January 2, 2012: Did Isaiah Mean To Predict Jesus' Birth?
Writing around 730 BC the prophet Isaiah said, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14). Hundreds of years later St. Matthew called the birth of Jesus a fulfillment of these words (Matthew 1:22).
But did Isaiah intend to predict Messiah's birth?
If you read Isaiah 7:14 in context it is very hard to come to that conclusion. Read all of Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 and you will see what I mean. Here's a brief summary:
In chapter 7 King Ahaz of Judah is worried. Two kings, Rezin and Pekah, have formed an alliance and are getting ready to march against him. Isaiah approaches King Ahaz and tells him to trust God and not worry about Rezin and Pekah. Those two will never even make it to Jerusalem. Then Isaiah tells King Ahaz to ask for a sign to confirm this prediction - any sign at all.
Ahaz refuses. He will not "do business" with Isaiah, and he will not put his trust in God.
Isaiah bursts out in anger and says, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also?" Then he tells Ahaz (in effect), OK you'll get your sign all right - but ultimately it won't be a good one. He says,
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria. (Isaiah 7:14-17)
In other words: "You see this young unmarried maiden here? Well she is going to get pregnant and have a baby boy and call him 'God is with us' [or, 'God's on our side']. By the time that baby is barely a toddler, the two kings you're so afraid of now will be history. (See, I told you not to be afraid of them!) Though now you're worried about a jackal and a hyena, pretty soon those two will be eaten up by an 800 pound lion - the king of Assyria. Then when he's done with them he will turn his attention to you, and he will bring devastation on the land of Judah the likes of which it has not seen before."
And that's exactly what happened.
In chapter 8 Isaiah marries the virgin he referred to in 7:14. She becomes Mrs. Prophet Isaiah. Verses 3 and 4 of chapter 8 read, "Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz ['quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil']. Before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus [King Rezin] and the plunder of Samaria [King Pekah] will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”
Isaiah's prediction in chapter 7 is fulfilled in chapter 8. See 8:8,10 for references to "Immanuel" ("God is with us!"), which remains true of the faithful remnant in Judah even when Assyria is wreaking havoc and besieging the city of Jerusalem itself.
So, given the letter-perfect fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in a few short years, how can Matthew say that Jesus' birth fulfilled it more than 700 years later? (Among other things, what's Assyria doing by then? Answer: nothing. At the time of Jesus' birth, Assyria's star has long faded and now it's all Rome.)
I'll tell you two answers I heard recently that I don't like at all.
A professor from a Bible institute recently told radio listeners that Isaiah's prophecy in 7:14 was not about events then current in Judah! He noted that while in the first part of the verse Isaiah is indeed addressing Ahaz, in the second part the "you" is plural rather than singular. The plurality of the addressee, the professor explained, constitutes evidence that, starting with the word "Therefore," Isaiah is no longer speaking to Ahaz about events in the immediate future but rather is addressing the nation about a Messianic birth many years later.
Anyone who finds this argument convincing may stop here. To the rest, your intuition is correct: this professor's evaluation is a disingenuous outrage against Reason. In order to believe it you must stick your fingers in your ears and sing while the rest of chapters 7 and 8 are read. Never has a poor plural been grabbed by the throat more violently and made to squawk more loudly. To respond: by the use of the plural Isaiah is simply addressing everyone present. That's all.
Then I heard a message at a church I visited a couple weeks ago where, thankfully, the preacher acknowledged the immediate fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. But he also said that Isaiah was making two predictions - one short-term and one long-term. To illustrate, the pastor said, "Suppose I told you who would win the presidential election in 2012. That would be one thing, and if I were right you might think it was a lucky guess. But what if I then told you who was going to win the election in 2712? And I told you his name, his party affiliation, where he would be born, and the circumstances happening in the world at that time. That would be pretty incredible. Well, that's what Isaiah did."
No it isn't. When a preacher says that I wince and hope that no sincere doubting seeker will, after investigating the texts himself, give it all up and conclude that everything the preacher says lacks credibility. The fact is, nothing - nothing at all - in Isaiah 7 and 8 indicates a self-conscious attempt on Isaiah's part to predict an event that he knows will occur in the distant future.
There is a much better way to understand Matthew's use of Isaiah's words. It involves taking a cue from John 11:49-52 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. This approach takes seriously both divine inspiration and the prophet's intent.
