Posts tagged ‘Religion’
ABC Extra – By Scripture Alone
Luther Bible from 1720
This past weekend in worship and ABC, we looked at the life and times of King Josiah. Following the reigns of two exceedingly wicked kings, his father Amon and his grandfather Manasseh, Josiah was a much-needed breath of fresh air. The author of Kings can barely contain his delight when he writes, “He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD” (2 Kings 22:2). What was it that made Josiah such a noble king? Succinctly put, Josiah was a man who followed God’s Word. To cast Josiah’s piety in Reformation-era lingo, Josiah was a man committed to the principle of sola Scriptura – that Scripture alone should be the norm and guide for righteousness before God in faith and life. This guiding principle comes out especially clearly when the high priest of Israel at this time, Hilkiah, discovers the Book of the Law (i.e., the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible) tucked away in the dusty recesses of the temple. Heretofore, this book, with all of its guidelines for righteousness, has been lost to Israel. When Josiah hears what the Book of the Law teaches, he immediately recognizes it as the word of the Lord and tears his robes in repentance over all the ways in which he and Israel have disobeyed God’s commands in this book. For Josiah knows that Scripture alone should guide Israel’s life and his life.
Though the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly embraced by Josiah, it is not so eagerly welcomed by many in our day, even by those who claim the name of Christ. A couple of weeks ago, I came across a quote on Facebook rejecting the principle of sola Scriptura, and one of its creedal texts, 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The quote commented:
The fact is that this passage does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary – a rule of faith – but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.
This quote was written as part of an article by the Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples and argues that along with Scripture, Church tradition and the ecclesial Magisterium should hold pride of place as sources and norms of doctrine. A couple of points are necessary.
First, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 makes an explicit claim to sufficiency which, by default, is an implicit claim to sole primacy. Paul, when describing the benefits of Scripture, notes that it thoroughly equips the Christian for every good work. Words such as “thoroughly” and “every” leave no remainder. Thus, Scripture is solely sufficient for teaching us all we need to know about righteousness before God in faith and life. Second, Scripture is replete with warnings against adding to or subtracting from Holy Writ (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 22:18-19). Such warnings, especially those against adding to Scripture, leave no doubt that Scripture considers itself a sufficient and sole source.
Finally, the difficulty with rejecting the principle of sola Scriptura is one of authority. If Scripture is not the sole and supreme authority in one’s life, something else will be – whether that “something else” is tradition, another human, or one’s own sensibilities and desires. And these other things, as authorities, will inevitably trump Scriptural authority in some fashion. For when one has multiple authorities, these authorities inexorably wrestle for primacy. Thus, to hold to the principle of sola Scriptura is to hold to biblical authority over and against all other sources of authority. And to hold to biblical authority is to hold to the doctrine of divine inspiration, for the reason Christians believe the Bible is supremely authoritative is because of its supreme and divine author. And to hold to the doctrine of divine author is to trust in God – in this life…and for the next.
I can’t think of any one and any words I’d rather trust. How about you?
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
The Whole Christ
"The Crucifixion of Christ" by Gerhard Remisch
The other morning, I was reading 2 John as part of my devotions, when I once again came across a verse I have reflected on many times: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7). Though these words may strike us as harsh, they are true and necessary. For theology – the study of God – and Christology – the study of Christ – are inextricably connected. If one has an errant view of Christ, he will inevitably have an errant view of God, for it is precisely through Christ that God is revealed. This is why, especially in the early centuries of the Christian Church, there were so many creedal formulations concerning Christ. The early Christians wanted to make sure they accurately and faithfully confessed their Lord and Savior. Alister McGrath notes, “The history of early Christian doctrine is the basically the emergence of the Christological.”[1]
Martin Luther offers three ways in which Christology can go askew:
The devil has work to do and attacks Christ in three lines of battle. One will not let Him be God, another will not let Him be man, and the third will not let Him do what He has done. Each of the three wants to reduce Christ to nothing. For what does it profit you to confess that He is God, if you do not also believe that He is man? Then you do not have the whole, real Christ with that, but only a phantom of the devil’s. What does it profit you to confess that He is man, if you do not also believe that He is God? What does it profit you to confess that He is God and man, if you do not also believe that He has become everything and done everything for you?[2]
Luther’s insists that, in order to believe in Christ, we must believe in His humanity, His divinity, and His work on the cross. If we deny one part of this confession, we deny the whole Christ. Why? Because the person of Christ as true God and true man cannot be separated from the work of Christ, which is salvation. Notice how the Nicene Creed confesses Christ’s person and work all together in one eloquently integrated sweep: “For us men and for our salvation, [Christ] came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.” Here we read that Christ “came down from heaven,” a reference to His divinity, He was “incarnate,” a reference to His humanity, and “was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,” a reference to His salvific work. This is Christ. He can be nothing less and He can do nothing less.
John’s tirade against those who deny “the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” is due to the fact that he cannot bear to think that someone would miss out on all that Christ is and all that He has done. After all, why would we want something or someone less than the whole Christ? For the whole Christ is one with God and, at the same time, in solidarity with us. And whole Christ saves us wholly, without any worth or merit on our parts. John can’t dream of settling for anyone or anything less. I can’t either. How about you?
Common Question: What’s up with Lutheran worship?
One of the highlights of my week is weekend worship at Concordia. It is very moving for me to gather with the people of God and sing praises to God, hear God’s Word, witness a baptism, and receive Christ’s body and blood in Communion. Lutherans worship in a unique, yet thoroughly theological, way. In fact, more than one person has asked me, “Why do Lutherans worship the way in which they do?” It is with this question in mind that I write today’s blog.
