Blessed Among Women: 3 Questions about Mary

A few questions about Mary keep coming up recently so I thought I would summarize my answers to those questions here. Mary is to be highly esteemed in such a way that we recognize her faith and humility to the glory of God alone. The Bible teaches that Christ is a second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45) but it does not teach that Mary is a “second eve” or that her unique relationship with Christ puts her in a position to be a special intercessor on our behalf.

Most Roman Catholic and Orthodox teaching about Mary evolved out of the need to harmonize certain theological positions rather than the explicit teaching of the Bible. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church did not formally affirm a number of these teachings as dogma until 1854. Those who teach these doctrines admit that they are not taught plainly in the Bible but suggest that they can be inferred from things which are. Protestants, however, argue that no true teaching derived from the Bible will contradict what is plainly taught. Since much of the teaching about Mary in Catholic and Orthodox traditions contradict the clear teaching of the Bible it must be rejected.

Was Mary Without Sin?

The Bible explicitly teaches that Jesus was without sin (2 Co. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 Jn. 3:5) but it never teaches that Mary was. In fact, the scripture is clear that all people apart from Christ are sinners and offers no exception for Mary (Rom. 3:10, 3:23).

More specifically, we have in Mary’s own words an acknowledgment that she is a sinner. When she visits Elizabeth in Luke 1 and offers her song of praise to God, she begins the hymn of praise by saying, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior…” (Lk. 1:46-47). Notice that Mary does not say that her spirit rejoiced in “the” savior, she glorified God and rejoiced in her savior. Those without sin do not need a savior. Mary needed a savior because she was sinner and Jesus was her savior because He came to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).

Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?

The Bible teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived (Lk. 1:34-35; Mt. 1:20) but it does not teach that she remained a virgin throughout her life. In fact, the Bible teaches that Mary and Joseph had other children (Mt. 12:46, 13:55; Mk. 3:31, 6:3; Lk. 8:19; Jn. 2:12, 7:5; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:19). Some insist that these are cousins or are Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.

It is true that the Greek words for brothers and sisters can sometimes refer to relatives or those who share a close relationship but although it is grammatically possible that these are cousins it is highly unlikely for several reasons. First, there are distinct Greek words for cousins and relatives that the N.T. writers use when they want to communicate that type of relationship (Lk. 1:36; Col. 4:10). Second, multiple writers use the terms in varying contexts to describe these relationships. For example, James is repeatedly called the brother of Jesus. It would be confusing for different people in different contexts always to refer to James as the brother of Jesus if he is not. Finally, some of the particular contexts do not make much sense unless we understand the word in its normal usage. For example, the question of the crowd in Mark 6 does not make sense if a broader group of relatives or people is in view.

Should We Pray to Mary to Intercede for Us?

Prayers of intercession are an important part of the ministry of all Christians (Jas. 5:16). In the Bible, we often see people requesting prayers of intercession but we never see a believer praying to another human. Prayer is an element of worship and the Bible is clear that we should worship only God. Fellow servants of God are never to be honored with worship (Rev. 19:10; Acts 14:15). The prayers of the saints are heard in heaven (Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4), but the term saints in the Bible refers to those who believe in Christ and not a special subset of super-Christians. We also see dead saints petitioning God (Rev. 6:9-10) but these are their own petitions and there is no suggestion that they ever offer petitions on behalf of others.

All believers are united with Christ, sealed with the Holy Spirit, and seated with Him in the heavenly places (Rom. 6:5; Eph. 1:13, 2:6). We have direct access to God because of the work of Christ (Heb. 4:16). The idea that the prayers of Mary would be more effective than our own based upon her righteousness and unique relationship to Christ reflects a misunderstanding of the power of the Gospel itself. If you have any doubt about the sufficiency of what every believer receives in Christ I would encourage you to look up each New Testament reference to the phrase “In Christ” and list all that said about what those who are in Christ are promised. Once you read that list, it will be clear that praying to Mary or any other dead believer is unnecessary and is a denial of promises already given to those who believe.  

