Jesus is the Son of God

Words matter, especially in the Bible.  Every word has the potential to be of massive significance.  This is pretty clear all over the New Testament, and the very theologically-loaded Gospel accounts are no exception.

"The Last Judgment" by Michelangelo

In Matthew 25, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) who will come on the clouds (24:30), in his glory, with all his angels, and sit on his glorious throne (25:31).  The Son of Man language, in conjunction with the cloud imagery in 24:30, alludes to Dan 7:13.

This is significant, because in Ps 104:3 we are told that Yhwh “makes the clouds his chariot.”  Dan 7:13 says the same thing of this Son of Man, who is also given “dominion and glory and a kingdom,” one that “shall not be destroyed” (Dan 7:13-14).  This picks up on 2 Sam 7, a passage where God is making his covenant with David.  God tells David that He will establish the kingdom of David’s offspring, and its throne will be established forever (2 Sam 7:13).  “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.  Your throne shall be established forever” (2 Sam 7:16).

Isaiah picked this up when he spoke of the child that would be born, whose named would be “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,” who would be “on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore” (Isa 9:6-7).  Interestingly, Matthew has already used Isa 9:1-2 in the fulfillment quotation of 4:12-16. Isaiah 9:1-2 says, “In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations [ed: or "Gentiles"].  The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.”  In the original context, this passage “concerns a broken people who have suffered Assyrian attack and deportation (cf. 2 Kgs 15.29; 1 Chr 5.26); to them is promised deliverance: a son from the house of David will bring salvation (9.6-7)” (Davies and Allison, Matthew. ICC, 1:380).

Matthew paraphrases the original Hebrew with noticeable influence from its Greek translation (the Septuagint, or LXX), a typical move in 1st Century Jewish exegesis, in Matt 4:12-16, “Now when he [Jesus] heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee.  And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: ‘The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles–the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned.‘”

Canonically, the picture of Jesus building up to this point in Matthew,”The Christ, the Son of the Living God” (ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος – 16:16),”The Son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου – 24:30; 25:31), “The Son of David” (τῷ υἱῷ Δαυίδ – 21:15), “The King” (ὁ βασιλεὺς – 25:34), is fairly clear (just go back and read the genealogy in Matt 1).  This is the Messianic Son of David, Yhwh himself, who will establish his kingdom forever.

Coming Soon: Tackling Aristotle’s Fish

Secularist10, who blogs over at 100 Treatises, has just responded to my post from last week on the uniqueness and indispensability of Christ with “Why I am a Secularist.”

I will respond to (her? him?) sometime this week as time allows. As any reader of this blog is aware, I’m a very rare author here in the first place!  I think Drew (and sometimes Kevin) are more the driving force of this thing.  But Secularist10 raises some points that are commonly leveled against Christians and I want to be sure we know what’s at stake with these claims, and perhaps reveal a few blindspots for Secularist10 and for most Christian attempts to defend the faith that can help move such discussions forward rather than backward.

Christ, Religions, and “Universal” Values

I posted yesterday about Christopher Hitchens’ thoughts on Christians that he’s debated and one reader responded with a different, secularist perspective (which we welcome here!).  I was going to respond to them in the comments section, but I found my response becoming a bit too long and figured I would put it up in a separate post since it had some serious thoughts on what makes Christianity unique.  This is by no means exhaustive, but only a surface-level introduction to ‘why Christianity’ rather than Islam, or Buddhism, etc.

Here we go….

1.  The existence of God cannot and does not need to be demonstrated.  It is evident and is no more subject to “proof” than “disproof.” This is not similar to anything else, no matter how hard we try to draw correlations to spaghetti monsters (cf. Bertrand Russell), etc.  Such elusive arguments actually fail to consider the definition of what they’re arguing about.  I’m not interested in arguing for the existence of “deity” in and of itself.  I’m an atheist in many respects:  I don’t believe in “Allah” or the god of Judaism or the gods of Mormonism, et al.  I believe in the one God revealed in Jesus Christ.  He has been seen and we have eye-witness testimony to this event and his deity. 