First, it is important to understand there are two definitions of worship – one that is broad and one that is narrow. Worship in the broad sense includes any way which we hail something or someone as god, either implicitly or explicitly. This definition of worship is part and parcel of the First Commandment: “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (Exodus 20:3-5). According to this definition of worship, we are all worshipers, whether or not we worship the true God, for we all worship a god. Everyone has something or someone which holds prime place in their life and, as such, they worship this something or someone, for they hail it as god.
Worship in the narrow sense describes an activity that is distinctly Christian. Perhaps my favorite definition of worship in this sense comes via the introduction to the hymnal, Lutheran Worship:
Our Lord speaks and we listen. His Word bestows what it says. Faith that is born from what is heard acknowledges the gifts received with eager thankfulness and praise…The rhythm of our worship is from Him to us, and then from us back to Him. He gifts His gifts, and together we receive and extol them.[1]
With this definition of worship, we learn three important things. First, we learn that worship begins with what God gives to us and not with what we bring to God. This is why, for instance, the highest holy day of worship in Israel was the Day of Atonement – a day not about what Israel brought to God, but about the forgiveness God gave to Israel (cf. Leviticus 16). Second, we learn that after and only after God gives to us His gifts, can we respond to God with thankfulness and praise. This is why, for instance, psalm after psalm celebrates and extols what God has done for His people (e.g., Psalms 107, 118, 136). Third, we come to realize that worship can happen anywhere and at any time. For God continuously bestows His gifts of grace and, as such, we can continuously say, “Thank you.” Martin Luther colorfully quips:
The worship of God is the praise of God. This should be free at the table, in private rooms, downstairs, upstairs, at home, abroad, in all places, by all people, at all times. Whoever tells you anything else is lying as badly as the pope and the devil himself.[2]
The heart and soul of worship, then, is this: God meets us with His gifts at all times and places and we respond in turn with thanksgiving at all times and places.
The above theology of worship is what guides and informs weekend worship at Concordia Lutheran Church. It is worth it to briefly outline the shape and scope of a worship service at Concordia and consider how each element in one of our services reflects this broader theology of worship.
Invocation
Each service opens with the name of God: “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This Invocation is meant to orient us around the reality that worship does not begin with us, but with God. Indeed, our whole life in Christ begins with God, for the same name that marks the beginning of worship also marked us in our baptisms. This is why we baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Further, this name reminds us that we are bound together in Christ, for we call upon “one Lord” and share together “one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:5-6). Luther Reed sums up the beauty of the Invocation nicely when he writes:
[With the Invocation], we formally express our “awareness” of the Presence of God, we place ourselves in that Presence, and invoke the Divine blessing upon the service which is to follow. We confess our faith in the Holy Trinity, for whose worship we are assembled. We solemnly call God to witness that we are “gathered together” in His name (Matthew 18:20) and in that name offer all our prayer, praise, and thanksgiving (John 16:23).[3]
Confession and Absolution
Part of the reason worship must begin with God is because we would be hopelessly lost if worship began with us, for we are sinners, completely unworthy to somehow storm the gates of God’s presence. Confession reminds us of this. It calls us to believe that, in light of the sin which we admit to in Confession, if we are to be in God’s presence in worship, God must come to us! We cannot go to God. Absolution, then, provides us with the assurance that God has indeed come to us in the person and work of Christ and still dwells with us according to His promise: “Surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).
Music
Luther famously says of music:
I am not satisfied with him who despised music, as all fanatics do; for music is an endowment and a gift of God, not a gift of men. It also drives away the devil and makes people cheerful; one forgets all anger, unchasteness, pride, and other vices. I place music next to theology and give it the highest praise.[4]
Throughout a worship service, we sing. We sing because we believe music is a gift from God. We sing because many fine hymns and songs have been written which confess the gospel of God and express our praise and thanksgiving. In these ways, God gives to us through music.
Scripture Reading
As the Introduction to Lutheran Worship says, “Our Lord speaks and we listen.” Worship would be void and tragic if we did not hear from God! Because Scripture is God’s Word, we can be fully assured that when we hear Scripture, we hear God. This is why, at Concordia, we place such an emphasis on being in God’s Word. From our Word for Today Bible reading program to our Memorize His Word Bible memory program, we want people to listen to the Lord! And we know people can and will hear from God wherever and whenever Scripture is read.
Apostles’ Creed
The Introduction to Lutheran Worship says, “Saying back to God what He has said to us, we repeat what is most true and sure.” The recitation of the Apostles’ Creed allows us an opportunity to do just this. Because this creed is thoroughly biblical, we can be assured that we are confessing what God has first said to us. Because this creed is blessedly universal and historical, we can revel in the fact that we join a chorus of Christians all over the world and throughout the ages who confess this same true, holy Christian and apostolic faith.
Children’s Message
The Scriptures are clear on the responsibility we have to share with the next generation the works of the Lord: “We will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD, His power, and the wonders He has done” (Psalm 78:4). In one of Israel’s creedal biblical chapters, we read, “These commandments…are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children.” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7). The goal of a children’s message is to take seriously Scripture’s call to share the gospel with all – old and young alike. The children’s message, then, is catechetical in nature, teaching children the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
Offering
One of my favorite hymns declares:
We give Thee but Thine own,
Whate’er the gift may be;
All that we have is Thine alone,
A trust, O Lord, from Thee.[5]
This is a wonderfully succinct synopsis of the Christian doctrine of stewardship. God is the owner of everything, even as the Psalmist declares, “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1). Out of His grace, however, God graciously shares what is His with us. The Offering, therefore, is a time to give thanks to God for what He has given us by offering it to Him, for it belongs to Him in the first place.