In terms of righteousness before God Mary does not have a unique position.  As I showed above, she is also sinner saved by grace through faith. As such, her only standing before God is the same as that of any other believer, the finished work of Jesus Christ. When Jesus is speaking of His mother in the context of His messianic ministry, she is not given a privileged position. Shortly after His ministry begins, she asks Him to help because a wedding party had run out of wine. Jesus replies “Woman, what does this have to do with me?” (Jn. 2:4). At one point later, while preaching, He was informed that that His mother and brothers were waiting to speak with Him. Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? …whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mt. 12:46-19). Neither of these incidents show disrespect for His mother but both demonstrate that Mary is not a co-redemptrix or mediatrix in Christ’s redemptive work.

All of those who trust in the promises of God through His Word are united to the death and resurrection of Christ and are made the Children of God (Jn. 1:12). The amazing thing is that Christ does this not in response to our righteousness but because of our unrighteousness (Rom. 5:8)! The work of Christ is sufficient and Jesus alone can serve as mediator between God and sinful humanity (1 Tim. 2:5; Acts 4:12). We need no other because we are heirs with Him and the Spirit of Christ presents our petitions to God in an acceptable way (Rom. 8:14-17; 1 Jn. 2:1). As believers in Christ we have access to God with confidence and even boldness because of Christ (Eph. 3:11-12). We cannot, and need not, add anything beyond what He has already done for our prayers to be heard and accepted.

Book Review: Joel R. Beeke- Parenting by God's Promises

Parenting by God's Promises

By Joel Beeke / Reformation Trust Publishing

"Many parents today are searching for the secret to successful parenting. In Covenantal Parenting--Raising Children in Dependence on God's Promises, Joel R. Beeke asserts that there is no secret. When it comes to giving children what they need most new hearts that trust in Christ for forgiveness of sins parents are helpless. When children come to faith, it is due to the grace of God.

But while parents are helpless, they are not hopeless, for God has promised in his word to provide all needful things for His people and to bless them and their families. With faith in these grand promises, parents may raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord with confidence that God will work savingly in their lives.

Covenantal Parenting is a different kind of parenting manual, one that puts parental responsibilities in their proper perspective and guides mothers and fathers to lean not on their own abilities but to trust more fully in the God who knits children together in the first place."

Joel R. Beeke has written what is sure to be a definitive book for raising children within the context of historical Reformed Covenant Theology. He begins by laying the theological groundwork and then follows up with a practical application that works out the implications of the theology. The book is divided into four major parts. The contents are as follows:

Contents

Foreword by Derek W. H. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Introduction: Parenting with a Strong Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Part One: Covenantal Foundations for Parenting

1. Encouragement through the Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Children of the Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. Rearing Children by Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4. The Covenant Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5. Bringing Children to Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Part Two: Parenting as Prophets, Priests, and Kings

6. Our Responsibility as Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7. Teaching Our Children as Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

8. What Should We Teach Our Children? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

9. Training in Godly Living . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

10. Serving as Priests in the Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

11. Sympathizing with Our Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

12. Exercising Loving Rule as Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

13. Preventive Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

14. Corrective Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Part Three: Practical steps for Child-Rearing

15. Help from Our Puritan Forebears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

16. Teaching Children Piety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

17. Teaching Children to Listen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

18. Taming Children’s Tongues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

19. Handling Sibling Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Part Four: Practical Helps for Teenagers

20. Helping Teenagers Discern God’s Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

21. Helping Teenagers Resist Negative Peer Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . 247

22. Helping Teenagers Manage Anger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259

Conclusion: To a Thousand Generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271

Appendix 1: Cotton Mather’s Parental Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285

Appendix 2: Children in the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295

Study Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315

Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Because Beeke is drawing from the distinctives of Covenant Theology to develop his points, the book functions both a parenting guide as well as a mild polemic against other theological perspectives. For example, the following statement regarding Baptist views of the unsaved children of saved parents is typical.

