driven to follow? Is this what Scripture is teaching? In other words was Jesus acted upon, perhaps against His will?

John Murray answers these questions and more as he sets forth to clarify Jesus’ part in our redemption. First off, Jesus obedience was both active and passive. Scripture describes these two distinct aspects of Christ’s obedience. Consider John 10:17-18. “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

When theologians use the phrase ‘passive obedience,’ we are not to understand this as Christ being an involuntary victim of something forced upon Him. Such an idea contradicts obedience. Murray explains it thus, “. . .our Lord was not the passive recipient to that of which He was subjected. . .death itself did not befall Him as it befalls other men.”

His life was not wrenched from Him. Instead we see His obedience was so complete He willingly yielded up His spirit, even to death. Therefore we must be careful never to assume the word ‘passive’ (in this context) means He was apathetic in any aspect of His life or death.

Furthermore, the terms ‘active’ and ‘passive’ as applied to Jesus’ life and work are not intended to delineate certain acts or phases or periods in His life. Murray warns, “. . .we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the active obedience applies to the obedience of His life and the passive to the obedience of His final sufferings and death. . .It is [the] twofold demand of the law of God which is taken into account when we speak of the active and passive obedience of Christ. . .[He] took care of the guilt of sin and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness. He perfectly met both the penal and the preceptive requirements of God’s law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the later.”

Thus we understand Jesus’ death upon the cross was His supreme act of obedience. However, we must also recognize obedience is not merely the accomplishment of acts. True obedience is the disposition, will, and volition revealed by these acts. Thus we must ask: Where did Jesus get the disposition and will, in His human nature, to give up His life in such a manner? Murray says He acquired the necessary obedience through suffering. His perfect obedience came from having His heart, mind, and soul forged in the fire of temptation and suffering. Murray makes several valuable points:

“It was only as having learned obedience [in this manner]. . .that His heart and mind and will were framed to the point of being able freely and voluntarily to yield up His life in death upon the accursed tree.”

“. . .it was the obedience learned and rendered through the whole course of humiliation that made Him perfect as the captain of salvation. . .It was by obedience. . .He wrought the work that secured [our salvation]. Obedience, therefore, is not something that may be conceived of artificially or abstractedly.”

Having clarified the nature of Christ’s obedience in the atonement, John Murray progresses to clarifying the nature of the atonement, itself. In so doing he articulates four areas of the atonement:

- sacrifice

- propitiation

- reconciliation

- redemption

First he looks at the sacrifice. Our sin is a liability. In other words, our sin makes us debtors to someone- God. God is holy. When we sin, we act in a manner completely contrary to God’s holiness. Since that first sin it has always been thus.

In the Old Testament, God gave the Israelites the ceremonial law which included animal sacrifices. These blood sacrifices were symbolic but not efficacious. In other words, they did not really remove sin, but they pointed to an event which would remove sin. So, as Murray points out, “. . .what was constituted in the Levitical sacrifices must also have been constituted in the sacrifice of Christ.” Thus Jesus’ sacrifice was:

- expiatory (it made atonement) but it was finally and eternally so

- efficacious (it produced the desired effect - sin removal) but more completely so (Heb 9:14)

When making the correlation, we must remember its limitations. Christ’s offering was so far above what could be typified in animal sacrifice. Furthermore, while an animal was a victim, Jesus was not only the sacrifice but also the priest. Thus He offered up Himself. Murray explains, “. . .in the climactic event which registered and brought to completion His sacrificial act He was intensely active. . .in offering to God the oblation that expiated the full toll of Divine condemnation against a multitude whom no man can number. . .”

Next time we will look at the second, third, and fourth aspects of the atonement.

One cannot help but marvel at the hypocrisy which riddles our world. While we are often frustrated at how quick non-Christians are to call Christians, in general, hypocrits, the truth is we are guilty of this sin. And, while we might expect our culture’s dedication to a relativistic worldview to diminish the issue, reality shows it has not.

The church, as a general rule, is riddled by at least three different errors in judgment - or a combination of the three. We have church attendees who, for whatever reason, refuse to ever make a judgment or even state a strong opinion about the actions or attitudes of another. They take Jesus’ words, “Judge not that you be not judged” in Matthew 7 and ignore His admonitions to address a sinning brother or sister in Matthew 18.

Other church attendees take a branch off the pharisees’ vine. This group has absolutely no problem judging other folks. In fact they state their opinion as though they were ‘law’ about what others wear, where they live, how they school their children, what they eat or drink, or the activities in which they participate - in other words anything! Sadly these folks are not willing to discuss their judgments based on Scripture, but like we will see in the passage which follows, they are often excuse questionable (or possibly even sinful) activities in their own lives.

Thankfully there are also those who seek to attain a Scriptural balance. They seek to address sin first in their own lives and then, as they must, in the lives of those around them. They seek to leave heart judgment to God while tackling wrong actions in their own lives and humbling addressing them in the lives of those closest to them. They are far from perfect - and know it - but do not let their own imperfections stop them from seeking to obey Scripture if they see blatant sin in their own life or in their brother or sister’s life. Yet they spend much more time seeking ‘sin; in their own lives than looking for it in others.