Prayers and Lord’s Prayer
From the earliest days of the Church, Christians prayed. Talking to God is part and parcel of being a Christian. At Concordia, we include with our prayers the Lord’s Prayer because we believe it to be the perfect prayer. After all, it was taught by our perfect Lord! One of the beauties of the Lord’s Prayer is that it is a prayer God is guaranteed to answer with a “Yes!” for the prayer is based on God’s promises. For instance, when we pray, “Lead us not into temptation,” we know that Scripture promises, “God does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13). Thus, we know God will gladly not lead us into temptation, for this is His very promise!
Communion
The Lord’s Supper is a weighty moment. Indeed, it is so weighty that Paul rails against the Church at Corinth when they misuse and abuse this precious meal from God (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). Communion calls for both repentance and faith. As Scripture directs, we are to “examine ourselves” (1 Corinthians 11:28) before partaking of the Lord’s Supper and repent of our sins. We are also to believe that, in the Supper, Christ offers the remedy for our sins as He gives to us His own body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine for the forgiveness of our sins (cf. Matthew 26:26-28). Christ’s presence in this meal is His simple, yet profound, promise.
Sermon
The sermon serves four main functions: to convict, to comfort, to call, and to catechize. In a sermon, first and foremost, we ought to be convicted of our sins and comforted by the gospel. The sermon also ought to call us to walk according to God’s way of righteousness as well as catechize us in, or teach to us, Christian doctrine and biblical theology. In this way, we can “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).
Benediction
Just as the service begins with the name of God, the service ends with the blessing of God. After all, after being forgiven for our sins, hearing God’s Word in Scripture and sermon, approaching God through prayer, thanking God for what He has given us, and receiving Christ’s body and blood in Communion, how could we not be blessed? The Benediction, then, is an affirmation of everything that has taken place in the worship service. We have been blessed by the Lord, and as we go forth from weekend worship, we will continue to be blessed by the Lord. At Concordia, we include with the Benediction a Commissioning, drawn from Philippians 2:15-16, where we exhort worshipers to “shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life.” As we have been blessed in worship by God’s gifts, our call is to be a blessing to others by sharing with them these same gifts. As God says to Abraham: “I will bless you…and you will be a blessing” (Genesis 12:2).
So there it is. This is the shape and scope of a worship service at Concordia. As the service moves from element to element, two things are clear. First, it is clear that God is meeting His people with His gifts. Second, the only appropriate response to such a monumental meeting is, “Thank you!” May you offer God a “thank you” today – and every day – in worship!
[1] Lutheran Worship, Prepared by the Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1982) 6.
[2] What Luther Says, Ewald Plass, ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) 1546.
[3] Luther Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1947) 241.
[4] What Luther Says, 980.
[5] Lutheran Service Book, Prepared by the Commission on Worship of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006) 781.
ABC Extra – Hey, Jealousy!
One of the things I’ve always wished for is more hand-eye coordination. From the time I was a child, I have never been particularly adept at doing anything that required my hands and eyes to work coordinately. This comes out especially in the arena of sports. A baseball – I cannot hit it. A basketball – I cannot dribble it. A football – I cannot catch it. This is why, to stay fit, I run and lift weights. There is no hand eye coordination required.
I have always marveled at those who could crush a baseball or swish a basketball or catch a football. After all, these athletes can do things I could never hope to do. Honestly, I am more than a little jealous of some of these folks.
Jealousy is a strange emotion. We usually think of jealousy as a strident yearning of the heart after something someone else has. We can be jealous of someone else’s talent. Or we can be jealous of someone else’s wealth. We can even be jealous of someone else’s piety – his self-control, her gentle spirit, his ability to be content rather than jealous!
In the Bible, the word “jealousy” has both a positive and a negative use. In its negative sense, it describes “envy.” Solomon warns, “A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones” (Proverbs 14:30). In its positive sense, jealousy describes “zeal.” As Isaiah famously prophesies concerning the birth of the Messiah: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over His kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this” (Isaiah 9:6-7). So what is the difference between sinful envy and holy zeal? Envy is jealousy of someone while zeal is jealousy for someone.
Envy sees something someone else has and says, “I want it,” and either seethes with resentment because what is desired cannot be had, or uses dishonest or even diabolical means to attain what is desired. King Ahab is the poster child for this kind of jealousy. When the king tries to cut a deal with one of his subjects, Naboth, to purchase from him a vineyard, Naboth refuses. When he is turned down, the story says Ahab “lay on his bed sulking” (1 Kings 21:5). So Ahab hatches a plan. He has Naboth stoned and commandeers his vineyard. Ahab’s envy knows no bounds.
Zeal, on the other hand, is a deep desire and affection for something with which God has entrusted you. As such, you are jealous for it, desiring to protect it and keep it from harm. In Numbers 5, the law speaks of the jealousy a man has for his wife. And indeed, a man should be jealous for his wife. For God has given a man a great gift in a wife – and he should honor and protect her. As Solomon says, “He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22).
Jealousy is not all bad. When God prohibits all forms of idolatry in the First Commandment, He explains His reasoning thusly: “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep My commandments” (Exodus 20:5-6). God is jealous for us. Beautifully, this simply means He loves us.
What kind of jealousy marks your life – jealousy for someone or jealousy of someone? Do you seek to honor and protect those you love or do you seek to take that which you do not have? One kind of jealousy flows from love. The other flows from greed. May you, as God’s child, be jealous with a “godly jealousy” (2 Corinthians 11:2).
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message!
ABC Extra – Two Kingdoms, One Ruler
This weekend in worship and ABC, we kicked off a series called, “King Me! Life Lessons from Israel’s Lieges.” In this series, we are taking a look at some of Israel’s kings and seeking to learn from both the good and the bad of their rules and reigns. The theme verse for this series comes from Judges 8, where, after leading a valiant charge against the Midianites, the Israelites want to install their judge, Gideon, along with his family, into an Israelite royal dynasty. Gideon responds, “I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The LORD will rule over you” (Judges 8:23). Gideon understands that, ultimately, it is the LORD who is King over all. No earthly king can dare or deign to take God’s place. Indeed, the subtitle for this series, “Life Lessons from Israel’s Lieges,” alludes to this. A “liege” can be either one who rules or one who is ruled. Earthly kings are both. They may rule over others, but they themselves are inescapably and inexorably ruled by God. For God is King over all.