 “One might think that this second view would tend to lead parents to regard their children as heathens, cut off from God and excluded from His church. The good news is that many Baptists, despite their weak view of the covenant, raise their children as if they were covenant children. In fact, sometimes they do a better job than those in Reformed churches. They bring their children to church, pray for and with them, talk to them about their souls, teach them the doctrines of grace, and train them well, offering them all the advantages of covenant nurture (except, of course, for the sacrament of baptism, which the Reformers taught is one of the primary means of grace). I admire the way many Reformed Baptists rear their children, even though I disagree with them at this point in their theology. I believe that they underestimate the power and scope of the covenant.”    (pg. 20)

These critical observations are not provocative but they do include subtle barbs and are common throughout the book. In light of this, I thought it mildly ironic that the book begins with and extended quote from Charles Spurgeon and has endorsements from well known Baptists. My reading resulted in moments of hearty agreement as well as moments of respectful objection to the theological foundation that he builds upon. In fairness, however, I should point out that his understanding of the covenant and its application are completely in line with traditional Reformed Covenant Theology, which is clearly the audience for which the book is intended.

Despite the heavy Presbyterian bias, the fundamental emphasis of the book is correct. Beeke argues that we must parent by grace and that only the Holy Spirit can produce Godly children. The secret to Godly parenting is not to be found in methodology but in faithful stewardship. In our pragmatic age this needs to be said repeatedly and Beeke’s voice in the chorus is well appreciated. The centrality of the Word of God and our relationship with Him in our parenting are well explained and well applied. The practical advice that Beeke provides is solidly biblical and will be helpful even to Christian parents who are not initiated in Covenant Theology. Those in the Reformed Covenantal tradition will no doubt find this book to be excellent.

* I received a free copy of this book from Reformation Trust Publishing as part of their book review program. Reviews are not required to be positive and the opinions I have expressed are my own.

Love of the Word

I was recently reading sermons by Charles Spurgeon when I came to his sermon called The Blessing of Full Assurance on 1 John 5:13. Because of the title, I was expecting a comforting message of assurance. It does turn out to be a comforting message for believers but Spurgeon’s introduction caught me completely off guard. He says,

John wrote to believers—"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God." It is worthy of note that all the epistles are so written. They are not letters to everybody, they are letters to those who are called to be saints. It ought to strike some of you with awe when you open the Bible and think how large a part of it is not directed at you. You may read it, and God's Holy Spirit may graciously bless it to you, but it is not directed to you. You are reading another man's letter: thank God that you are permitted to read it, but long to be numbered with those to whom it is directed. Thank God much more if any part of it should be used of the Holy Ghost for your salvation. The fact that the Holy Spirit speaks to the churches and to believers in Christ should make you bow the knee and cry to God to put you among the children, that this Book may become your Book from beginning to end, that you may read its precious promises as made to you. This solemn thought may not have struck some of you: let it impress you now.

We do not wonder that certain men do not receive the epistles, for they were not written to them. Why should they cavil at words which are addressed to men of another sort from themselves? Yet we do not marvel, for we knew it would be so. Here is a will, and you begin to read it; but you do not find it interesting: it is full of words and terms which you do not take the trouble to understand, because they have no relation to yourself; but should you, in reading that will, come upon a clause in which an estate is left to you, I warrant you that the nature of the whole document will seem changed to you. You will be anxious now to understand the terms, and to make sure of the clauses, and you will even wish to remember every word of the clause which refers to yourself. O dear friends, may you read the Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ as a testament of love to yourselves, and then you will prize it beyond all the writings of the sages.

Is it any wonder that he is called the prince of preachers? His skillful use of this simple observation is both convicting and captivating. We may be comforted but he makes it plain that the comfort of assurance only belongs to those who are in Christ. Many believers struggle with assurance and fear that they may be self-deceived. The Bible gives many evidences that accompany true faith and we are frequently called to examine ourselves to be sure of our position in Christ.