Sadly the third group is the minority. I suspect the second believes they are actually part of the third while, in reality, most prefer to remain in the first thus escaping the command to examine our own lives, deal with our own sin, and open ourselves to accountability to one another. Yet, while Jesus did say, “Judge not that you be not judged” (a verse we hear quoted frequently), He also told us to make righteous judgments. Thus, in an earlier post, we discussed how the two can be reconciled.

Lately, however, I have been reminded of how the second group’s mentality has permeated our churches. We have folks who call themselves Christian who are not only judging those outside but are attacking their brothers and sisters on the inside.

While ‘attacking’ may seem a bit strong, this is how Jesus viewed similar accusations addressed at Him. In John 7 we find Him in the temple, during the feast, discussing the Scriptures with the people. They marvel openly at His understanding and wisdom. Then He asks a seemingly strange question (given the people’s current attitude and what appears to be a ‘teachable’ moment). He asks, ‘Why do you want to kill me?’

I do not believe the question just slipped out. His side of the conversation goes right from showing His own actions to be in accordance with God’s will to showing their actions as being in direct conflict with God’s will as revealed through Moses. In other words, He is using this opportunity to reveal their hypocrisy, yet again. In verse 24 we read: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

Jesus is referring to His healing of the impotent man (Jn 5:9, 16, 18), and their response. Jesus is pointing to their own hypocrisy. If you remember, the Jews considered circumcision their identifying mark. Thus it played a very important role in their rituals. When it was time to circumcise a male baby - Sabbath or not - the deed was done. Thus Jesus is saying, “You will do work to keep tradition, but you wish to kill Me because I help someone on the Sabbath.”

So often our own hypocrisies are as obvious. Matthew Henry makes some very applicable and pertinent observations. He says, “It is contrary to the law of justice, as well as charity, to censure those who differ in opinion from us as transgressors, in taking that liberty which yet in those of our own party, and way, and opinion, we allow of; as it is also to commend that in some as necessary strictness and severity which in others we condemn as imposition and persecution.

“We must not judge concerning any by their outward appearance, not by their titles, the figure they make in the world, and their fluttering show, but by their intrinsic worth, and the gifts and graces of God’s Spirit in them.” (italics in original)

How quick we are, however, to judge others. How quick we are to forget who ‘we’ really are. How quick we are to set our standard as the standard instead of examining Scripture and seeking the balance only God can give. As John Trapp said, “Nothing is more ordinary with many than to precipitate a censure, to exercise their critics, and to reprehend that which they do not comprehend.” Hard words!

I end with a couple more hard statements from Trapp. I believe we all would do well to consider them carefully - because, to some degree, there is no doubt we are all guilty of this sin. He says, “. . .the Protestants force the Bible to follow them. . .our condemnation is so expressly set down in our own Bibles, and is so clear to all the world, that nothing more needs hereto than that they know to read, and to have their eyes in their heads, at the opening of our Bible.” Do you know what the Bible says on this subject?

On rare occasion I have posted an entire section out of something I am reading. Two other times it has been the daily devotional from a collection of Matthew Henry’s writings. Today I share a third because I believe it is not only insightful but also extremely relevant to the specific temptations Christians face today.

Luke 9: 60 “Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.”

“This person seems resolved to follow Christ, but begs a day. The excuse he made was, ” ‘ Lord, let me first go and bury my father’ (vs 59). He cannot live for long and will need me while he does live. Let me go and attend to him until he is dead, and then I will do anything.” We may see three temptations here.

We are tempted to rest in a discipleship-at-large, in which we may be at loose ends and not come close.

We are to defer the doing of our duty and to put it off until some other time. When we have gotten clear of such a care or difficulty, then we will begin to think about religion, and so we are cheated out of all our time by being cheated out of the present.

We are tempted to think that our duty to our family will excuse us from our duty to Christ. The kingdom of God and its righteousness must be sought and minded first.

Christ’s answer was, ‘Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.’ Christ would not have His followers or ministers act unnaturally; our religion teaches us to be kind and good in every relationship. But we must not make these duties an excuse from our duty to God. If the nearest and dearest relation we have stands in our way to keep us from Christ, it is necessary that we have a zeal that will make us forget father and mother. No excuses must be used against immediate obedience to the call of Christ.”

No doubt we should ponder the seriousness of Christ’s call. What is stopping you from serving Him? I doubt most of us have an excuse even as valid as this man’s excuse, which Christ shows was no valid excuse at all. What shall we say when we stand before His throne?

In an earlier post we looked at chapter one in John Stott’s book, Your Mind Matters. This short, four chapter book, explores the importance of our minds to our Christian walk. In Chapter one, Stott stated his thesis: Many modern day Christians are wasting their minds.

Having stated the problem, Stott delves into whether our minds really matter in chapter two. His opening statement cements his viewpoint. He claims, “This is a battle of ideas, God’s truth overpowering the lies of man. Do we believe in the power of truth?”

In the first chapter the author claimed our churches have been permeated with the modern idea that what really matters is what works for me, not what is true. Yet there is something ironic in that very statement. For me to say truth is relative to what works for me is to make a truth statement! How hypocritical is that?