Like Gideon, Martin Luther understood that God rules and reigns over all. In his writings, Luther often spoke of two kingdoms. On the one hand, Luther explains, there is a left hand kingdom, which incorporates the world and its rules and rulers. On the other hand, there is a right hand kingdom, or a spiritual kingdom, which consists of all those who have faith in Christ and are guided by the Gospel. When teaching on these two kingdoms, I will often refer to the right hand kingdom as the Kingdom of God and the left hand kingdom as the Kingdom of Man. “Who rules the Kingdom of God?” I will ask when I teach on this topic. People quickly and confidently respond, “God.” But then I follow up, “Who rules the Kingdom of Man?” Many respond, “Man.” But the glory of the Kingdom of Man is that, despite its name, it is not ruled by man, but by God! The Lutheran Confessions explain: “It is taught among us that all government in the world and all established rule and laws were instituted and ordained by God for the sake of good order.”[1] This statement echoes the words of the apostle Paul: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1). Because God institutes and establishes the rulers in the Kingdom of Man, He is also the ultimate ruler over the Kingdom of Man. As the prophet Daniel says, “God sets up kings and deposes them” (Daniel 2:21). There is no kingdom – be it the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Man – where God does not reign and rule.
Though God reigns and rules over both the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man, it should be noted that God rules differently in these two kingdoms. Luther explains:
One must carefully distinguish between these two governments. Both must be permitted to remain; the one to produce righteousness, the other to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds. Neither one is sufficient in the world without the other. No one can become righteous in the sight of God by means of the temporal government, without Christ’s spiritual government. Christ’s government does not extend over all men; rather, Christians are always a minority in the midst of non-Christians. Now where temporal government or law alone prevails, there sheer hypocrisy is inevitable, even though the commandments be God’s very own. For without the Holy Spirit in the heart no one becomes truly righteous, no matter how fine the works he does. On the other hand, where the spiritual government alone prevails over land and people, there wickedness is given free rein and the door is open for all manner of rascality, for the world as a whole cannot receive or comprehend it.[2]
Thus, God rules in the Kingdom of God by the redemption of men through the cross of Christ and He rules in the Kingdom of Man by suppressing the wickedness of men through the auspices of earthly rulers. We thank God for both kingdoms. And we thank God that He is King over both. He is King over us.
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
ABC Extra – Christ and Culture
Source: http://www.gospelcoalition.org
This past weekend in worship and ABC, we wrapped up our series, “Unresolved,” looking at how we, as Christians, are called to relate to our world. This question of how a Christian interacts with the world is a longstanding quandry, and was perhaps most famously addressed in 1951, by Yale theology professor H. Richard Niebuhr in what would become the defining work of his career, Christ and Culture. In this seminal work, Niebuhr outlines five ways in which Christianity has responded to culture, or the world:
- Christ against culture. Niebuhr summarizes this response as one which “uncompromisingly affirms the sole authority of Christ over the Christian and resolutely rejects culture’s claims to loyalty” (45).[1] Thus, this response to culture eschews most encounters with culture. For instance, “political life is to be shunned…Military service is to be avoided because it involves participation in pagan religious rites and the swearing of an oath to Caesar” (54). This way of thinking, then, takes a stance of deep suspicion and antagonism toward things of the world.
- The Christ of culture. People who adhere to this system of theologizing “feel no great tension between church and world, the social laws and the gospel, the workings of divine grace and human effort, the ethics of salvation and the ethics of social conservation or progress. On the one hand they interpret culture through Christ, regarding those elements in it as most important which are most accordant with His work and person; on the other hand they understand Christ through culture, electing from His teaching and action as well as from the Christian doctrine about Him such points as seem to agree with what is best in civilization” (83). Thus, this response is liberal and affectionate to the zeitgeist of a culture.
- Christ above culture. This, historically, has been a majority position in the Church, and posits that “the ‘world’ as culture [cannot] be simply regarded as the realm of godlessness; since it is at least founded on the ‘world’ as nature, and cannot exist save as it is upheld by the Creator and Governor of nature” (117-118). In other words, though Christ is not opposed to culture inherently because He in some sense created it, He nevertheless reigns above it and is certainly grieved by the sin that has crept into it. As Niebuhr writes, “The fundamental issue does not lie between Christ and the world, important as that issue is, but between God and man” (117), for man is sinful.
- Christ and culture in paradox. Like the response of Christ above culture, this view sees the fundamental issue as one between God and man: “The issue lies between the righteousness of God and the righteousness of self. On the one side are we with all of our activities, our states and our churches, our pagan and our Christian works; on the other side is God in Christ and Christ in God…It is not a question about Christians and pagans, but a question about God and man” (150). How does Christ deal with men who are against Him? By means of His law and His gospel. Niebuhr says this is the position of great theological luminaries such as Augustine and Luther.
- Christ the transformer of culture. This response “is most closely akin to dualism [i.e., Christ and culture in paradox], but…what distinguishes conversionists from dualists is their more positive and hopeful attitude toward culture…[Conversionists have] a view of history that holds that to God all things are possible in a history that is fundamentally not a course of merely human events but always a dramatic interaction between God and men” (190-191, 194).
Although Niebuhr never explicitly endorses any of these five views, he offers no criticism of the fifth view. Many scholars, then, believe that this is the view to which Niebuhr gives his tacit approval.