Spurgeon’s introduction calls our attention to the way that faith in Christ changes our relationship to the Bible. As I read the sermon, I was reminded of Jonathan Edwards’ observations of the marks that accompany a true work of the Holy Spirit. In his famous work, TheDistinguishing Marks of a Work of The Spirit of God, Edwards argues there are five marks or evidences that always accompany a true work of the Holy Spirit. The five marks are:

1. Love and confession of Christ
2. Rejection of Sin and the World
3. Love for the Word of God
4. Growing Knowledge of the Truth
5. Love for God and One Another

 Of all these “evidences”, it seems that number three and four are often least emphasized in modern Evangelicalism. Most everyone recognizes that we must love and confess Christ, turn from sin, and love God and one another. These are all accepted and encouraged as evidences of the work of the Spirit in a person or church. There are many, however, who are unconvinced that number 3 and 4 are necessary. In fact, some see a passion for truth or doctrine as evidence against a true work of The Spirit. Edwards, however, argued that where the Spirit of God is at work all five are present. He saw these both things as vitally necessary and closely linked together. One of his arguments for this is from 1 John 4:6 where the apostle says,

“We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6)

Edwards points out that the pronouns “we” and “us” refer to the apostles. God sends them and those who know Him listen to them. Listening involves not only hearing the words but also accepting them as true. Those who are not from God do not listen. The apostle’s words (the Bible) are from God and receiving them separates God’s children from those who do not know Him. Notice that it is by “this” that we are able to exercise spiritual discernment. The Word of God is life (Phil. 2:16), truth (Jn. 17:17), and power (1 Cor. 1:18). It is the Word that creates the people of God (1 Peter 1:23), sustains them (Deut. 8:3), and defends them (Eph. 6:17). The Word is precious to those who love God and as The Spirit renews us, it becomes increasingly sweet to us.

I pray that those who struggle with assurance cling to the scriptures because it is through His Word that God brings us forth (Jas. 1:18) and through the Word that He changes us (Jn. 17:17). The Bible is both the instigation and confirmation of our faith. The Holy Spirit works through the Word to give and sustain life. The same gospel that initially saves us is what also sustains us. One measure of our relationship with God is our love of His Word because our love for the Word of God is an expression of our love for God Himself. Let us pray that this love matures in us so that we can sincerely pray the words of David in Psalm 119.

I have stored up your word in my heart,

that I might not sin against you.

Blessed are you, O Lord;

teach me your statutes!

With my lips I declare

all the rules of your mouth.

In the way of your testimonies I delight

as much as in all riches.

I will meditate on your precepts

and fix my eyes on your ways.

I will delight in your statutes;

I will not forget your word.

God Bless

Defense of Marriage

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to decide if they should overturn California’s proposition 8 ban on homosexual marriage. This is just the latest in a long series of incidents that highlight the shift of the broader culture away from traditional Judeo-Christian moral standards. The “homosexual” issue is probably the most significant challenge that Christian churches will face in the coming years with regard to cultural engagement. Those defending traditional Christian values have been steadily losing ground as the cultural battles over the legitimacy of homosexual marriage continue.

Over recent years, the victories won by those pushing an agenda to normalize homosexuality have been met with a series of efforts both inside and outside the church to “defend traditional marriage”. I think that all believers would agree that traditional marriage is something worth defending but a careful examination of the literature and rhetoric reveals that usually the primary interest is an opposition to homosexual marriage in particular. This seems to be true of both the religious and political elements of the movement.

Before we go further, I want to be clear. According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Exegetical arguments to the contrary are textbook cases of eisegesis and rationalization. There is no question that to elevate homosexual unions to the same status as marriage is a distortion of God’s intent and is an appropriate concern for the Church. The secular public policy issues are also crucial because of the centrality of marriage to the structure of our society. Reducing marriage to a mere confirmation of the emotional attachments between adults and ignoring the broader function of marriage for the family and culture will have disastrous results. I am not questioning the legitimacy of churches rallying around this issue. Rather, I am pointing out that gay marriage is only one of many issues that must be dealt with if the goal is to defend marriage as a broader institution.

Unfortunately, the American church has little cultural authority on the wider issue of biblical marriage. Decades ago, the church in America all but abdicated its position as the defender of marriage. There have always been faithful congregations and pastors that have stood upon the Word but in general, the voice of the church has been functionally silent as no-fault divorce, pornography, and cohabitation have been eating away at the foundation of marriage as a cultural institution. The institution now under attack has already been substantially weakened both in the broader culture and within the church.