The Christian, however, must operate under a different thesis. The Christian does NOT have the option to put his mind on cruise control or to dedicate it to worldly things. Stott says, “. . .the great doctrines of creation, revelation, redemption and judgment all imply that man has an inescapable duty both to think and to act upon what he thinks and knows.” He spends the rest of the chapter developing this thought.

First, he says, man is created to think. This point is easily supported. Only man possesses what the Bible calls understanding. Only man has the privilege of communicating directly with God (Genesis 2 and 3). Only man is held accountable for what he does with what he has been told. Only man is required to discriminate between what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Only man is given lordship over other creatures for their care and well-being. Only man is expected to ‘act’ in a certain manner as God has directed him (Ps 32:9).

In a society which makes decisions based on what ‘feels’ right, Stott makes an extremely important observation. “. . .sin has more dangerous effects on our faculty of feeling than on our faculty of thinking because our opinions are more easily checked and regulated by revealed truth than our experiences. . .when our behavior is more emotional than rational, we insist on rationalizing it. . .[which] indicates that man has been constituted such a rational being that if he has no reasons for his behavior he has to invent some in order to live with himself.”

Second, the author says man was created to think God’s thoughts. He writes, “. . .all God’s revelation is rational revelation, both His general revelation in nature and His special revelation in Scripture and in Christ.”

The Bible says the heaven’s declare God’s glory (Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:19-21). Thus even creation proclaims God’s glory and majesty to mankind. Yet we are not left to interpret this message as we may. In Scripture God’s revelation is verbalized.

We have the very words of God, recorded in our language. These are words we can read and, with the Spirit’s help, understand. Furthermore, Christ - God himself - came to earth as a real man living among real people. In Him we have God’s character and His words verbalized and visualized. As Stott says, “. . .that God [chooses to reveal Himself] in words, shows that our minds are capable of understanding.”

He closes this point by quoting James Orr who said, “[Christianity] bases religion on knowledge, though a knowledge which is only attainable under moral conditions. . .religion, divorced from earnest and lofty thought has always. . . .tended to become weak, jejune, and unwholesome; while the intellect, deprived of its rights within religion, has sought its satisfaction without, and developed into godless rationalism.”

Third, Stott claims Christians possess a renewed mind. No longer should we live as though our minds are enslaved to the God of this world. We have been set free to understand and thus act on a totally different plane. He says, “. . .all God’s revelation is rational revelation, both His general revelation in nature and His special revelation in Scripture and in Christ.” (1 Cor 1:21)

Scripture is clear - when a person is regenerated, their mind is renewed. (Col 3:10, Eph 4:25, 1 Cor 2:15-16). Furthermore, Paul called upon his hearers to not only listen, but to use discernment in their listening (1 Cor 10:15).

Stott drives his point home by quoting from Harry Blamires’ book The Christian Mind. Harry said a Christian mind is “a mind trained, informed, equipped to handle data of secular controversy within a framework of reference which is constructed of Christian presuppositions. . .[A Christian thinker] challenges current prejudices. . . .disturbs the complacent. . . .obstructs the busy pragmatists. . .questions the very foundations of all about him and. . .is a nuisance.

“[Today] the Christian mind has succumbed to the secular drift. With a degree of weakness and nervelessness unmatched in Christian history. It is difficult to do justice in words to the complete loss of intellectual morale in the twentieth century church. . .There is no longer a Christian mind. There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality. . .But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization.”

Not only are these hard words - an accusation we wish to deny but in all honesty cannot - but they were written over 45 years ago! Not only does that tell us this is a long-seated problem, it judges our actions for the last 45 years. Can we say we have improved upon the situation? I fear not.

All of the author’s points should give us pause - should make us ponder - should make us ashamed. However, his final point should make us afraid. For, as he points out, we will be judged by our knowledge.

I suspect there are Christians out there who have made a conscious choice to NOT gain knowledge in an attempt to not be held accountable. They rationalize, I can’t be accountable for what I do not know. However, this reveals a scary fault in our reasoning because God has given us not only the ability to know but the textbook by which we may come to know. Thus, as Stott wrote, God “will judge us by our knowledge, by our response (or lack or response) to His revelation.” (Jn 12:48). In other words - the act of choosing not to know is just as damning as knowing and choosing not to act upon the truth.

Furthermore, all men are guilty because all possess the same knowledge. Remember, God has more clearly revealed Himself in Scripture, but He has also revealed Himself in nature. Not only that, but no man lives up to the knowledge he possesses. Yet “to denigrate the mind is to undermine foundational Christian principles.”

Worse yet, only fools hate knowledge (Prov 1:22, 3:13-15). Perhaps this is part of the reason the New Testament writers were so vocal in directing their listeners to seek Divine wisdom. (2 Pet 1:5; 1 Cor 2:6, 3:1-2; Eph 3:14-19; Phil 1:9-11; Col 1:9-10).

How we use our minds not only determines our fate and our reward or punishment, it also says a lot about us in the here and now. Are we showing ourselves to be wise? Or are we advertising to the world that we are fools?