So which view is correct? On the one hand, save the second response, all of these views have something valuable to offer to orthodox Christians. On the other hand, to simple accept each view as equally valid quickly degenerates into an anachronistic and individualistic pluralism. That is, accepting each view indiscriminately enables each individual Christians to respond anachronistically to different situations in their lives using whichever model they arbitrarily deem best at the time. This will not do. The question we must ask, then, is, “Which of these five views is normative for the other four?” The Lutheran response would be, “Christ and culture in paradox.” Why? Two reasons come to mind. First, this view understands the root of our problem, which is not culture per se, but us. The reason there is even any discussion concerning how Christ relates to culture is because the people of culture are sinful and depraved, hostile to God. Second, because this view is realistic about human sinfulness, it does not fall into self-righteousness, for it understands that “all of us are in the same boat,” as it were, and therefore encourages us to love our neighbor and serve in our respective vocations, just as Christ commands. Thus, we, as Christians, in our life’s stations, are called to proclaim the “gospel of faith in Christ working by love in the world of culture” (179). This understanding, in turn, frees us up to decry the evil not only of culture, but of ourselves, as does the view of Christ against culture. Yet, it does not fall into separatism. It allows us to herald the transcendent gospel as the solution to this world’s problems as does the view of Christ above culture. Yet, it does not fall into dualism or even a soft Deism. And it allows us to serve in our vocations for the good of our neighbors, transforming culture, as does the view of Christ the transformer of culture. Yet, it still realizes that we, as culture is transformed, are by no means able or responsible for creating a utopian society.
Perhaps the biggest strength of the view that Christ and culture are in paradox is simply this: it acknowledges and allows the tension between Christ and culture. And it admits that we can never remove this tension or relegate it to a non-issue. This, in turn, empowers us, as Christians, to engage our world thoughtfully and humbly, for we, like the rest of the world, are sinners, but we are also joyfully and freely redeemed by Christ.
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
[1] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951).
Common Questions: Lutherans and the Lord’s Supper
"Last Supper" by Pascal Adolphe Dagnan-Bouveret
A couple of weeks ago, a man came into my office wanting to know what Concordia Lutheran Church was all about. My answer? “Concordia is all about the gospel – that Jesus died on a cross in our place to forgive our sins, and there is nothing we can do to earn this forgiveness. Rather, it is received only by faith.” He seemed satisfied with my answer. But he had a follow up question: “I’ve heard weird things about what Lutherans teach about the Lord’s Supper. What does Concordia teach?” I surmised that this question was the real reason he stopped by my office. And I was happy to share with him what we teach about the Lord’s Supper. After all, this is not an uncommon question. Indeed, because it is so common, I thought I would address it in the “Common Questions” feature on my blog.
What do Lutherans teach concerning the Lord’s Supper?
Martin Luther himself summarizes the nature of the Lord’s Supper when he writes: “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and drink, instituted by Christ Himself.”[1] In other words, we believe that when Jesus breaks bread and takes a cup of wine and says to His disciples, “This is My body” and “This is My blood” (Matthew 26:26, 28), Jesus means precisely what He says – the bread and wine are His true body and blood.
The classical term for this teaching is the “sacramental union.” Again, Luther clarifies this term well:
Out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a “sacramental union,” because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament…Therefore, it is entirely correct to say, if one points to the bread, “This is Christ’s body”…Thus also it is correct to say, “He who takes hold of this bread, takes hold of Christ’s body; and he who eats this bread, eats Christ’s body; he who crushes this bread with teeth or tongue, crushes with teeth or tongue the body of Christ.” And yet it remains absolutely true that no one sees or grasps or eats or chews Christ’s body in the way he visibly sees and chews any other flesh. What one does to the bread is rightly and properly attributed to the body of Christ by virtue of the sacramental union.[2]
Thus, the sacramental union refers to the fact that Christ’s true body is present “in the bread, under the bread, with the bread”[3] and likewise with Christ’s blood and the wine.
What the sacramental union is not…
Because so many Christians teach so many things concerning the nature of the Lord’s Supper, it is important to briefly touch on some things which the sacramental union is not, lest there be any confusion.
The sacramental union is not transubstantiation
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper cease to be bread and wine and instead become the body and blood of Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes transubstantiation:
By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ Himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: His Body and His Blood, with His soul and His divinity.[4]
Central to the doctrine of transubstantiation is an Aristotelian distinction between the “substance” of a thing and its “accident.” The “substance” of a thing is its fundamental essence. It is that which, if it ceases to be, the thing loses its identity. The “accident” of a thing is an attribute which may or may not belong to a substance without affecting its core essence.
The doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that, when a priest recites the Words of Institution at the Lord’s Supper, the substance of the bread and wine transform into the substance Christ’s body and blood and the bread and the wine are no longer essentially present. They are only outward, “accidental” forms. In this sense, then, the forms of the bread and wine are “faking us out,” for they are not really, essentially there. All that is there is Christ’s body and blood.
Luther responds to the doctrine of transubstantiation thusly:
The Evangelists plainly write that Christ took bread[5] and blessed it, and when the Book of Acts and the Apostle Paul in turn call it bread,[6] we have to think of real bread and real wine, just as we do of a real cup…Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words to understand “bread” to mean “the form or accidents of bread,” and “wine” to mean “the form or accidents of wine”…The church kept the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy fathers never, at any time or place, mentioned this transubstantiation (a monstrous word and a monstrous idea), until the pseudo philosophy of Aristotle began to make its inroads into the church in these last three hundred years.[7]
The sacramental union is not symbolism
There are many church bodies which teach that when Christ said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood,” what He really meant was, “This symbolizes my body” and “This symbolizes My blood.” For instance, “The Baptist Faith and Message” confesses, “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”[8] Notice that this confessional statement refers to the Lord’s Supper explicitly as “a symbolic act” and does not even make mention of Christ’s body and blood.