Rational proofs for/against the existence of some otiose deity dangling before our eyes are rather vain projections of our own minds onto a blank canvas (thank you Cornelius Van Til).  They are thus fruitless.  I can understand why a “secularist” would want to go down this road, but we share different presuppositions and thus have no neutral ground from which to argue.  Someone might retort and say, “Reason is the only neutral ground, why not simply agree to the dictates of logic and reason and then go from there?”  Ok, fine, but whose reason?  Reason is not an abstract, independent reality floating outside of actual people, outside of time and space.  Reason is built upon the foundations of beliefs that people assume without argumentation (“presuppositions).  Thus, reason is anything but neutral.  I might just as well say that your perspective assumes the non-existence of something you call “god,” for which there is no evidence.  I hope I’m being concrete enough with what I’m saying. 

Furthermore, we cannot speak of the “non-existence” of the God revealed in Jesus Christ because existence is part of his very definition.  To say otherwise would be to separate the signifier from signified.  Most people haven’t made the proper correlation between the two such that they posit the non-existence of something they claim is the Christian God, when in fact they have something wholly different in their sights.  This is what makes Richard Dawkins such an amateur in this respect and why no philosopher or theologian has yet to take him seriously.  Yhwh is self-existing (‘a se‘ in Latin), thus requiring no cause for himself, etc.

2.  SO, if we start from the fact of Jesus Christ, then we actually have something to work with.  We know about him through Scripture, which then leads to all sorts of questions as to how that’s interpreted, etc.  I don’t have time to get too far into this (I’m not going to convince anyone anyway), but the gospel - the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ alone from our sinful separation from God – is the basis for racial and sexual equality, for nonviolence, for the inherent value of human life.  Other religions might profess to hold to similar beliefs, but they are actually radically different. 

If you cannot see this, it is because you are not a follower of Christ.  So you can’t see the ways in which the value of human life is bound up with the fact that God has shared our time and space with us by assuming flesh, and in that same act, redeemed us.  You don’t understand what it means to be made in the image of Yhwh, rather than to made in the image of “god.”  You can’t see the intricacies of the many ways that the gospel breaks down social divisions and makes everyone equal beggars at the foot of the cross.  You don’t understand how race is a sinful human taxonomy that finds little basis in our ontology.  According to Scripture, you are either “in Christ” or “in Adam;” redeemed or not.  You don’t see how Grace removes privilege.  Neither can you see how the creating activity of a TRIUNE God (as opposed to any other “god”) ontologically grounds proper relations between the sexes and proper sexual relations.  You cannot grasp the depth with which Christ’s death on the cross puts an end to coercive force and violence.

My point is this:  I cannot show you all these things because you would not believe them, but Christian answers are just as hostile to other religions’ answers as your own brand of secularism is.  They are not the same, not even close.  Why do we all find an inherent need for racial equality, sexual equality, nonviolence, etc?  It cannot point to a condition prior to God’s creating activity.  If you posit that, then you have to explain how it is human life can have any inherent (read: not culturally or socially assigned) value in a secular system. 

Instead, the answer is that all of these things – these values and longings – are built into the fabric of who we were created to image.  Christians say that image is Christ.  When you begin to understand the colossal implications of that view, then you begin to understand how Christianity is not one religion amongst many.  Instead, it stands opposed to all forms of human religion.  It stands opposed to all human ideologies.  When it stands properly, it stands alone in this world as the consequence of a summons to discipleship; to humbly, obediently, and faithfully follow Christ, our creator and the only true image of God.

So, why not Islam?  Why not Judaism?  Why not Buddhism?  Why not secularism?  Why not any other “peaceful” religion?  Because they cannot explain everything and thus cannot explain anything.  That is a dogmatic claim, I realize.  But it gets back to my point in yesterday’s post about being sincere.  I’m not trying to convince, only clarify….

What Hitchens Has Learned From Debating Christians

Over at Slate.com, Christopher Hitchens (probably the smartest and funnest of the “pop-atheists”) offers us a few reflections on what he’s learned debating Christians.  He’s had plenty of practice since the publication of his 2007 bestseller, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  Most recently, he was involved in a number of exchanges with Doug Wilson, senior fellow over at New St. Andrews College (if I could do college over again, I might go there!).  What started as a series of emails between the two men (published here) became a full-fledged “tour” of sorts that has been developed into the recently released sort-of documentary Collision.