I have spent a lot more time reading than writing of late. I suppose this is obvious to those who have read this blog. While my posts have been scanty, my reading has been varied. Someone once said, ‘So many books. So little time.’ I agree - to a point. There are so many books I would love to read. Since God has not chosen to remove me from my responsibilities, my time is limited. Thus I try to really ‘pick and chose’ what I read.

Unlike Jim Osman, a pastor from Kootenai, Idaho who has taught me much by his faithful exposition of Scripture, I have yet to develop an annual reading list (something I hope to attempt for this year). However, while my reading is not thoughtfully scheduled ahead of time, I do try to use discernment in choosing the books I read.

Thus I have developed a simple set of criteria (one I suspect will change and develop as I grow and develop as a Christian) by which I judge a book before I decide whether to delve into its pages. I ask myself (at least) these questions:

1 - Is the book written by an author I know to be theologically sound? If not, does this book come recommended by someone I trust to be discerning?

2 - Is the topic relevant to an issue I am studying?

3 - Is the author serious? In other words, does the author write fluff or something deeper?

While this often finds me reading books written by dead guys, there are some more ‘modern’ authors from whom I have benefitted. An author I have only recently come to appreciate - and appreciate him I do - is John Stott. Thus when I ran across some things he had written on the importance of our minds, I put another book on my reading list. Fortunately while it was not long, it was packed with wonderful insight and admonition.

John Stott’s book, Your Mind Matters, is short - a mere 4 chapters long. Thus it can be read in a long afternoon. However, the subject matter is of such importance it should be pondered long thereafter.

I like reading John Stott. He certainly doesn’t write ‘fluff’. However, his books are easier to follow (for this somewhat lazy-minded modern American Christian) than many of the ‘dead guys’ from whom I have benefitted greatly. So, I find him a happy medium. Challenging yet great for a rainy afternoon. Deep yet not too hard to comprehend. A relatively easy read yet one which will keep you thinking for a long time thereafter.

In chapter one, Stott accuses some Christians of having lazy minds. I certainly agree. In fact, I think lazy mindedness is a growing malice in the church today. In fact, I think even those who might ‘think’ they are avoiding this disease might be amazed (and ashamed) at how much it has permeated them to their core.

However, even if I did not agree with his premise, the author makes a compelling argument. He says, “What Paul wrote about unbelieving Jews in his day could be said, I fear, of some believing Christians in ours.”

Remember Paul’s words in Romans 10:2. To the Roman Christians he wrote, “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” Stott goes on to say, “Many have zeal without knowledge, enthusiasm without enlightenment. In more modern jargon, they are keen but clueless.”

Zeal isn’t enough. To say we ‘want’ to be a good Christian is not sufficient. To proclaim our fealty to God does not fulfill His demands. To read by rote (without fully engaging and exercising our minds in the process) is not what He requires of us. Stott quotes Dr. John Mackay, a past president of Princeton, who said, “Commitment without reflection is fanaticism in action. But reflection without commitment is the paralysis of all action.” Think about that one awhile!

Much of our modern mental paralysis comes from our view of life and godliness. Today we ask, “Does it work?” not “Is it true?”

Think about that. Doesn’t truth matter anymore? Not really. At least not to most people. After all, if one lives long enough as a contented resident in a culture which considers everything relative and nothing definitive, any other response would be unusual.

In fact, modern day American Christians have left off seeking the ‘truth’ for so long we have reached the point where doctrine is distasteful and no longer trustworthy. To have Someone say He is the ultimate authority, and we must obey Him is bitter to our taste buds. To have Someone require us to focus our entire life upon our learning of Him and serving Him sounds to us more like I despot than a God we would willingly dedicate our lives to pleasing.

Thus we have created a watered down Christianity based on a smorgasbord belief system which picks and chooses what makes us ‘feel’ good. I suppose that is why so many churches have ended up selling fire insurance to the unconverted who have no desire to be a ‘slave’ to Christ yet want a stamp of approval on their sinful lifestyle. Perhaps that is why many of our more conservative churches focus on ‘life improvement’ while avoiding the hard requirements God places on those who would wear His name. Maybe that is why we speak more about God’s love than we do His holiness. Maybe our mind really matters a WHOLE LOT more than we want to admit???

While Haddon Robinson’s book Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages is not a necessarily heavy read, the first chapter contains the author’s definition of expository preaching. Because this definition is so key to the book’s content, and because the author felt it important enough to spend time breaking it down and defining its components, I chose to do so as well. Thus this post will focus completely on this task.

As we saw in the last post, expository preaching is “the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through him to his hearers.”

In this definition the author points out, first, the passage governs the sermon. The goal is to transmit the original writer’s thoughts to the listener. This is what determines the sermon’s substance. He says, “In many sermons the biblical passage read to the congregation resembles the national anthem played at a football game - it gets things started but is not heard again during the afternoon.” Sad but true!

