Archive for February, 2007

h1

Genesis 6:5 and the mind

February 22, 2007

My quick reflection on Genesis 6:5, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (ESV)

This is just before the Lord decides to flood the entire earth due to the wickedness on it. He saves Noah and His family out of the flood, only eight of the many thousands living on the earth.

There is no reason to think that this does not apply to all of mankind/humankind. The scope is verified in many other passages like Romans 3:10-18, 23. We also find the complete inability of all unsaved people to please God, Romans 8:8. These give us insight into unsaved man’s inability to please God in any way, by action or by thought.

Why is this? Fallen man suppresses the knowledge of God, Romans 1:18,21. Without the knowledge of God unsaved man is always motivated incorrectly in his/her actions. Instead of being motivated to glorify the one true and living God, the unsaved are motivated to glorify themselves or some other distortion, which is sin. So while feeding a hungry child may be good in itself and God is glad that the hungry child is fed, He is not pleased with the feeder unless he/she feeds to His glory, i.e. the feeder is saved and in the right frame of mind toward God.

It is very interesting to note the way Paul speaks about his mind, Romans 7:21-23,

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

Paul sees another law which wages war against the law of his mind. And what does this law do? It makes him captive to the law of sin. So the law of his mind is the opposite of the law of sin – the law that wants to do right. This is the law of the mind, which is renewed by God in our sanctification, Romans 12:2. By the renewing of our minds through the Holy Spirit we are able to know/think and do good works. This is the first time we know of good works because it is the first time we can gauge what is good and what is evil by the only standard, which is God. As we draw closer to God, we are better able to discern good from evil. For we were saved to do the good works appointed to us by God, Ephesians 2:10 (see also v. 8-9).

Advertisements
h1

One Gospel Perception of Christ

February 7, 2007

I guess I started hearing this about two years ago. It doubtlessly pre-dates my awareness. It has been brought up by conference leaders, pastors, and other respected Bible teachers. I have not found any Biblical foundation for it and on the contrary am highly convinced that the Bible speaks against it. So, what is it? That Jesus was perceived by those around Him in the Biblical accounts as born out of wedlock.

Please understand that I make this argument knowing that God the Father was indeed the true Father of Jesus, from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18). Joseph, Mary’s husband, adopted Jesus to serve as Jesus’ human father by the direction of God. The argument is important because it preserves the integrity of the Bible and preserves Jesus’ true offensiveness to the people – His perfect righteousness.

The only Biblical indication of this that I have heard is an implication from Mark 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.” Citing this passage some say that the people of Jesus’ home town were taunting Him because He born out of wedlock. It seems to have been a taunt of the time to call someone a son of their mother, not their father, when the person was born of unmarried parents. In the least, this conclusion of Mark 6:3 is quite vague.

If this is the case though, we would expect other passages to convey that there was some knowledge the public in general had of Joseph not being the human/adoptive father of Jesus.

Matthew 1:19 speaks of Joseph desiring to “divorce [Mary] quietly”. How could he have done this if it was well known that she was pregnant (especially by someone other than Joseph)?

Let us go back to Mark 6:3 where some offer as proof of the crowd’s supposed taunting of Jesus. This is closely linked with Matthew 13:55. In Mark 6:3 Jesus is in His hometown. Matthew 13:55 also tells of Him in His hometown (if it is even a different occasion). Matthew 13:55 includes that Jesus was known as the carpenter’s son.

Luke begins his recount of Jesus’ genealogy with the statement, “Jesus … being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph” (Luke 3:23). The “as was supposed” is no less inspired that the rest of the Bible. People of Jesus’ time supposed that Joseph was Jesus’ father.

In John 6:42 after Jesus reveals that He is the bread of life from heaven the people respond, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” These people knew his parents and, humanly speaking, had no doubt that Joseph was His father.

These examples give adequate evidence that the Bible speaks plainly of the knowledge of Jesus’ human father as Joseph. They did not think Him illegitimately born. The offense of Jesus to the people around Him was clearly from His perfect righteousness. Due to the Biblical witness it is not advisable that we read into statements a thought pattern obviously derived from other sources.