In John 11 the enemies of Jesus convene a council in order to discuss what to do about him. Jesus has been gathering so many followers that there is fear that the Roman overlords will take notice, interpret the movement as a political rebellion, and respond by crushing not only Jesus and his followers but the whole Jewish nation. In this discussion the high priest Caiaphas recommends killing Jesus. This will solve the problem: if only this one man dies, the rest of their lives will be spared. Caiaphas says,
You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish. (verse 50)
It is very clear what Caiaphas meant. He literally meant that if Jesus would die, others could live. The sacrifice of this one man would save a multitude.
Caiaphas spoke better than he knew. Someone Else was speaking through Caiaphas, manipulating or hijacking his choice of words in order to make him the mouthpiece of a truth far beyond his imagination. In the next two verses John tells us,
He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. (verses 51-52).
I believe God did the same thing with Isaiah. Isaiah spoke better than he knew. When he said, "a virgin will conceive," he simply meant a woman who was a virgin at the time - his fiance, in fact. (By the time they got married and she got pregnant she would no longer be virginal.) But, like Caiaphas, "he did not say this on his own." God inspired, and Isaiah chose, words that would apply so literally to the birth of Jesus that, if you told Isaiah about it, he would drop to his knees in silent awe. One day, a true virgin - still a virgin! - would give birth to a baby boy.
And when Isaiah said the baby would be called "Immanuel" (God with us), to him and his wife that meant, "God's on our side, not theirs. In these upcoming days of conflict, God is with us, not them." But one day, "Immanuel" would be literal. The baby born of a virgin would be God of Very God dwelling in our midst.
Both Isaiah and Caiaphas were "carried along by the Holy Spirit," and, by God's decree, spoke deep truths that neither intended. This principal of prophecy is taught in 2 Peter 1:20-21: Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Though Isaiah was a child of God and Caiaphas was a child of the devil, God used them both to speak some of the most profound truths of our faith. Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God in our midst. He died so that we might live.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Graciousness 6: Just Ask A Question
(A continuation of an occasional series, see previous posts March 24-April 21, 2009 and May 6, 2011.)
In my last post on this topic I said that gracious people answer your questions directly and sincerely. Recently I noticed something else: gracious people ask you questions. They're interested in what you have to say.
What brought this to mind what was a situation where my wife and I sat at the kitchen table and listened to one person speak for a very, very long time. During a brief intermission my lovely wife - as gracious a woman as the sun has ever risen upon - confessed to me that she was going nuts. Then afterward she begged me to shoot her if advancing years ever turned her into a monologist.
What I noticed mainly was that the person who was talking to us never once asked us a question.
If people know a lot about you, but you know little about them, it may be because you have been filling them in with details about your life and thoughts and opinions and dreams without ever stopping to ask about theirs. Start asking them some questions. Then listen when they respond, and try to remember what they say.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am not good at this. I dare to instruct on this matter only because, as a learner rather than as a master, I have to break down into doable chunks the features of gracious behavior that good people know instinctively and practice so effortlessly that they are not aware of it and cannot it explain to you.
I also instruct because I have been privileged to observe some excellent role models.
Before my wife met my brother Dave I warned her, "He will probably interview you." By that I meant that he would ask her lots and lots of questions for no other reason than to get to know her better. He does that to people because he is genuinely interested in them. Something I've noticed too: by being interested in other people and acquiring through questions massive amounts of information about them, you become a more interesting person yourself. Dave is interesting.
My mother was interesting too. At her funeral 10 years ago my friend Bill said to me, "Your mother would talk to high school sophomores as though their opinions really mattered." By reflecting on table-talk from my youth I saw he was right. Mom often did not seem to realize that she was a grownup with authority to pontificate but no obligation to listen. Like a curious peer she would ask my friends things and probe them with follow-up questions, and if she argued it was just a sign that she was taking them seriously.
I know that it is hard to elicit responses from some people. Maybe they just don't want to talk, or maybe they have nothing to say. After a few of their monosyllables it might be best to let them get back to their earphones.
For the rest, try to think of something to ask. Here's a question for any occasion: "Which would you rather be, an ostrich or a penguin?" If you ask that of an interesting person you may get a thoughtful response that reveals the hidden depths of a delightful personality. I'm afraid though that if you ask it of me I'll just look at you blankly and say, "What kind of stupid question is that?"