He thus suggests the minister’s study take on a two-pronged approach:

Simplicity - a childlike, learner’s attitude

Sophistication - a recognition of his natural bent and culture’s influence on his presuppositions

Second he says an expositor must communicate a concept. He says ministers ought to be “primarily concerned not with what individual words mean, but with what the biblical writer means through his use of words.” It is important to note he is not saying individual words are unimportant. Instead he is saying we put individual words together to produce thoughts. Thus, while we need to understand the role each word plays - the entire thought is what we are seeking to analyze and comprehend.

Third he shows how the text provides the concept the minister is seeking to communicate. The passage’s objective meaning is provided via the language, setting and background. The biblical text gives the minister’s words authority. His goal, then, is to focus his listener’s attention on the Bible. Furthermore, those listening must ‘work’ to understand what the original author is communicating. In addition, the preacher must labor to comprehend the original author’s message before he can communicate this message to his flock.

We’ve all heard the phrase, “Practice what you preach.” There is a good reason behind this maxim. If a pastor never seems to grow spiritually, if he never seems to be going anywhere in his Christian life, if he never seems driven by a passion to know his God - perhaps he has failed to apply what he is studying to his own life. This is Haddon’s fourth point. He goes on to quote William Barclay who said, “The more a man allows his mind to grow slack and flabby and lazy, the less the Holy Spirit can say to him. True preaching comes when the loving heart and the disciplined mind are laid at the disposal of the Holy Spirit.”

Think about it. All Satan has to do to cripple the church is to get her ministers to leave off their dedication to the word. If he can persuade them to focus on anything above and beyond the message they bring to their people each Sunday, if he can convince them to stray from the text’s original message, if he can tempt them to be slack and lackluster in their own studies, he will quickly stymie Christianity. Don’t believe me? Take another look around.

Haddon’s final point was obvious. The Scriptural concept must be applied to the hearer. However, it is here many sermons fail. Without valid and relevant application, the congregation can often shrug off the words preached as not pertinent to their day and time.

In preparation for application the minister must exegete the text. Exegete just means analyze and interpret the original meaning. Once he grasps the original meaning, he must wrestle through an examination of his own life and comprehend his own need to apply these truths to his life. In this process he must ponder and consider what message God has in the passage for his own flock. Furthermore he must avoid the two extremes:

1 - Always presenting the same application (for example, the proverbial pastor who always preaches a hell-fire and brimstone message)

2 - Not presenting a message which is applicable to modern life (for example, giving an application which clearly does not apply to the culture in which we now live)

Robinson says, “An expository preacher confronts people about themselves from the Bible instead of lecturing to them from the Bible. . .A congregation convenes as a jury not to convict Judas, Peter, or Solomon, but to judge themselves. . .The letters in the New Testament, like the prophesies of the Old, were addressed to specific assemblies struggling with particular problems.” Clearly to be an effective minister, a pastor must be aware of where and how his particular congregation struggles and apply Scripture to these areas.

The author gives several ‘example’ questions which he suggests a minister consider as he seeks to develop a relevant application true to the author’s original message are:

How do the characters in the text relate to one another?

How are they related to God?

What values lie behind the choices they make?

What went on in the minds of those who were involved?

At the same time he must remember his final application is not based on ‘there and then’ but ‘here and now’ (i.e. How do we relate to one another today?) And, lest we consider proper application as less than important, Haddon points out an interesting aspect of Jesus’ temptation. Satan tempted Jesus by a wrong application of Scripture.

In Matthew 4:5-7 we read Satan tempted Jesus to test His father’s care and prove His power and authority by casting Himself off the temple heights. This was a misapplication of Psalms 91. Jesus, however, did not respond by debating grammar but addressed the incorrect application. Thus proper application matters!

Finally, since most of us are not preachers, we are hearers, we must remember - we are called to conform to biblical truth. We are NOT to be seeking an ear-tickling experience on Sunday. While Satan has definitely attacked our churches via our ministers, may we never think the fault does not rest on our shoulders as well. We must seek to understand what the Bible means, not twist the meaning to suit our own desires. God grant us such grace!

Just in case you are curious, I currently have four ‘books in progress.’ I am reading Redemption Accomplished and Applied as part of the ‘Reading the Classics’ group on Tim Challis’ blog. In addition I am reading John Adams by David McCullay, a book by entitled, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship by George Marsden and a fourth book entitled, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages by Haddon W. Robinson.

Why so many books? Because, as Jim Osman once wrote, having several books going at one time gives me absolutely no excuse for not having something to read regardless　of my mood or location. Besides, while my primary focus is on Redemption Accomplished and Applied, this is a book which requires my mental engine to be hitting on all its cylinders. Thus having something a little ‘lighter’ (yet still valuable) to read when I need some ‘cruise control’ time, allows me to continue to make the most of my free moments.

However, some might wonder why a book on preaching? Let me first clarify - I do not hold to the modern idea a woman has a place in the pulpit. Scripture speaks very clearly against such a practice. Nonetheless, women can hold the place of teacher - a Sunday School teacher to the youth and other women, a Bible study leader or co-leader, an older woman teaching and mentoring younger women, an author, or even just as one who helps another crystalize their thoughts through conversation.