Wilson, who is a thoroughly Reformed, conservative theologian, served as a stark contrast to others that Hitchens debated.  Hitchens had the following to say:

Wilson isn’t one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just “metaphors.” He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn’t waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course he “allows” it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners. I much prefer this sincerity to the vague and Python-esque witterings of the interfaith and ecumenical groups who barely respect their own traditions and who look upon faith as just another word for community organizing. (Incidentally, just when is President Barack Obama going to decide which church he attends?)

He also notes how what he understands as Southern hospitality confronts the brutal truth of there actually being a price to sin.  He wonders if the staunch “Calvinists” he’s running into really believe what they profess about hell and eternal punishment,

Usually, when I ask some Calvinist whether he is really a Calvinist (in the sense, say, of believing that I will end up in hell), there is a slight reluctance to say yes, and a slight wince from his congregation. I have come to the conclusion that this has something to do with the justly famed tradition of Southern hospitality: You can’t very easily invite somebody to your church and then to supper and inform him that he’s marked for perdition. More to the point, though, you soon discover that many of those attending are not so sure about all the doctrines, either, just as you very swiftly find out that a vast number of Catholics don’t truly believe more than about half of what their church instructs them to think.

Mr. Hitchens is a very intelligent man, and while he’s being very generous with his words towards Mr. Wilson, perhaps he’s yet to understand his ‘opponents’ fully.  Is it that they’re not sure about hell or is that they’re uncomfortable with people actually going there?  We all should be.  Unless you’re one of those creepy Calvinists who think we should rejoice that people are burning in hell because it glorifies God or something, when you explain eternal torment to someone, you feel some of the same pain that Jesus felt when he lamented over Jerusalem’s failure to repent (Matt 23:37-39).  Perhaps Hitchens mistook genuine love and compassion for embarassment.  Perhaps he mistook humility for doubt.  Let’s hope so.

What I really appreciate about this piece is similar to the only redeeming aspect of Sam Harris’ throwaway Letter to a Christian Nation, where he opined that moderates and liberals had more in common with atheists than Christians.  As he observed, the God of Scripture is quite conservative (though, in all honesty, Harris’ reading of Scripture is so unforgivably ignorant that this conclusion is more of a lucky strike than a well-reasoned conclusion).  God’s serious about there being no other gods, about idolatry, about sin, about his love expressed in Christ alone for the sins of the world.  He’s not babbling about metaphors, mythology, and the unity of all religions.

There’s always going to be the temptation to acquiesce to the world, to get cred with the elites in Cambridge, New Haven, et al.  Hitchens, like Harris, is proof that unbelievers recognize that brand of accomodationism and waffling for what it is: pathetic.  Be sincere, be upfront, be honest about what you believe.  And preach the whole gospel.  Hitchens recognizes the historic confession of the church in Wilson’s belief.  He doesn’t shy away from the harder truths.  Fudging the gospel may gather crowds, but it won’t gather followers of Christ.

In the end, Hitchens finds nothing compelling about Christianity.  Doesn’t matter what you believe or how you work out that belief; he’s not on board.  But he recognizes what too few Christians know: if you can’t find the confessional element of Christianity in something called “Christian,” no need to take it seriously.

California Kindergartners to Watch Gay/Transvestite Cartoons

If you haven’t heard this story, you really have to see it to believe it. Check out this link–this cartoon is shocking to say the least–even if this cartoon were free from homosexual elements, I would still find it creepy.  This brings up the question, who should be teaching kids about sex and sexual orientation?  Schools in California are planning to teach on these issues and it seems clear that their agenda is not one that many evangelical parents will support!

If you get a chance to watch the video on Fox News, let me know what you think.

The Christian and Video Games

You have heard the arguments on both sides and if you haven’t heard the arguments, if you are a Christian parent you have at least debated it in your head–”should I let my child play video games and if so, how much?”  And if you are  Christian and you enjoy playing video games, certainly the thought has crossed your mind–should I purchase that new video game system?  Would it occupy too much of my time?  Would I use it wisely or would I get addicted?