In my last post on this topic I said that gracious people answer your questions directly and sincerely. Recently I noticed something else: gracious people ask you questions. They're interested in what you have to say.
What brought this to mind what was a situation where my wife and I sat at the kitchen table and listened to one person speak for a very, very long time. During a brief intermission my lovely wife - as gracious a woman as the sun has ever risen upon - confessed to me that she was going nuts. Then afterward she begged me to shoot her if advancing years ever turned her into a monologist.
What I noticed mainly was that the person who was talking to us never once asked us a question.
If people know a lot about you, but you know little about them, it may be because you have been filling them in with details about your life and thoughts and opinions and dreams without ever stopping to ask about theirs. Start asking them some questions. Then listen when they respond, and try to remember what they say.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am not good at this. I dare to instruct on this matter only because, as a learner rather than as a master, I have to break down into doable chunks the features of gracious behavior that good people know instinctively and practice so effortlessly that they are not aware of it and cannot it explain to you.
I also instruct because I have been privileged to observe some excellent role models.
Before my wife met my brother Dave I warned her, "He will probably interview you." By that I meant that he would ask her lots and lots of questions for no other reason than to get to know her better. He does that to people because he is genuinely interested in them. Something I've noticed too: by being interested in other people and acquiring through questions massive amounts of information about them, you become a more interesting person yourself. Dave is interesting.
My mother was interesting too. At her funeral 10 years ago my friend Bill said to me, "Your mother would talk to high school sophomores as though their opinions really mattered." By reflecting on table-talk from my youth I saw he was right. Mom often did not seem to realize that she was a grownup with authority to pontificate but no obligation to listen. Like a curious peer she would ask my friends things and probe them with follow-up questions, and if she argued it was just a sign that she was taking them seriously.
I know that it is hard to elicit responses from some people. Maybe they just don't want to talk, or maybe they have nothing to say. After a few of their monosyllables it might be best to let them get back to their earphones.
For the rest, try to think of something to ask. Here's a question for any occasion: "Which would you rather be, an ostrich or a penguin?" If you ask that of an interesting person you may get a thoughtful response that reveals the hidden depths of a delightful personality. I'm afraid though that if you ask it of me I'll just look at you blankly and say, "What kind of stupid question is that?"
Friday, December 9, 2011
December 18, 2011: True Fear Waits
In her book "Making Chastity Sexy: The Rhetoric of Evangelical Abstinence Campaigns," Wheaton College Communications professor Christine Gardner maintains that True Love Waits and similar evangelical abstinence programs "are using the very thing they are prohibiting to admonish young people to wait. They are saying, 'If you are abstinent now, you will have amazing sex when you are married.'"
Gardner has a point. I imagine that some abstinence campaigners might object to her blunt summary of their rhetoric, but she backs up her claim with research. To be fair to all, it is not a bad thing to make known the data that indicate that, generally, the people who are happiest sexually are those who didn't sleep around before marriage and who are faithful within it. Just as long as everyone keeps in mind that "statistically favorable" does not mean "divinely certain," and that individual results may vary. Some fornicators are very happy, and some godly people chafe under perceived crosses of abstinence and faithfulness.
But there is one thing that evangelicals never talk about as a motivation for pre-marital chastity - at least in my limited experience and observation. We don't talk about being afraid of God. We don't even talk about righteous fear when speaking to ourselves in church environments where we don't need to worry much about offending outsiders. Fear as a motive for obedience is the great taboo.
I take that back - I do know two preachers who regularly mention fear as a motivator in their sermons, but only to condemn it as something that should not move us to obey. These preachers like to couple pride with fear and denounce both as reasons for submitting to the will of God. As one said recently, "Pride and fear will always hinder you from being filled with the Spirit, and will always hinder you from doing the work of God...The gospel cancels out the pride and fear that fills the hearts of men and women."
When I hear pride - a damnable motivator for obedience - linked so fatuously with fear - a godly and biblical one - I feel despair, and lament the sad state of preaching in our churches. I also want to give these preachers a homework assignment: go look up occurrences of phobos, phobeomai ("fear" as noun and verb) in your Greek Bible and read them in context. Then repent of your homiletic sin, and confess to your congregations that you have misled them week after week in sermon after sermon.
A good place to start when exhorting Christians to sexual purity is Hebrews 13:4: "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure." Why? Why should I maintain my purity? Because if I do I will be happier sexually in the long run? Even if that is true, it is an argument the Bible never makes. What the Bible says instead - read the rest of the verse! - is, "For God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." Now there's motivation for you. God judges immoral people. If you are immoral (or contemplating immorality), you should be afraid of God's judgment.