I do not want to oversimplify the problem, the erosion of marriage in the general culture has many complex implications for the pastoral ministry of the Church. Biblical churches are in the difficult position of speaking clearly on a range of sins such as divorce while also effectively bringing a ministry of grace to those who are bearing burdens associated with them. I have heard preachers deliver thundering and scathing rebukes of divorce and premarital sex with all the passion that Amos could muster while offering no grace or hope to those who needed it. I have also heard preachers who have skillfully avoided the subject so as not to offend anyone. Both of these are unbalanced approaches that fail to provide the kind of leadership the church is called to provide.

If the Church is to take an effective stand on issues of marriage it needs to do so consistently and with appropriate balance of law and grace. Before we can engage in the overall cultural discussion, we must first address the issues within the fellowship of believers. Many local churches have, but the typical report is discouraging. We recognize that marriage certificates are issued by the State. The Church, however, has no obligation to sanction a union simply because it is acceptable to the state. If we are to defend marriage in the culture, we must begin by defending it within our own communion.

There was a time when the culture was so distinct from the Church that Christian morality was exceptional and unique. Eventually, so many elements of Judeo-Christian morality were imported into the social mores and laws of Western Civilization that the accepted standards of morality became those of the Bible. We are fast approaching another age where that is no longer the case. Will we have the same courage of our convictions that our early fathers in the faith had? If so, we need to begin talking about a broader biblical view of marriage that goes beyond singling out a particular sin.

Those who wish to make a defense of marriage a focus of their ministry do well to take a stand on homosexual marriage but that by itself is not enough. It is just as important that a biblical perspective is cultivated with regard to divorce, cohabitation, neglect, abuse, and the dangers of pornography. Too many Christians have no theological framework for their understanding of marriage. Too many cannot explain the biblical teaching concerning what marriage is, why it is important, and what it looks like when practically lived out. The statistics indicate that there is little distinction in most American churches between the attitudes of the members about these things and those of their unbelieving neighbors. If our goal is to offer a biblical defense of marriage we must model it and teach in our own fellowships (1 Peter 2:11-12). This involves a comprehensive and positive teaching about marriage rather than a narrow reaction to one particular challenge. By all means, let us meet the challenge, but let us do it by ensuring that the culture cannot redefine our teaching on marriage by forcing a distortion of our doctrine by pushing us to only teach about what we oppose. Let us bring the gospel to bear on the entirety of the institution.

Allow God?

I was looking for something on the internet recently and came across the following statement on a Christian website, “He will use you, but you must allow Him to work through your heart.” There is nothing surprising or unique about finding this kind of statement on a Christian site. In fact, many believers say this kind of thing all the time. It is not a quotation of any particular biblical text but those who say these kinds of things are clearly trying to communicate something that they believe is central to the teaching of the Bible. What is it exactly that they are trying to say? Is it biblical?

To begin unpacking this we must understand what is meant by the term “allow” in this context. Generally when these kinds of statements are made no definition is given. The speaker or writer typically assumes that a particular understanding is conveyed, but like most English words, the verb “allow” has a range of meanings. It is not at all clear that everyone who makes these statements intends to communicate the same thing. There are at least four common definitions for “allow” and each would suggest a different interpretation.

The first definition given in most English dictionaries is “to grant permission”. Taken this way, the phrase suggests that humans must grant permission to God in order for Him to use them or work in their hearts. This implies that human beings have authority over the acts of God in at least some areas. Probably most who use these phrases do not intend to say this, but some certainly do. The problem with this view is that it stands in opposition to every explicit statement in scripture about God’s authority and His relationship to humanity. In every case in the Bible where the concepts of authority and permission are in view it is God who is granting or denying. It never goes the other way.