There are some who, holding to a symbolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper, accuse Lutherans of being anachronistic when we insist that the word “is” when Christ says “This is My body and “This is my blood” indicates that Christ’s body and blood are truly present with the bread and wine. One friend made this argument to me: “When I show you a picture of my family and say, ‘This is my family,’ I mean, ‘This is a picture of my family.’ When Jesus held up bread and wine, He meant to say the same thing: ‘This is a picture of My body and blood!’” I’ll grant that it would strain the bounds of good exegesis to base the doctrine of the sacramental union entirely on the word “is.” But Lutherans do no such thing. Rather, we take into consideration three additional factors. First, we take into account who is speaking these words. Because Christ is speaking these words, it is of no difficulty for Him to make His body and blood miraculously present in, with, and under the bread and wine. The difference between me saying, “This is a picture of my family” and Christ saying, “This is My body and blood” is the speaker! One speaker can work miracles and speak truth into existence. The other cannot. Second, we take into account how Scripture itself interprets these words. The apostle Paul indicates a lively confidence in the sacramental union when he asks, “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:16)? Paul believes that when we eat the bread and drink of the cup, we are actually participating with the body and blood of Christ. This hardly leaves room for a symbolic reading. Negatively, Paul warns, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27). Paul warns that partaking of the Lord’s Supper without self-examination and repentance (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:28) can lead to sin against Christ’s body and blood. How can such thing happen? Because in the Lord’s Supper, we actually receive Christ’s body and blood. Third, we take into account how the church has interpreted these words throughout the centuries. The Lutheran Confessions, in their defense of the sacramental union, cite the second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr:
This we receive not as common bread and common drink. We receive them as Jesus Christ, our Savior, who through the Word of God became flesh. For the sake of our salvation He also had flesh and blood. So we believe that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.[9]
Taking these three factors into consideration, then, Lutherans believe that we have solid Christological, exegetical, historical, and ecclesial grounds for interpreting Jesus’ words as we do.
The sacramental union is not just a spiritual presence
Calvinists will regularly teach that Christ’s body and blood are present in the Lord’s Supper, though only in a spiritual sense. Consider, for instance, this passage from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion:
The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes Him to the element of bread, nor encloses Him in bread, nor circumscribes Him in any way (this would obviously detract from His celestial glory); and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests Him of His just dimensions, nor dissevers Him by differences of place, nor assigns to Him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth. All these things are clearly repugnant to His true human nature. Let us never allow ourselves to lose sight of the two restrictions. First, let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ. This happens whenever He is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or is affixed to any earthly creatures. Secondly, let no property be assigned to His body inconsistent with His human nature. This is done when it is either said to be infinite, or made to occupy a variety of places at the same time.[10]
Calvin’s argument for a spiritual presence in the Lord’s Supper is this: Christ had both a human nature and a divine nature. His human nature is circumscribed by the normal spatial restriction that a person cannot be physically present in more than one place simultaneously. Therefore, Christ’s body, as part of His human nature, cannot be present in the Lord’s Supper, for Christ’s body is in heaven, seated at the right hand of God. Jesus can only be spiritually present according to His divine nature. Luther responds to such an argument thusly:
We merge the two distinct natures [of Christ] into one single person, and say: God is man and man is God…[You] will not and cannot prove that the two propositions, “Christ is in heaven, and His body is in the Supper,” are contradictory. So the words, “This is My body,” remain to us just as they read, for one letter of them is better and surer to us than the books of all the fanatics, even if they should fill the world with the books they write. Again, since they do not prove that the right hand of God is a particular place in heaven, the mode of existence of which I have spoken also stands firm, that Christ’s body is everywhere because it is at the right hand of God which is everywhere, although we do not know how that occurs. For we also do not know how it occurs that the right hand of God is everywhere. It is certainly not the mode by which we see with our eyes that an object is somewhere, as the fanatics regard the sacrament. But God no doubt has a mode by which it can be somewhere and that’s the way it is until the fanatics prove the contrary.[11]
For Luther, then, the sacramental union of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper is a Christological issue. The question Luther would have us ask is: “Do we believe that Christ’s body can be present in more than one place simultaneously, or do we insist on circumscribing His human nature by the space-time restrictions of our world?” How you answer this question reveals what you believe about what Christ, as both God and man, can and cannot do. If Christ from rise from the dead in both His human and divine nature, it is certainly not too difficult for Him to be present in the Lord’s Supper in both His human and divine nature.
Finally, Luther would remind us of the blessing of the Lord’s Supper:
The Sacrament is given as a daily pasture and sustenance, that faith may refresh and strengthen itself…For the devil is such a furious enemy. When he sees that we oppose him…he prowls and moves about on all sides. He tries every trick and does not stop until he finally wears us out, so that we either renounce our faith or throw up our hands and put up our feet, becoming indifferent or impatient. Now to this purpose the comfort of the Sacrament is given when the heart feels that the burden is becoming too heaven, so that it may gain here new power and refreshment.[12]
May you gain such power and refreshment from the Lord’s Supper, for in it, Jesus gives His body and blood – His very self – for you!
ABC Extra – In Sickness And In Health
Death is inescapable. It doesn’t matter how rich or how poor, how healthy or how sick, how old or how young a person is. Eventually and inevitably, death comes for each one of us. After Steve Jobs passed away, many bloggers and journalists spoke of how Jobs sought to receive “the best care money could buy.” And indeed, he did receive terrific care from world-renowned doctors. But although they may have been able to prolong his life, they were not able to save it. He passed away last year. Death came for Steve Jobs. Shortly after the world-renowned and lovably cantankerous atheist apologist Christopher Hitchens was diagnosed with cancer, he described his ailment in his characteristically colorful tone: “Against me is the blind, emotionless alien, cheered on by some who have long wished me ill. But on the side of my continued life is a group of brilliant and selfless physicians plus an astonishing number of prayer groups.”[1]
Like Steve Jobs, Christopher Hitchens turned to the most “brilliant and selfless physicians” money could buy, and though they may have been able to prolong his life, they were not able to save it. He passed away last year. Death came for Christopher Hitchens.