Given the fact that these questions have often plagued my mind over the last 10 years since I came to know Christ, I thought I would do my best to share them with you and help you think through these issues–what should the Christian’s relationship be with video games?  Should Christians play them at all?  Is there a healthy way to enjoy video games in a way that doesn’t damage our relationship to Christ?  Can video games help build community?  Or are they just a source of distraction?

These are the sorts of questions I hope to address in a series of posts on the Christian and video games.  Before I jump in and start firing off posts, what do you think about video games?  If you are parent–do you let you kids play?  Do you set limits on how much they play?  If you are a Christian adult who plays video games–why?  Why do you play them?  What good comes from playing them?  Do you set limits on how much you play them?

I would love to hear from you, the reader, on what your relationship is with video games and how they play into your relationship with Christ.  If you are reading this you surely want to know–do I play video games?  The answer is yes.  I play video games and I do try to set limits on how much I play them.  I think that video games can be used in way that does engender community and keeps video games from becoming an idol.  I will share that in posts to come, but I will also talk about the danger of becoming a video game addict, because there are a lot of those in our world today and I am confident that such a relationship with video games is not healthy for the Christ follower.  Before I came to know Christ, I was a video game addict–I played them all the time–needless to say, my use of video games has changed dramatically and I will share that in posts to come.

God is the Hero

I remember several months ago talking to one of the wonderful ladies at my church who helps with our children’s ministry about what curriculum we would use for our Vacation Bible School.  I talked about how we would probably need to tweak whatever we use because in my limited experience with children’s curriculum, its rarely as gospel-centered as I would like it to be–she agreed and made a comment that I think is so true.  She said “whatever curriculum we choose, we need to make sure that God is the hero and not man.”  How true.  And how sad that so often children’s ministry curriculum champions the feats of man over the faithfulness and power of almighty God!

God is and always will be THE hero.  Everything we do in church should be a championing of Him–His righteousness, His power, His perfect love and justice.  There are no men in the Bible or in the universe worthy of worship.  The first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me,” means worship only God.  The greatest commandment is to love Him with all our heart, soul, and strength (Deut. 6:4; Matthew 22:36-39).

How sad that so much of what goes on in churches has been reduced to moralism and praise of man for his faithfulness rather than praise of God for using such faithless people to accomplish such amazing things for His glory.

Take Moses for example. Moses is probably the most important and recognizable man in the Old Testament and before God called him, he was a rather worthless guy.  What we know about Moses before God called him is that he had a very privileged upbringing, he was aware that he was a Hebrew and he never stood up to Pharaoh for the injustice being committed against the Israelites, he murdered an Egyptian, and he fled Egypt to save his own skin instead of staying to stand up for his Israelite brothers who were suffering.

Furthermore, when God speaks to Moses from the burning bush and calls him to lead Israel out of Egypt, Moses isn’t excited and ready to do great things for God!  Even when God miraculously shows up in his life Moses is still a coward.  He makes up excuses–”people won’t follow me” and “I am not a good public speaker!”  And finally, after God continues to pursue Moses in the face of his excuses, Moses brashly tells God to “find someone else!”

This is the character of the man who God would use to lead Israel out of Egypt and establish Israel as a great nation and he is pretty much a bum.

Why does God choose such a man?  Because no one is worthy.  No one is good.  No one is in peak condition to be used by God.  God calls the weak, the feeble, and the sinful and begins to use them to do extraordinary things to prove that He is the Hero and no one else.  When we are weak He is strong.  You will never earn the right to be used mightily of God, but if you believe, if you trust Him, He will use you to display His glory and show that He alone is the hero!

Health Care Reform and Abortion

No matter what you think about the many health care plans that have been proposed in recent days by President Obama and company, you must admit that the Democratic party has been persistent.  They just keep the plans coming!

The latest, and most bi-partisan plan to date comes from senator Max Baucus.  The issue for me, all along has not been how much money I am going to be giving to pay for health insurance for those who are not working–though that is a concern.  Nor has the main issue for me been the fact that few of the proposed bills seem to provide any incentive to pursue private insurance over government funded insurance options.  The big issue for me each time one of these plans is proposed is this–will my tax dollars go toward the funding of abortions?

If you know me or have read any of our many articles on the issue of abortion, you know where I stand–I believe abortion is murder and the way it has been conducted in the country is nothing short of genocide of the unborn.