The Bible teaches what many preachers today refuse to acknowledge and never tell their congregations - perhaps (ghastly thought!) because they do not really believe it themselves: sexual immorality is one of those sins that provoke the wrath of God. Colossians 3:5-6 says, "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming."
The wrath of God referred to here is not manifested in merely temporary things like unfulfilled sex lives or broken relationships or sexually transmitted diseases. It is much more serious than that. God's anger, when brought to bear on an individual, means banishment from his presence. It means being shut out of his realm, or kingdom. Ephesians 5:5-6 says that no immoral person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ, and that because of such sin, "God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient." 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 and Galatians 5:9-10 likewise say that immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God. And Revelation 21:8 specifies that fornicators are among those whose "place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur."
If you do not fear the fiery lake of burning sulfur and the God who can throw you there, then I'm afraid you are too much of a fool for the Word to benefit you. You must start fearing God. The Bible says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7, 9:10). It may not be the end of wisdom, but it sure as hell is the beginning of it. Preachers who reject fear as a motivation undermine a crucial support that helps bear the weight of godliness. Like blind Samson they push against a strong pillar, and they should not be surprised when the roof collapses around them and leaves a vast wreckage of sexual immorality. By telling sinners not to be afraid they are actually encouraging them to disobey a command of Christ: "Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:5).
That commandment, and others like it, have been sapped of their power by some teachers who like to maintain that "fear" does not really mean "fear": it just means "respect," or "revere," or "honor." But these softer translations do not withstand scrutiny of the words in the original languages. "Fear" was the right word in the first place. For example, in many passages the Greek word for fear is coupled with physical trembling (see literal translations of 1 Corinthians 2:3; 2 Corinthians 7:15; Ephesians 6:5; Philippians 2:12). In the passage above where Jesus commands his disciples to fear God, he tells them, "Do not fear those who can merely kill the body." Jesus is not telling his disciples "Don't respect or honor authorities who can kill the body": far be it from Jesus to counsel disrespect of worldly authorities! (See 1 Timothy 2:1-3; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17.) No, he meant literally "Do not be afraid of them." They're not the ones who should make you tremble and shake: God is.
So to make this practical:
The next time your boyfriend or girlfriend or date wants to sleep with you without marrying you, say to him or her, "No. I've repented of that. I can't do that any more." And if you are asked why, say, "Because I'm afraid of God sending me to hell."
In her book "Making Chastity Sexy: The Rhetoric of Evangelical Abstinence Campaigns," Wheaton College Communications professor Christine Gardner maintains that True Love Waits and similar evangelical abstinence programs "are using the very thing they are prohibiting to admonish young people to wait. They are saying, 'If you are abstinent now, you will have amazing sex when you are married.'"
Gardner has a point. I imagine that some abstinence campaigners might object to her blunt summary of their rhetoric, but she backs up her claim with research. To be fair to all, it is not a bad thing to make known the data that indicate that, generally, the people who are happiest sexually are those who didn't sleep around before marriage and who are faithful within it. Just as long as everyone keeps in mind that "statistically favorable" does not mean "divinely certain," and that individual results may vary. Some fornicators are very happy, and some godly people chafe under perceived crosses of abstinence and faithfulness.
But there is one thing that evangelicals never talk about as a motivation for pre-marital chastity - at least in my limited experience and observation. We don't talk about being afraid of God. We don't even talk about righteous fear when speaking to ourselves in church environments where we don't need to worry much about offending outsiders. Fear as a motive for obedience is the great taboo.
I take that back - I do know two preachers who regularly mention fear as a motivator in their sermons, but only to condemn it as something that should not move us to obey. These preachers like to couple pride with fear and denounce both as reasons for submitting to the will of God. As one said recently, "Pride and fear will always hinder you from being filled with the Spirit, and will always hinder you from doing the work of God...The gospel cancels out the pride and fear that fills the hearts of men and women."
When I hear pride - a damnable motivator for obedience - linked so fatuously with fear - a godly and biblical one - I feel despair, and lament the sad state of preaching in our churches. I also want to give these preachers a homework assignment: go look up occurrences of phobos, phobeomai ("fear" as noun and verb) in your Greek Bible and read them in context. Then repent of your homiletic sin, and confess to your congregations that you have misled them week after week in sermon after sermon.