Death is inescapable. And yet, I find it interesting that, particularly in the case of Christopher Hitchens, it wasn’t just medical professionals who were working to prolong his life, it was Christians who were praying to redeem his life.
In worship and ABC this past weekend, we looked at the story of a demon-possessed boy in Mark 9. Initially, the disciples try to heal this boy, but they cannot (cf. Mark 9:17-18). Jesus, however, is able to drive out the torturing spirit (cf. Mark 9:25-27). Beleaguered by their embarrassing failure, the disciples ask Jesus privately, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” Jesus’ answer is clarifying and convicting: “This kind can come out only by prayer” (Mark 9:28-29). This boy could not be healed by a pill, a surgery, a physician, or an exorcism rite. Rather, persistent and consistent prayer was the key to this boy’s recovery.
For all of man’s collective medical wisdom, there are still some diseases which can be healed only by prayer. This is why James asks, “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). Prayer is more powerful and potent than any human remedy. For prayer has God’s will and mercy as its answer.
Tragically, even in the face of certain death, Christopher Hitchens wrote, “Please do not trouble deaf heaven with your bootless cries.” Christopher Hitchens’ commitment to his atheism was unflappable. He refused to believe that his kind of sickness could “come out only by prayer.” Then again, after asking people not to pray for him, he added this little caveat: “Unless, of course, it makes you feel better.”[2]
Christopher Hitchens never came to understand and see that prayer is not just for the therapy of weak minds, it is for the strengthening of brave souls. Prayer, perhaps, really could have made him feel better – not only in his cancerous plight, but in his eternity as well. For not only can God hear our prayers and sometimes grant us a temporal recovery, He will hear our prayers and always grant us a glorious eternity through Christ. And that is a gift and blessing we dare not miss.
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
Common Question: What’s the deal with the Lutheran doctrine of baptism?
"Baptism of Neophytes" by Masaccio (15th century)
“Why can’t women be ordained in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod?” “How does evolution square with the biblical record of creation?” “We confess in the Apostles’ Creed that Christ ‘descended into hell.’ Where does it teach that in the Bible?” I receive questions such as these – as well as many others – about why Lutherans believe and teach what they believe in teach. So periodically, over the course of the next several weeks and months, I will be taking some time to answer some of the most common questions I regularly receive about Lutheran doctrine.
Today, we begin with a question that is perhaps the most ubiquitous of all: “What’s the deal with the Lutheran doctrine of baptism?” Before we dive into this doctrine, it is important to clarify two things. First, I believe the Lutheran doctrine of baptism is the Christian doctrine of baptism. That is, I believe that the Lutheran doctrine of baptism is what Scripture itself teaches. Second, I am fully aware that many sincere and godly Christians differ over the doctrine of baptism. As I discuss this doctrine, then, I do so in a spirit of humility, respecting and loving those with whom I disagree. I do not, however, discuss this doctrine with a spirit of relativism, believing that different teachings on baptism are equally true or that what we believe and teach about baptism makes no difference. Quite the contrary. If the doctrine of baptism matters to the authors of Scripture, it should matter to us. Therefore, we should consider carefully what they teach.
What is baptism?
Baptism is a divine ordinance, instituted by Christ Himself, whereby He makes disciples through water combined with God’s name. Jesus says, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The participle “baptizing” can be translated as a participle of means. Baptism, therefore, is a means by which disciples are made.
It is important to recognize that baptism is something God does for us and not something we do for God. This is why Paul says of baptism, “We were therefore buried with Christ through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (Romans 6:4). Notice the passive voice of the verbs: “buried,” “raised.” These are divine passives, indicating that God is the One burying our old, sinful natures and raising us to new life in Christ. We are passive in the matter. This runs contrary to the teaching of some who describe baptism merely as an act of obedience while denying its divine power. Consider this quote from a large denomination’s confessional statement: “Baptism is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.”[1] Two things are especially notable about this statement. First, while obedience is emphasized, the blessings of baptism are not mentioned. Second, this statement references Romans 6:4, but relegates Paul’s language concerning burial and resurrection to that of symbolism, emphasizing the believer’s faith rather than God’s action. Paul, however, nowhere indicates that he is speaking symbolically in this verse. Rather, his language indicates that he has a lively confidence in an actual new life, offered by God through baptism.
Does baptism save?
Yes, baptism does save. Peter writes, “Baptism now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand – with angels, authorities and powers in submission to Him” (1 Peter 3:21-22). Peter could not be clearer: Baptism saves you. However, it is important to note not only that baptism saves you, but how baptism saves you. It saves you “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Without the resurrected Christ, baptism is emptied of its power and promise.
There are some who object to the teaching that baptism saves, saying, “Faith in Christ alone saves you!” They often quote Scripture passages such as Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” They then argue: “Paul says that faith in Christ saves you and nowhere mentions baptism in Romans 10:9. Therefore, faith in Christ, and not baptism, saves you.” This type of argument deeply disturbs me because it engages in what I call “Bible Verse Battleship.” In this sad game, people line up their favorite Bible verses to support their favorite pet positions and then, when shown Scriptural testimony which calls into question their position, rather than seeking to reconcile the verses and take into account the whole counsel of God’s Word, they simply declare, “Because my pet Bible verse is true, you must be incorrect! My Bible verse sunk your Bible verse!” We should never use Bible verses to “sink” other Bible verses. Rather, we should assume that all Scripture as speaks with one, harmonious, voice concerning the one, true Christian faith. Thus, when Peter says, “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21), we ought to take his words as complimentary, and not contradictory, to what Paul says in Romans 10:9.