This latest bill sets out that federal funding will not be provided for women seeking abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake.

However, there are a couple of areas that remain cloudy concerning whether women seeking abortion can receive federal funding.

The first area where this new plan gets tricky is in the area of government exchange programs that partner with private insurance companies.  As it stands in the Baucus plan, private insurance companies “must separate the cost of coverage for abortions from their total costs for all coverage that they report to the federal government for tax credits.”  This may be a step in the right direction, however, “the secretary of health and human services will determine how much that abortion coverage costs “per enrollee” . . .  and those costs can’t be estimated to be less than $1 per enrollee per month.”  So there is still some question as to how sure we can be that our tax dollars are not going to fund any abortions.

Secondly, according to Michael Scherer of Time:

The Baucus plan also authorizes federal loans and grants to help create new state-level Co-Ops, which will compete with private insurance companies as private non-profit companies. As far as I can tell, the Baucus document does not explicitly authorize or bar the Co-Ops from providing abortion services. Under the Baucus plan, these new insurance plans would be “member run.” “Governance of the organization must be subject to a majority vote of its members (i.e. beneficiaries),” the plan reads. Presumably, this would allow for each Co-Op to make its own decision about what abortion services to cover, but this is not explicit in the document.

So there you have it–there is still significant reason to be concerned that your tax dollars could fund abortions.  Republicans are expected to offer two amendments to the plan in the coming days that would address these areas of inconsistency.  Stay tuned.

Indifference is Not an Option

From start to finish, Scripture claims to be the Word of God.  We see this in a number of places.  2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that all Scripture is “breathed out by God” and works in the life of the believer to make him “competent, equipped for every good work.”  2 Peter 1:20-21 tells us that Scripture is not the product of human opinion but the men who wrote it were “carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Furthermore, this is the testimony of the Biblical authors themselves.  When we read the creation account in Genesis, we read one phrase over and over and over–”God said.”  The writer (Moses) is not reporting to us his theorys about creation–he is reporting what God has said–the Word of the LORD.  This same idea is repeated again and again throughout the rest of the Bible–what the Apostles and prophets report to us is what the Lord has said.  Over and over again we read the phrase “Thus says the LORD” because the Bible is not a collection of stories but a report of what God has graciously given us through the hands of his servants who wrote exactly what He intended.

This is why Paul could say, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed,” (Gal. 1:8) because Paul knew that what he had delivered to the Galatians was not mere opinion but the infallible, eternal, unchanging Word of God.

So if this is true, that the Bible is God’s Word, then what do we do with it?

You have two options.  Either accept it as the Word of God and give your life to studying it, knowing it, and applying it diligently to every aspect of your life or reject as God’s Word and face the consequences.

Most people, even many who profess faith in Christ, want to pick a third option that really isn’t an option at all.  Most people want to regard the Bible warmly but spend little time or effort studying it, knowing it, and applying it.  This can be seen in the lives of many in the church who treat the Bible as a burden–something that takes away from their TV time.  Or perhaps another wearisome duty on your “Christian” to-do list.

Consider the Words of the prophet Jeremiah:

Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart, for I am called by your name, O LORD, God of hosts. -Jeremiah 15:16

Indifference is not an option in response to God’s Word.  If you treat the Bible as a burden you don’t rejoice in it, you don’t love God’s Word.  God’s Word lays forth for us who God is, therefore if you are indifferent toward God’s Word, you are indifferent toward God.

Consider John’s revelation from God concerning the Church at Laodicea:

“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!  So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. -Revelation 3:15-16

To be indifferent toward the Bible, God’s Word, is to hate it.  To hate God’s Word is consummate with hating God himself.  This is a terrifying place to be–not because I have said so but because of what God promises in Revelation concerning those who are lukewarm or “indifferent.”  He will spit you out of His mouth!  But it is not to late.  If this is you, cry out to God for mercy and do it now!  Repent, turn from sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!