Haddon Robinson answers this question quite clearly in his book’s preface. He says, “Principles and passion must be united before much of significance appears in the pulpit. In this book, therefore, I pass on a method to those who are learning to preach or to experienced people who want to brush up on the basics.” [He is clearly speaking to preachers. Yet he goes on.] “Hopefully I have expressed myself clearly enough that laymen - men and women - who teach the Scriptures will benefit.”

In chapter one, Mr. Robinson states his case for expository preaching. If the very idea of Expository Preaching curls your toes, you are probably dealing with at least one, perhaps both, of these issues:

1 - You have sat under what has been called ‘expository preaching’ yet was as dry as cornflakes without milk (to borrow the author’s analogy)

2 - You believe Scripture is best suited to meeting your ‘felt needs’ and do not understand the reason it was given nor the goal behind preaching.

I believe, based on what I have read to this point, this book will help us see the fallacy of both of these viewpoints.

The first chapter is broken down into numerous sub-points. I will address each briefly. The author first address the devaluation of preaching. We live in an information over-stimulus age. We are constantly bombarded by the mass media, the television, and the radio. Furthermore, preaching is no longer a respected profession. As a result, a preacher’s voice has lost its authority. We need to remember the apostle’s priorities as stated in Acts 6:2 - “Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.”

As listeners we need to realize this is the most important part of the service. Our ministers, as well, need to realize while they stand in the pulpit each Sunday they are serving as God’s mouthpiece to the people. Thus it is right and proper the sermon be the focal point of our church service.

Second Haddon provides a ‘case for preaching.’ He says preaching the word of God cannot be substituted by anything else. (1 Thess 2:13 - “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.”) Preaching is the means God has given by which He brings men and women to salvation. Could there be anything more important than our eternal souls?

Third the author speaks specifically to the need for expository preaching. He says all preachers labor under the temptation to deliver a message based on something besides Scripture. This, of course, would please our adversary, the devil, very much.

Furthermore, ministers must realize their authority is based on Scripture. If they are ever to regain that authority, it will flow from their faithful handling of God’s word because God has chosen His word as the tool to conduct His voice to man. Sadly, however, the author says, “While most preachers tip their hats to expository preaching their practice gives them away. Since they seldom do it, they too vote no.” Nothing like throwing away the key to the prison (literally).

Fourthly, Mr. Robinson gives us a clear and concise definition of expository preaching. He says it is “the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through him to his hearers.”

From here he goes on to break down his definition. Because the definition of expository preaching is so key to his topic, Robinson spends some time breaking it apart. Thus we will return to this definition in the next post.

The ‘Reading the Classics’ group at Tim Challis’ blog are at it again. This time we are reading “Redemption Accomplished and Applied” by John Murray. While the previous two books which I have read with this group: “True Christianity” by William Wilberforce and the one we just finished “The Rare Jewel Of Christian Contentment” by Jeremiah Burroughs are books written by authors from another time - one might say another era - John Murray is of a more modern time.

John was born in Scotland. A founder of the Westminster Theological Seminary where he taught systematic theology, John is perhaps best known (according to my book’s cover) “for his deep devotion to the truths of Scripture.” He joins a handful of men who have lived and / or died in the last few generations and yet actually knew what they believed, were passionate about those beliefs, and were effective in communicating them. Perhaps it is for these abilities “he was regarded by many as the foremost conservative theologian in the English-speaking world.”

Whatever the reason, this book is a masterpiece. While I lament what I call the ‘fluffiness’ of most modern Christian literature - from novels to supposedly deep theological treatises - Redemption Accomplished and Applied reads more like a Puritan classic than a book originally published in 1955. While this book is not an easy read (in other words something you can read with your mind on cruise control), it is a valuable read. Perhaps that is why it has been republished several times in the ensuing years.

Murray breaks the book into two parts. In the first he addresses Redemption Accomplished. In the second, Redemption Applied. Like any good speaker or writer, the author does not leave his readers to guess where he is headed. In the first chapter he lays out his thesis then moves directly into defending it from Scripture.

Have you ever wondered why Christ had to die? Today many firmly believes any way which feels good will get you to God. Thus the idea any God would send His Son to suffer and die in the most barbaric manner seems a bit extreme. I suspect you have heard someone say, “I’d never believe in a God who would kill His own Son!”

Perhaps it is this mindset which makes Murray’s book so valuable to Christians today. Not in the least daunted by public opinion or cultural revulsion, he tackles the issue head on. His thesis: Did Christ really have to take on human form, live a sinless life, and die on a Roman cross to redeem us from our sins? OR Was this the ONLY way God could redeem the world or was it just the one He chose from among many?

For many years the later had been the accepted belief. Great Christian thinkers including St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas believed God could have forgiven man’s sins and saved the world without Christ’s blood sacrifice. This viewpoint is called ‘hypothetical necessity.’ However, a growing number of theologians have come to believe Christ’s death was more than a hypothetical necessary. In fact, they believe it was a ‘consequent absolute necessity.’ In other words, God’s sovereign good pleasure and the perfection of His nature required this means to purchase our redemption.

Our redemption flows freely from God’s sovereign love. While we accept this source, as we contemplate the extreme price Christ paid on our behalf, it is only natural to wonder if such a radical method was really necessary. Was it really the only way?