A good place to start when exhorting Christians to sexual purity is Hebrews 13:4: "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure." Why? Why should I maintain my purity? Because if I do I will be happier sexually in the long run? Even if that is true, it is an argument the Bible never makes. What the Bible says instead - read the rest of the verse! - is, "For God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." Now there's motivation for you. God judges immoral people. If you are immoral (or contemplating immorality), you should be afraid of God's judgment.
The Bible teaches what many preachers today refuse to acknowledge and never tell their congregations - perhaps (ghastly thought!) because they do not really believe it themselves: sexual immorality is one of those sins that provoke the wrath of God. Colossians 3:5-6 says, "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming."
The wrath of God referred to here is not manifested in merely temporary things like unfulfilled sex lives or broken relationships or sexually transmitted diseases. It is much more serious than that. God's anger, when brought to bear on an individual, means banishment from his presence. It means being shut out of his realm, or kingdom. Ephesians 5:5-6 says that no immoral person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ, and that because of such sin, "God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient." 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 and Galatians 5:9-10 likewise say that immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God. And Revelation 21:8 specifies that fornicators are among those whose "place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur."
If you do not fear the fiery lake of burning sulfur and the God who can throw you there, then I'm afraid you are too much of a fool for the Word to benefit you. You must start fearing God. The Bible says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7, 9:10). It may not be the end of wisdom, but it sure as hell is the beginning of it. Preachers who reject fear as a motivation undermine a crucial support that helps bear the weight of godliness. Like blind Samson they push against a strong pillar, and they should not be surprised when the roof collapses around them and leaves a vast wreckage of sexual immorality. By telling sinners not to be afraid they are actually encouraging them to disobey a command of Christ: "Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:5).
That commandment, and others like it, have been sapped of their power by some teachers who like to maintain that "fear" does not really mean "fear": it just means "respect," or "revere," or "honor." But these softer translations do not withstand scrutiny of the words in the original languages. "Fear" was the right word in the first place. For example, in many passages the Greek word for fear is coupled with physical trembling (see literal translations of 1 Corinthians 2:3; 2 Corinthians 7:15; Ephesians 6:5; Philippians 2:12). In the passage above where Jesus commands his disciples to fear God, he tells them, "Do not fear those who can merely kill the body." Jesus is not telling his disciples "Don't respect or honor authorities who can kill the body": far be it from Jesus to counsel disrespect of worldly authorities! (See 1 Timothy 2:1-3; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17.) No, he meant literally "Do not be afraid of them." They're not the ones who should make you tremble and shake: God is.
So to make this practical:
The next time your boyfriend or girlfriend or date wants to sleep with you without marrying you, say to him or her, "No. I've repented of that. I can't do that any more." And if you are asked why, say, "Because I'm afraid of God sending me to hell."
Sunday, December 4, 2011
December 4, 2011: Even Jesus Had To Learn Obedience
Some verses in the book of Hebrews sound a little strange to those of us who have an orthodox view of Jesus' moral nature. Hebrews 5:8 says "he learned obedience from what he suffered." What? Learned obedience? Wasn't he always obedient? How can you learn something that you already know and practice perfectly? And Hebrews 2:10 says it was fitting that God "should make the author of their salvation [Jesus] perfect through suffering." Make him perfect? Wasn't Jesus already perfect? When was he ever imperfect?
To understand these passages I think it is helpful to distinguish between sinlessness and perfection.
The Bible definitely maintains that Jesus was always sinless:
2 Corinthians 5:21:
God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
1 John 3:5:
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.
1 Peter 2:22:
He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.
(It's worth noting in passing that Paul, John and Peter each expressed Jesus' sinlessness in ways appropriate to their writing and character. Paul the scholar said that Jesus "knew" no sin. John, who liked to speak in broad categories about ways of being, said "in him" was no sin. And Peter, man of action, said he "committed" no sin.)
Sinlessness means simply to be without sin, to have violated no righteous command, to have done no evil. Newborn babies are sinless because they haven't done anything wrong yet. If we call a baby a "sinner" we only mean it in an ontological sense: we mean that the baby has inherited a sinful nature that will soon manifest itself in actual works of disobedience. A baby is like an acorn which has no leaves but does have the DNA to sprout them in due time. It will take a few months for bald acorns and sinless babies to start churning out massive amounts of foliage and iniquity.