Maybe you love God’s Word but you know that your love for it needs to be kindled, you know it needs to grow.  Because we are talking about the perfect, inspired Word of God, your relationship to this Word must change.  It must grow.  God’s Word must become more and more of a delight.  What are you doing to treasure God’s Word more.  Maybe you don’t understand much of it–perhaps you need to seek out an older brother or sister in the Lord and ask for help.  There is nothing wrong with needing help, what is not an option is indifference.  God promises terrible things to those who do nothing.

Pour into God’s Word, ask a brother or sister for some accountability in doing so because the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak (Mat. 26:41).  Satan and your flesh are working feverishly to keep you out of God’s Word.  Every child of God needs help, we need help from each other and we need help from the Lord to make us like Jeremiah who delights in God’s Word.  We need the Word of God like a newborn baby needs milk (1 Peter 2:2).  The Word of God is not a helpful additive in the life of a believer, it is THE vital nutrient without which we will die.

If all this is true of God’s Word, the scariest thing you can do in response to this blog post is . . .  nothing.

Jesus Sure is Rude Sometimes!

Have you ever accepted a dinner invitation that you knew would not be pleasant?  Jesus did.  He politely accepted an invitation to dinner from a Pharisee only to be accused of being unclean because he neglected to wash his hands before dinner (Luke 11:37-38)!  Jesus, however, handled this impolite Pharisee quite differently from what we might expect.  Instead of taking offense at the Pharisee or politely brushing off the Pharisees remark, Jesus launches full bore into a lesson on true spirituality.

Politeness is a prized virtue of our day.  We want people to be polite to us and we teach our children to be polite to others whether they see eye to eye with them or not.  I suppose there is something noble about being polite but Jesus often times was not very polite.  When this Pharisee took offense at Jesus’ neglect to wash his hands, Jesus’ response was to tell the Pharisee—“inside you are full of greed and wickedness” (Luke 11:39).  This is the sort of conversation that would end the dinner party in most American homes!

So was Jesus being a jerk?  Didn’t Jesus know that if he wanted to win this Pharisee to the Lord, that he needed to befriend him first and politely eat dinner with him without too much controversy?  Didn’t Jesus know that this conversation would go better if he got to know the Pharisee a little before pointing out his sin?

Jesus was no jerk.  He just sounds like one because of our own misplaced values.  You see Jesus responded to the Pharisee so pointedly because Jesus valued truth over manners.  If Jesus sounds like a jerk to us, then perhaps what we value needs to be examined.

The flesh is not our friend.  It does not have good intentions for us—sin and the devil have one hope in mind for us—to destroy us and deceive us (John 10:10; Heb. 3:13), to ignore this reality is not polite, to ignore this reality is foolishness.  Jesus valued truth over our human understanding of politeness.  He could have eaten with this Pharisee in relative peace—they could have talked about the weather, the economy, and their favorite hobbies and never broached any sensitive topics.  Jesus, however, loved people too much to merely talk about such safe things.  Jesus is interested in the heart.  Jesus always talked with people about heart issues, even if it was unpleasant.  Why?  Because he counted obedience to God more precious than the fleeting pleasures of sin.

This is clear in Jesus’ interaction with this Pharisee in Luke 11 as he says to the Pharisee and his house, “You fools!  Did not he who made the outside [of the cup] make the inside also?  But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you.”  Jesus sees the foolishness of overlooking this Pharisee’s sad spiritual estate.  Jesus isn’t into the business of keeping up appearances and pretending like things are ok.  The Pharisees, however, were skilled at keeping up appearances.  That is why Jesus’ words here are so piercing—he is saying you are worried about the outside of the cup but God doesn’t care about the outside.  What needs to be changed is not behavior or appearance but the condition of your heart!

Jesus loved people too much to simply overlook their sin.  Jesus loved people so much that he spoke frankly and openly about sin.  Certainly there is a place for manners in gospel ministry (1 Peter 3:15), but do you love people enough to be honest with them about sin (Heb. 3:12-13)?  Certainly we need to be careful and take the log out of our eye, but do you love your brothers and sisters in Christ enough to lovingly help them take the speck out of theirs (Mat. 7:5)?  Do you work to keep up appearances or are you longing for spiritual transformation of the heart?  One way to test yourself is to honestly answer these questions—do I live so as to please men or to please God?  Do I love the truth enough to speak it even when it hurts?  Join me in praying that we would be men and women who value truth over appearance.