So then, how do we understand Romans 10:9 and 1 Peter 3:21 harmoniously? Like this. Baptism does not save simply because it’s baptism, but because it has the promise of Jesus’ presence attached to it (cf. Matthew 28:19-20). This is why baptism is regularly referred to as a “means of grace.” God works through simple things such as water in baptism, bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, and words on a page in Holy Scripture to speak to, meet with, and provide gifts for His people. Martin Luther explains wonderfully: “Without God’s word the water [of baptism] is plain water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit.”[2] Thus, to say that baptism saves you is simply to say that Jesus saves you because Jesus is doing His work in and through baptism!
Why do Lutherans baptize infants?
Lutherans do not baptize infants. Rather, we baptize people in accordance with Christ’s commands to baptize “all nations” (Matthew 28:19). The Bible teaches that all are born into sin and deserve God’s condemnation (cf. Psalm 51:5). Therefore, babies need the salvation Jesus gives in baptism just as much as adults do. The Bible nowhere prohibits baptizing babies. In fact, we are told specifically that the promise of baptism is indeed for children: “The promise [of baptism] is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39).
There are some who maintain that a profession of faith must precede baptism. And because a baby cannot profess his faith in Christ, he should not be baptized until he is old enough to make such a profession. In response to this objection, I would point out two things. First, I would question the assumption that a profession of faith is a necessary prerequisite of baptism. It often happens that that a person in Scripture confesses his faith before he is baptized, but common occurrence doesn’t always necessarily indicate a divine mandate. Just because the Bible offers a description of certain things and events (e.g., a person offering a profession of faith before baptism) does not necessarily mean that the Bible is mandating a universal prescription. Second, I would question the assumption that children cannot confess their faith. The Psalmist reminds us, “From the lips of children and infants You have ordained praise” (Psalm 8:2, cf. Matthew 21:16). Children can and do praise God, even if it is with broken grammar and babble. Finally, from a historical perspective, from the early days of the Christian Church, it was common practice to have parents or sponsors confess the Christian faith on behalf of their children. The Roman theologian Hippolytus writes this concerning baptism in AD 215: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”[3] I have written more about infant baptism here: http://bit.ly/qHp97b.
Baptism is a joyous gift from God. For through it, God meets us with His gifts. Luther sums up the joy and promise of baptism nicely when he writes: “We see what a very splendid thing baptism is. It snatches us from the jaws of the devil, makes us God’s own, restrains and removes sin, and then daily strengthens the new man within us.”[4] Thus is the blessing and gift of baptism!
[1] “The Baptist Faith and Message,” VII.
[2] Luther’s Small Catechism, “Baptism,” 3.
[3] Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 21.15.
[4] What Luther Says, Ewald M. Plass, ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) 61.
ABC Extra – Tackling Temptation
"The Temptation of Christ" by Ary Scheffer (1854)
Whether or not you or a loved one has struggled with alcoholism, the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous have become nearly ubiquitously helpful to millions who struggle with an addiction, habit, or hurt. What I find so interesting about the Twelve Steps is that Step One is essentially an explication of the Christian doctrine of human depravity: “We admitted we were powerless over alcohol – that our lives had become unmanageable.” Of course, one could insert a whole array of different sins in place of the word “alcohol.” “We admitted we were powerless over lust – that our lives had become unmanageable.” “We admitted we were powerless over greed – that our lives had become unmanageable.” “We admitted we were powerless over self-righteousness – that our lives had become unmanageable.”
This past weekend in worship and ABC, we talked about the trials of temptation. Satan is a “tempter,” the Bible reminds us (Matthew 4:3), and wants nothing more than to drag us into sin. And, just as with any other banal allurement or enticement, under our own power, we are helpless to resist Satan’s taunting temptations. As AA would remind us, “We admitted we were powerless over temptation – that our lives had become unmanageable.”
Sadly, human depravity in the face of sinful temptation is born out again and again in the Scriptures. When Cain is tempted to murder his brother Abel, God warns Cain, “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7). But Cain does not master his sin. He falls to temptation and kills his brother, Abel. When Israel is led out of their slavery in Egypt and God ushers them into a place of prosperity, God warns the people: “When your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 8:13-14). God’s warning against forgetting Him proves to be eerily prophetic: “The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD; they forgot the LORD their God” (Judges 3:7). The allurements and enticements of this world are too overwhelming and overburdening for any human to face and defeat.
Augustine described powerlessness of humans against temptation and transgression using the Latin phrase, non posse non pecarre, meaning, we are “not able not to sin.” Blessedly, however, Jesus has the remedy for the dourness of our depravity. For He stands up under temptation on our behalf. In our text for this past weekend from Matthew 4:1-11, we read how Jesus takes His stand against the devil’s temptations not once, not twice, but three times. Jesus then takes this victory over temptation and gives it to us by means of His death on the cross. The preacher of Hebrews explains: “We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:15-16). Because Jesus stood up under temptation, we have the mercy and grace that we need to help us in our time of temptation. For without God’s mercy and grace, we are powerless to resist the allurements and enticements of this world.
So when you are tempted, look not to your own strength, will, or fortitude, but to the cross. For on the cross Christ encounters a final temptation from a crowd of jeerers: “Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God” (Matthew 27:40)! Interestingly, this phrase – “If you are the Son of God – is the same phrase Satan uses to tempt Jesus in the desert in Matthew 4 (cf. Matthew 4:3, 6). But as with Satan, Christ resists this temptation too. He does not come down from the cross. Instead, He dies to achieve victory over sin. And so on that cross, our victory over temptation is secured. Praise be to God!
Want to learn more? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
Pastor Zach's Blog 