In contrast, Jesus remained sinless all his life. He never committed even his first sin. But that does not mean he was always perfect. Perfection - in the sense implied by the Greek word that we translate "perfect" - does not mean "without error" so much as it does "mature," "fully developed," "grown to fulfillment of the intended state." The word in Greek was used to describe a piece of fruit that we would call "ripe." A young fruit, even if it has no worms, blotches or deformities ("sins"!), would never be called "perfect" simply because it is not yet big enough and sweet enough to be picked.
While "sinless" means without sin, "perfect" means much more: it means to be in a state where one has acquired all virtue and resisted all vice. That takes time. No one can be called "perfect" or "mature" until he is old enough to have encountered many temptations and resisted them, and to have seen many opportunities to do good and taken advantage of them.
Please note in the verses above in Hebrews what God used in order to ripen Jesus into perfect obedience. He used suffering. Jesus learned obedience not through things that brought him joy but through things that brought him pain. If this was true of the sinless Son of God, how much more true is it of creatures whose "righteousness is as filthy rags"? We cannot be good except that we suffer. It is virtuous, for example, to respond to cruelty with kindness. But how can we ever know and practice this virtue fully until someone is mean to us, lies about us, treats us contemptuously, laughs at us, lays in ruin all our prospects for joy?
Grievous trials have been allowed to come into your life, in part, in order to make you perfect. If you would be like Christ, you must let them ripen you rather than poison you.
Some verses in the book of Hebrews sound a little strange to those of us who have an orthodox view of Jesus' moral nature. Hebrews 5:8 says "he learned obedience from what he suffered." What? Learned obedience? Wasn't he always obedient? How can you learn something that you already know and practice perfectly? And Hebrews 2:10 says it was fitting that God "should make the author of their salvation [Jesus] perfect through suffering." Make him perfect? Wasn't Jesus already perfect? When was he ever imperfect?
To understand these passages I think it is helpful to distinguish between sinlessness and perfection.
The Bible definitely maintains that Jesus was always sinless:
2 Corinthians 5:21:
God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
1 John 3:5:
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.
1 Peter 2:22:
He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.
(It's worth noting in passing that Paul, John and Peter each expressed Jesus' sinlessness in ways appropriate to their writing and character. Paul the scholar said that Jesus "knew" no sin. John, who liked to speak in broad categories about ways of being, said "in him" was no sin. And Peter, man of action, said he "committed" no sin.)
Sinlessness means simply to be without sin, to have violated no righteous command, to have done no evil. Newborn babies are sinless because they haven't done anything wrong yet. If we call a baby a "sinner" we only mean it in an ontological sense: we mean that the baby has inherited a sinful nature that will soon manifest itself in actual works of disobedience. A baby is like an acorn which has no leaves but does have the DNA to sprout them in due time. It will take a few months for bald acorns and sinless babies to start churning out massive amounts of foliage and iniquity.
In contrast, Jesus remained sinless all his life. He never committed even his first sin. But that does not mean he was always perfect. Perfection - in the sense implied by the Greek word that we translate "perfect" - does not mean "without error" so much as it does "mature," "fully developed," "grown to fulfillment of the intended state." The word in Greek was used to describe a piece of fruit that we would call "ripe." A young fruit, even if it has no worms, blotches or deformities ("sins"!), would never be called "perfect" simply because it is not yet big enough and sweet enough to be picked.
While "sinless" means without sin, "perfect" means much more: it means to be in a state where one has acquired all virtue and resisted all vice. That takes time. No one can be called "perfect" or "mature" until he is old enough to have encountered many temptations and resisted them, and to have seen many opportunities to do good and taken advantage of them.
Please note in the verses above in Hebrews what God used in order to ripen Jesus into perfect obedience. He used suffering. Jesus learned obedience not through things that brought him joy but through things that brought him pain. If this was true of the sinless Son of God, how much more true is it of creatures whose "righteousness is as filthy rags"? We cannot be good except that we suffer. It is virtuous, for example, to respond to cruelty with kindness. But how can we ever know and practice this virtue fully until someone is mean to us, lies about us, treats us contemptuously, laughs at us, lays in ruin all our prospects for joy?
Grievous trials have been allowed to come into your life, in part, in order to make you perfect. If you would be like Christ, you must let them ripen you rather than poison you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)