Murray begins to support his thesis that this was the only way by pointing to the absolute perfection of God’s nature. He asserts the perfection of God’s nature required no less than the brutal death of His Son on a Roman cross. While many might agree, few are able to articulate why they hold this belief. Murray, however, labor under no such disability.

First he shows numerous Scriptural passages which support this position. Hebrews 2 says our redemption required suffering. John 3 suggests there was no other option. In Hebrews 1, 2, and 9 the author argues sin’s gravity required Jesus’ blood. Only His blood could meet God’s requirements of efficacy and vicariousness. Furthermore, as Hebrews 9 clarifies, while the Levitical sacrifices prefigured Christ’s sacrifices, they were also patterned after His sacrifice.

Second, the nature and gravity of our sin and guilt also dictate redemption’s requirements. We tend to belittle our sin. We trivialize and excuse it with great ease. However, this does not change the reality of our sin, nor its depth and enormity in God’s eyes. Thus our sin necessitates the nature and gravity of the price due to purchase our redemption.

Thirdly, while few if any would argue the manner and method of our redemption is ultimately an expression of God’s supreme love, logic recognizes only such a supreme cost would be able to truly reveal the depth and extent of God’s love. However, if Christ’s death were only one of many options available by which God could reconcile us to Himself, the very existence of other these options would deface God’s supreme love.

Finally, Murray points to what is, perhaps, the strongest argument in support of his thesis. He says only Christ’s sacrifice could vindicate God’s holiness and justice. Just as we try to trivialize and minimalize our sin, we also try to diminish and reduce God’s holiness and justice. However, while we may fool ourselves, reality does not change. Our sin is such an extreme affront to God’s character it rightly deserves His unmitigated anger. Thus without Christ’s sacrifice our sin can and will never be dealt with.

Without Christ’s sacrifice on a cruel Roman cross in a small middle-eastern land over 2,000 years ago, there would be no remission of sin, no hope of reconciliation to highly and rightly offended God, and no redemption for a helplessly lost people. This knowledge, alone, should cause us to burst forth into doxology with the apostle Paul who said (in Romans 11:33):

“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!”

In an earlier post we started looking at one instance of hospitality recorded in Scripture - Abraham and his three guests. The purpose of this exercise was and is to gain a deeper insight into true, biblical hospitality.

The church, as a whole, has dropped the hospitality ball. Christians, may be family in theory but we act little like family in practice. Recently this issue has become blatantly obvious to me. Thus this issue has become the focus of my personal devotions lately.

Last time we saw Abraham didn’t use his lack of a permanent home as an excuse to avoid hospitality. Thus we can conclude our current housing status has little to nothing to do with the requirement to be hospitable. Furthermore we looked at a few principles of hospitality which are clear in this passage.

We saw: A righteous man (or woman) looks for opportunities to be hospitable and: A righteous man (or woman) seeks opportunities to be hospitable.

As I have meditated on this passage lately, I have been struck by a couple other less obvious points. One: Abraham was a stranger in this land. Sometimes we excuse our lack of hospitality saying, “I haven’t been attending here long” or “I’m not part of the ‘in’ crowd” or some similar reason

If Abraham’s actions are recorded as an example for us to follow, clearly this excuse is completely irrelevant in God’s eyes. Abraham was the last person to whom these people should have looked for hospitality. He had no ‘real’ home. He was not a ‘native.’ He was a stranger, like them, not a resident, like his neighbors.

In addition, Abraham didn’t wait for a ‘convenient’ season to be hospitable. While I acknowledge there may be times and seasons when we have an honest (and biblical) reason for not exercising hospitable (today or this week NOT this year or the next five years), we often excuse our lack of hospitality as inconvenient or inappropriate for a reason which has more to do with our comfort level or our current status or our schedule or. . . (we know our reasons).

Abraham was a stranger in a foreign land. He lived in a tent. He was elderly. It was the hottest (thus the least convenient) time of day. Talk about several very valid reasons. How quick most of us are to consider just ONE of these reasons good enough to excuse our lack of hospitality. Abraham didn’t let them deter him.

One more thing I need to point out. I spoke above of our requirement to be hospitable. While I hope to dig into this more, I think it wise at the outset to point out, hospitality is NOT listed in Scripture as a spiritual gift (in other words, something one has but another does not and therefore is not required to exercise).

I say this because I have heard folks say hospitality is not their spiritual gift. Translated they were saying, “I do not have to be hospitable because that is not the area where God has gifted me.” While there are numerous places where hospitality is shown by example or commanded directly, neither the list in Romans 12 nor the one in 1 Cor 12 list hospitality as a spiritual gift. However, it is just as important to note Romans 12:13 actually commands us to practice hospitality. Hospitality is not something which is limited in its scope. If you are a Christian, this is required of you.