The second definition is “to make possible or to provide an opportunity”. This seems to be what is meant by most who talk about our need to “allow” God to work in us. The idea is that although God has the authority to act He will not do so unless we cooperate with Him. His character is such that He waits for us to invite Him to work in our lives. The idea is that God woos us and draws us but we must yield to Him if we are to be used by Him. There are no explicit verses in the Bible teaching that God respects our freedom so much that He refrains from working in us until invited. The concept is developed from various passages that indicate that humans have the ability to resist God and His Spirit (Rom. 6:16, 19; Eph. 4:30, Acts 7:51, etc.). Of course, the Bible does teach that humans can resist God. In fact, it teaches that all humans resist God. The question is if there is some point, at which God will act unilaterally to overcome that resistance. This is essentially the issue involved in the debate about the doctrine of irresistible grace. We all resist God and in sin none of us seeks to cooperate with Him or submit to him (Rom. 3:23-24). This is the essence of grace, that it is God who overcomes our resistance and makes us alive spiritually (Eph. 2:4-6, John 6:44, 63-65, etc.). If it is true that God takes the initiative to overcome our resistance and continues to work in us to sanctify us and give us the power to live the Christian life (Phil. 2:12-13, John 3:21, Eph. 2:10) then He is not limited by or waiting for us to grant Him permission to work. Indeed, we are spiritually incapable of initiating the process (1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:5, Rom. 8:7-8). In the end we recognize that far from responding to us, His work to save us and work in us began long before we were even born (Eph. 1:3-5).

The third definition is “to grant that a piece of information has legal standing”. Since it is God who judges and we who are to be judged this does not seem to be the meaning intended. We certainly have no standing by which to render judgment over the criteria that God would use in His heavenly court (1 Tim. 6:15).

The final common definition is “to admit or accept the truth of a proposition”. I doubt that most people intend anything like this meaning when they talk about “allowing God to work” but in a sense this is the definition that would be the most biblical in its application. The definition is speaking of intellectual assent but if we truly believe something then our desire will be to act in accordance with that belief. In this way, this definition is consistent with the way Paul and the other Apostles generally encouraged the churches. In each of his letters, Paul begins by laying the doctrinal foundation of what God has done through Christ for those who believe. Paul then builds upon that doctrinal foundation by encouraging the believers to live and work in a way that is consistent with those truths. The life of the believer is an acknowledgment of the truth of what God has done and is doing. The Christian life is an act of worship and is a reasonable expression of gratefulness for the work of God and a testimony to it (Rom. 12:1-2). The apostles repeatedly encourage the saints to live consistently with who they actually are.

In this way to speak of “allowing” God to work in our lives is simply another way of saying that we must submit to God in recognition of the Truth. If we will be productive and faithful servants we must be transformed by that truth or else we testify that we are not His. Our great privilege is that God has chosen to work in us and through us. We should therefore submit to Him, listen to His word, and honor Him. If that is what is meant by “allowing” God to work in our lives then I add my Amen.

We have no authority to exercise power over God in any way, neither does He require our permission should He choose to work in our lives. We do not influence how He judges and works (Job 40:2). If any of this is what is intended by “allow” then I think it is a boldness that we should be cautious about because I do not find it in the Bible. Salvation from start to finish is of the Lord (Heb. 12:2).

The Preaching and Teaching of Jesus: A Real Example

Jesus Christ was a preacher and a teacher. His ministry was primarily one of proclaiming and explaining the Word of God. Jesus is also an example for us to follow. He is the perfect expression of the God honoring life and it is our desire as Christians to become increasing like Christ in all that we are and do. We often think of this example in relation to our moral behavior and our devotional acts such as prayer but the example should extend beyond this. His handling of the Word of God and His submission to its authority is also an example to all Christians and particularly to teachers and preachers. Many of us are tempted, however, to think that since Jesus was the incarnate Son of God that it is unrealistic to aspire to the example that He set as a preacher or teacher. I would, however, like to draw attention to a few things that often are overlooked in our evaluation of Jesus as a preacher and teacher that demonstrate the way His ministry is a real example for preachers and teachers today.

It is true nobody can preach or teach with the authority that Jesus possesses. He is perfect in knowledge and power, He is the Word of God incarnate, and not only did He preach the truth He IS the truth. No other teacher or preacher can make those claims. While it is important that we not underestimate the degree to which the ministry of Jesus was unique, it is also important to bring the entirety of the doctrine of the incarnation to bear on our assessment of His ministry. Jesus is God, but He is also fully man and the relationship between His human and divine natures in His teaching and preaching ministry has implications for us today.