The third principle we see in the Genesis 18:1-8 passage is: Hospitality is not limited. In other words, we are not called to be hospitable JUST within our comfort zone or just to people we know. On the other hand, hospitality (as we will see in later passages) is also not limited to strangers. However, I suspect we are much more willing to open our home to friends than to strangers. Yet, as Calvin points out:

“the humanity of Abraham deserves no slight praise; because he freely invites men who were to him unknown, through whom he had no advantage, and from whom he had no hope of mutual favors. What, therefore, was Abraham’s object? Truly, that he might relieve the necessity of his guests. He sees them wearied with their journey, and has no doubt that they are overcome by heat; he considers that the time of day was becoming dangerous to travelers; and therefore he wishes both to comfort, and to relieve persons thus oppressed. And certainly, the sense of nature itself dictates, that the strangers are to be especially assisted; unless blind self love rather impels us to mercenary services. For none are more deserving of compassion and help than those whom we see deprived of friends, and of domestic comforts. And therefore the right of hospitality has been held most sacred among all people, and no disgrace was ever more detestable than to be called inhospitable.”

Entertaining people we know can often be done with the hopes of receiving reciprocal treatment. So how do we entertain strangers? Consider entertaining the visitors to your church and other Christians who cross your pass whom you do not know.

Fourthly we see: True hospitality is offered humbly yet boldly. Abraham did not wait for the strangers to come to him - even though, by cultural custom they could have. Furthermore, he does not treat them as vagrants or unwelcome guests but, in effect, rolls out the red carpet and becomes their servant.

Look at the passage. Beginning in verse 2 we read: “. . .he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, and said, “My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant. Please let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. And I will bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may pass by, inasmuch as you have come to your servant.”

He didn’t offer begrudgingly. He didn’t wait around to see if someone else would be hospitable. He was not prepared to take ‘no’ for an answer. In other words - although not a thing was yet prepared, Abraham was bound and determined to show these men hospitality. I doubt any of us are so eager.

Abraham even belittled his offering of hospitality though he planned to provide them an overly abundant feast. Calvin says:

“he makes light of an act of kindness which be was about to do, not only for the sake of avoiding all boasting, but in order that they might the more easily yield to his counsel and his entreaties, when they were persuaded that they should not prove too burdensome and troublesome to him.”

Fifthly we see, True hospitality is not tight fisted nor does it count the cost. Granted, as Calvin pointed out, Abraham obviously did NOT entertain every stranger to this degree. Thus, there is little doubt he recognized something special about these strangers. However, in acknowledging their superiority, he responds readily.

He offered a ‘morsel of bread’, but look at the actual menu beginning in verse 6. “Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes.” And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it. So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them”

Abbe Fleury said: “We have an instance of a splendid entertainment in that which Abraham made for the three angels. He set a whole calf before them, new bread, but baked on the hearth, together with butter and milk. Three measures of meal were baked into bread on this occasion, which come to more than two of our bushels, and nearly to fifty-six pounds of our weight.”

A whole calf! Fifty-six pounds of bread! Butter and milk! This was an abundant feast. Obviously Abraham was not a skimpy host. Granted we do well to remember Calvin’s words. Abraham did not entertain (nor could he have entertained) every stranger or visitor at this level. Yet, when he recognized these men as ‘noble,’ he responded with extreme generosity.

Do NOT take this, however, as a hospitality requirement. Remember Jesus’ words in Mark 9:41 - “For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.” In other words, while we should be generous knowing all we have comes from our Father above, simple hospitality is all the Bible calls us to practice.

Sixthly we see: True hospitality is permeated by a servant’s attitude. The American idea of hospitality (which is more a view of modern entertainment) always pictures the host and hostess perfectly attired, flawless presented, and the center of attention - perhaps as entertainer or grand master of the house. However, while Abraham was certainly the grand master of his house, he presents himself as nothing more than his guests’ servant.

Note Abraham’s posture in verse 8. “he stood by them under the tree as they ate.”

John Gill tells us he held this posture to

“minister to them; nor will this seem strange, or that the above several things were chiefly done by Abraham and Sarah, when it is observed that the greatest personages in the eastern countries, in early times, used to perform such services, and still do to this day. . .it is here (says he) no disgrace for persons of the highest character to busy themselves in what we should reckon menial employments; the greatest prince assists in the most laborious actions of husbandry; neither is he ashamed to fetch a lamb from his herd and kill it, while the princess his wife is impatient till she has prepared her fire and her kettle to seethe and dress it. . .and, after his entertainment is prepared, accounts it a breach of respect to sit down with his guests, but stands up all the time and serves them.”

Finally notice: True hospitality is a group effort. While I am not suggesting a single person is exempt from hospitality, it is important to note the roles played by the various members of Abraham’s household. Calvin again offers us great insight:

“[Moses] presents us, in a few words, with a beautiful picture of domestic government. Abraham runs, partly, to command what he would have done; and partly, to execute his own duty, as the master of the house. Sarah keeps within the tent; not to indulge in sloth, but rather to take her own part also, in the labor. The servants are all prompt to obey. Here is the sweet concord of a well-conducted family; which could not have thus suddenly arisen, unless each had, by long practice, been accustomed to right discipline.”

Fathers. Mothers. Children. Others living in the home can and should expect to participate in the work and preparation which goes into being hospitable. Not only is this right and good and, of course, excellent training in household skills, it is also the best way to teach the next generation how to be hospitable as well as reinforce to them the great importance of acting thus.