Jesus was not omniscient in His human nature. The scripture records that He learned things as He grew (Luke 2:52) and there were even certain facts that He did not know (Mark 13:32). This raises the question of how His teaching could be infallible and authoritative. Jesus, however, provides the answer Himself and does so in a way that lays a foundation for the ministry of the Church.

We know that Jesus was brilliant. Even as a 12 year old boy his insight into the Word of God amazed the teachers at the temple (Luke 2:46-47). His teaching and preaching, however, was not the result of the insights or perceptions of His human intellect. The message that Christ preached was revealed to His human nature from His divine nature. The source of this message is divine and Jesus, the God-man, communicates it perfectly. This is most clear in John’s Gospel. In His last public statement, Jesus explains that the very words He speaks are from the Father.

For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.” (John 12:49-50 ESV)

Later, in response to Philip asking to see the Father, Jesus again explains that the Father authorizes the words He speaks.

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.” (John 14:10 ESV)

That the preaching and teaching of Jesus comes from divine revelation rather than being the product of His perfect insight is important because it is a model showing how the ministers of the Church in all their weakness can also teach and preach an authoritative message. In His high priestly prayer just before His crucifixion Jesus, speaking of the apostles, says, “…I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them ...” (John 17:6-8 ESV)

The Church has received the actual Word of God through the teaching of Jesus. This communication of divine propositions continues through the ministry of the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles as they recorded the balance of Holy Scripture (John 14:26, 16:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16). Our message is also not to be the result of human insight or perception. We are also to only teach and preach the message that God has given us. This is why Jude can refer to the message of the Church as the “Faith that was once for all delivered”. This is why John in his first letter sees no contradiction when he teaches the Church that they have no need for anyone to teach them because they have the anointing of the Holy Spirit. When the Word of God is faithfully and accurately preached and taught, it is God Himself who does is doing the teaching. It is an authoritative communication from God to humans.

Someone may still object pointing out that unlike Jesus, we do not have a perfect communion of a divine and human nature within ourselves. To this, I would like to add two points that I unfortunately do not have space to develop here. First, we have a check against the need for any sort of subjective apprehension of the divine message because we have an objective revelation in the Word of God. Any claim of authority by a preacher or teacher today is easily verified. Jesus, as God, possessed all authority but the authority of any minister today extends only as far as the extent to which they are in agreement with the Bible. The accuracy of the “communication” of the divine message is therefore to be objectively evaluated. Second, we have received a new nature and the Holy Spirit Himself applies the message of God to our understanding. Although we do not possess a divine nature as part of our inherent individual make-up, we do receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised us that we would be in Him as He is in the Father. Although we do not yet experience perfect communion we nevertheless recognize that it is the Holy Spirit working in us so that we may understand, believe, and share the Word of God.

The result of all of this is that the teaching and preaching of Jesus is a real example to us. By God’s grace, we are able to become partakers in His ministry. If we teach and preach the Bible, we continue to have an authoritative message. It remains the Word of God in every sense. The example of Christ shows us the seriousness and confidence with which we must handle it. We are to preach and teach just as He did, under the authority of the Word of God.

G.K. Beale's approach to Matthew's use of Hosea 11

One of the most fascinating issues in biblical studies is the way the New Testament writers use the material from the Old Testament as it relates to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Many modern students who are committed to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation have been troubled by the way that the New Testament writers reference and apply these Old Testament texts. Perhaps the most troubling example is the way that the apostle Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus in his gospel.

I came across this lecture on the DBTS blog by G.K. Beale on Matthew's use of Hosea. Beale argues that Matthew's usage and meaning is a proper and sophisticated application of Hosea's writing in its full context. He argues that Matthew is not ignoring the grammatical-historical context of Hosea, but is sensitive to that context, while also linking it with broader historical redemptive themes related to the Exodus and their final culmination in Christ.

The lecture is just over an hour long but anyone interested in the "problem" of how the New Testament writers use the Old Testament will find it is time well invested. I believe that Beale's position that many of the perceived difficulties can be resolved if careful attention is paid the context of the Old Testament material that is quoted is fundamentally right. His presentation is interesting and compelling even if it does not address every complexity. I recommend it to anyone who may have an interest in the topic.